Talk:Republika Srpska/Archive 4

message: As the result of a bi-lateral agreement (see archive three) between FreedonNadd and Emir Arven, the compromise version will read:
:The population of non-Serbs has declined significantly since 1991, while the number of Serbs increased dramatically. This was caused by the ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population, the influx of Bosnian Serb refugees from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina due to Bosnian war (1992-1995) and Croatian Serb refugees from Croatia due to Croatian war (1991-1995). Bosnian Serb resettlement policy also played a part, and some resettlement took place after the war following the Dayton Peace Agreement, subsequent to setting political boundaries (IEBL).
Thanks everyone for taking part in this mediation, I'm glad we could reach consensus :) Happy future editing! - FrancisTyers 00:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to thank Mediation Cabal in general and FrancisTyers in particular for all the help in reaching a compromise. As a last act of our little drama, I would invite him to remove NPOV sign from the population segment of the article and insert the consensus version. Thank you Francis for your time and patience!--FreedonNadd 00:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, with pleasure :) - FrancisTyers 00:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also have to thank Francis for his efforts and help that he offered.--Emir Arven 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are both welcome - Molim i drugi put (I think) :) - FrancisTyers 00:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This third version is brilliant, but who should include it into the article? Thanks Francis Tyers! --HolyRomanEmperor 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: The link to Greater Serbia article do not belong into Republika Srpska article. If the some minnor political options in neighbouring country claim this territory, that does not mean that we have to write this here. Should we into article about Transylvania to post a link to Greater Hungary article because of the same reson. We should to have serious geographical articles about those territories, which will be not influenced by childish "Greater" ideas. PANONIAN (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Its a GFDL map based on the Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag line. What is there to dispute? Asim Led 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to [[Greater Serbia]] article

message: The 'Bosnian War' segment of the article has the following claim: 
By 1994, the United Nations estimated that a million non-Serbs had been driven out from the territory controlled by Republika Srpska and by the spring of 1996, a United Nations census indicated that Serbs constituted 96.8% of the population of the republic.
Now, here is the United Nations statistical data from 1996 (obviously used in the article itself, at the end of the claim).
REPUBLIKA SRPSKA:
This statistical data shows that in 1991 there was not even one million non-Serbs in Republika Srpska territory to begin with. I propose we change "a million non-Serbs" to "hundreds of thousands of non-Serbs", because 'a million' claim has no base in reality... —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedonNadd (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A million non-Serbs (?) 

message: Is it Possible to make an Userbox containing " Independence of Republika Srpska —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexm0d (talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republika Srpska Independence Userbox 

message: I am interested in knowing what is the source of this paragraph:
: In 2005, the population of Republika Srpska was estimated to stand at about 1,411,000 people, of whom Serbs constituted 1,247,900 people or 88.4% of the overall population, followed by 150,390 Bosniaks at 10.7%, and Croats constituted 12,710 people or 0.9%.
The demographis bulletin of the RS  seems to suggest a much higher figure for the total population 1,471,000. --Savindan 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 Population estimate

message: sh: Republika Srpska (RS) = en: The Republic of Serbland = de: Republik Serbland
one-word name:
sh: Srpska = en, de: Serbland 
(Srpski jezički priručnik, Beograd 2004)
some info here:
http://www.rastko.org.yu/filologija/bbrboric-jezik/bbrboric-jezik5.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millosh (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-word name of Republic of Srpska

message: You have said "using the previous precedents such as the word "hrvatska" (which means both "Hrvatska" - Croatia and "hrvatska" - Croatian as an adjective, f.), the word Srpska was also declared to be a proper noun". There is no precedent with the word "hrvatska". In Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language almost every name of the state is both noun and adjective - Bugarska (Bulgaria), Madjarska (Hungary), Grcka (Greece), Njemacka (Germany), Francuska (France), Engleska (England), etc. So, the noun "Srpska" was not declared to be a noun. The noun Srpska, as the name of the state, the republic or the entity is completely based on language rules and the spirit of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language. 
I propose that you either delete this part (from the words "because the word" to the words "declared to be a proper noun", or to explain the creation of names of states in Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language.
Stevo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millosh (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Srpska - noun and adjective 

message: About statement that SR domain is SURINAM :-)
Maybe as country code, but as YU domain is obsolete (there is no more any Yugoslavia) Serbia and Montenegro uses YU domain because
we are legal sucessors and no solution for developed YU Internet domain to go to SM or SCG domain is offered.
Inside YU domain, SR.YU subodomain is used to denote part of Serbian institutions and organisations in Serbia
eg
Goverment of Serbia and Monetenegro www.gov.yu
Gouverment of Serbia www.sr.gov.yu
Gouverment of Monte Negro www.cg.gov.yu
Go ahead, check it.
So, usage of .SR.BA for Republic of Srpska can be viewed as proper in theior own right, not influenced by Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastavox (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once Montenegro becomes independent, however, Serbia will not be able to get SR assigned as their country code, since that's already taken by Suriname. In fact, there's next to nothing left for Serbia that would start with "S"... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fairly sure it's a "when", not an "if". ;) And I'm fairly certain that at some point there will *have* to be an official transition from .yu to another ccTLD... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 05:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet domain 

message: The official languages of the RS are Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian (or Bosniak, as Serbs insist it to be called) effectively, however, due to the inability to achieve compromise onthe name Bosnian (bosanski) vs. Bosniak (bošnjački), the official languages do not have a name in the Constitution of Republika Srpska, and they are instead listed as the languages of Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogidog (talk • contribs) 07:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing constitution letter by letter is poor approach to this issue.  But if you do want to pursue it than lets enforce all constitutional directives that are enforcable in RS.  How about we start with the flag, coat of arms and hymn of Republika Srpska.  They were all deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (a body with the supreme jurisdiction over both RS and FBiH), so let's remove those from the template as well.  What do you think about that. --Dado 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Refusing to name the language is at issue. So is the flag etc. It should also be noted that it's deemed unconstitutonal in the RS. I've got no problem with that. --Ogidog 06:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasoning why it was ruled as such is simple, it is not inclusive of the 2 other constuient enthinicies (croats and moslems(, if anything we should have a footnote saying that Srpska flag and coat of arms has been ruled unconsitutional yet there are no other flags that have been created to replace this and that in fact the decision itself is most controversial. Druidlord 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Languages

message: Pusi k....,ko te j...,moze Srpska i bez tebe federacijo,federacijoooo
Dzoni 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the english wikipedia, please speak english. Pure inuyasha 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the translation of this was - Srspka can do without the MoslemCroat Federation since Montenegro got the same right (of self determination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.15.13 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CRNA GORA HAD REFERENDUM,NOW SRPSKA DESERVE TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHT

message: The 2006 population figures for the cities seem too high to me. The source says they are 'calculations'. See the discussion at Talk:Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cordless Larry 10:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: City populations

message: Cyrilic script in its modern version is also an official script in Bosnian language as well.  There is no need to monopolise it to Serbian language.  Also term "Serb Republic" is an incorect translation of the name Republika Srpska and it is at best neologism.  However, in this context it is an obvious attempt to portray Republika Srpska as somehow being more than an entity ie. a republic in terms of having having statehood comparable to other republics such as Republic of Serbia, Republic of France etc, which is in itself incorrect, POV and wishfull thinking. --Dado 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: If the Constitutional Court found that the flag and emblem are unconstitutional, as they discriminate against the Bosniak and Croat communities, isn't the name of the entity unconstitutional as well? --Telex 14:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a case at the constitutional court of BiH regarding the name of the entity but the court either rejected or postponed the decision.  Personally I do think it is discriminatory as being a proper adjective and implying that the entity "belongs to Serbs".  Most non-Serbs dispute the name and many completely reject to refer to it as Republika Srpska calling it "The Smaller Entity" (Aleksandar Hemon  calling it Republika Šumska) --Dado 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you find out which of the two it was? (postponement or rejection) Would be interesting. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The court ruled that only names which had been renamed into "Srpski" were to be changed on the equality grounds.  Bosanski Novi was changed into Novi Grad and it remains as that to this date.  However, regarding the name of Republika Srpska: it is not in jurisdiction of BiH court to make any changes here since the name of Republika Srpska was part, perhaps a pre-condition for signig the Dayton Peace Accords.  There are specified paths in any country in regards to constitutional changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.143.222 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: So that is how you do it.  You revert the page for 3 times after we present you unbeatable arguement why the map is not appropriate and provide link for valid commentary about the flag and coat of arms and you force your POV anyway and dare me to break 3RR.  That is very poor conduct and one that will certainly not get you results. --Dado 03:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the map and coat of arms are valid, to invalidate them would mean to remove them as the RS leadership, parliament and people have not adopted a new one. User:anonymus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.15.13 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map and Coat of Arms

message: The title of the page should be Serb Republic because that is a correct translation of the name. I wonder why it doesn't get translated correctly. Anybody? Serbska is a Serbian word. I know a lot of people use Republika Srpska, but it's not correct.Ferick 05:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources please? --KOCOBO 05:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this was already explained in the article? "Because of the potential for confusion between "Serb Republic" (Република Српска / Republika Srpska) and the "Republic of Serbia" (Република Србија / Republika Srbija), the name "Republika Srpska" is often used in its untranslated form in non-Slavic countries." It's certainly the most widely-used form in the British media; the BBC uses it almost exclusively () and I've found 889 references to it in British newspaper articles dating back to 1992, compared to only 388 for "Bosnian Serb republic". -- ChrisO 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serb Republic

message: The current Europe map showing RS isn't too great. RS is way too small on it, and its shape can barely be distinguished, so it would be better if someone made a map focusing on central and eastern Europe, Germany to Russia say. Also, to calm our frustrated interlocutors, the Federation should be dark gray, as Scotland, Wales, and NI are on the map for England. --estavisti 10:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Chris has maybe suggested and as we have pointed out several times there is already an accurate map that we proposed that shows RS within BH borders as it rightfully only belongs to :Image:PolozajRS.png.  I think this is a fair compromise.  Why is this not acceptable --Dado 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not include both - a locator map showing the position of the RS inside BH and a second map showing where it is on a continental scale? See also Catalonia. I've modified the infobox along these lines, and I've further modified the Europe-wide map to make it clear what it's pointing to. -- ChrisO 16:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Added: Bear in mind that many of our users won't know where BH is, let alone where the RS is! -- ChrisO 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is great idea ChrisO --Lowg 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What is this obesive need to not show RS location in the world?  Why can't you compromise on this issue?  We have a neutral 3rd party giving us a way to resolve this dispute and still you wish to continue? --Lowg 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is completely wrong to show it in the world or European context apart from the Bosnian one.  I have nothing agianst graphically explaining where RS is but it only works if we graphically explain that we are talking about RS being part of BiH.  You cannot imply independence of RS and that is exactly what you are trying to do with this map.  It is baseless propaganda.  And btw, you have already violated 3RR on this article and now you are commiting vandalism by removing the disputed tag Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism.  You keep going like this and you will earn a ban.--Dado 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dado, "our" side has been more than willing to compromise. A Catalonia-style map would be more acceptable for me, though I don't doubt that it wouldn't for you. estavisti 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that's a fair compromise - I'm happy to go along with it. I should add that whoever said that RS is too small to show up particularly well on the European scale does have a point - Bosnia's a small country and the RS is even smaller. :Image:LocationBosniaAndHerzegovina.png works better visually. :Image:PolozajRS.png is a little confusing though, in that it could be interpreted as emphasizing the FBiH rather than RS. I'll see if I can come up with a clearer alternative. -- ChrisO 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more or less what I had in mind, but not quite. I don't understand why the England or Catalonia style is unacceptable. The way it is now, a user who knows little about the topic might think the Federation is RS, or even that RS takes up the whole of BiH, given that the whole of BiH is highlighted on the Europe map. estavisti 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have colored the RS section of BH map in green and there is a note bellow it so I think there cannot be any more confusion about that.  Now if we could only get vandals and sockpuppets to stop reverting to what is acceptable and fair the issue of map should be closed.  --Dado 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map - how about this 

message: Since you talked about maps here, I guess you people might help us solve this issue: . --Ante Perkovic 12:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Municipalities maps 

message: Bosnian Serb Republic is not the correct anglicised version of Republika Srpska. Republika Srpska in English means Serb Republic. Bosnian Serb Republic would be Republika Bosanska Srpska and this does not exist. --Svetislav Jovanović 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true.  Serb Republic when translated back means "Srpska Republika" and since such name is incorect and unofficial in serves only in its desciptive mode which is to descibe the "republic" with an adjective "Srpska" meaning  to belong to Serbs.  Should I say again how wrong that is. I never heard of the phrase "Bosnia Serb Republic"  In my opinion both should be removed and the former explained in the "Name" section given its use in some news articles. --Dado 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes yes, that would be the best solution. Remove both, no one is angry. Explain in separate section and everyone is happy. --Svetislav Jovanović 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is, but if you check the relative frequency of use you'll usually find that "Republika Srpska" is more often used. I did a search of British newspapers dating back to 1992 and found 889 references to "Republika Srpska", compared to 388 for "Bosnian Serb republic". -- ChrisO 16:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest a compromise: change "Anglicised: Serb Republic / Bosnian Serb Republic)", to "sometimes wrongly anglicised: Serb Republic / Bosnian Serb Republic)". --Ante Perkovic 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, this is the compromise. Previously, it was "English: Serb Republic". Chris, I don't see what the frequency of use has to do with anything. No German ever talks about Neusatz (Novi Sad). The House of Nemanjić was called the Nemanjid dynasty, and we still list that. This, on the other hand, is currently relatively frequently used (i.e. a couple of weeks ago in the Economist). The problem here is the intransigence of certain users (naming no names) in the fact of the indisuputable facts. --estavisti 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglicised

message: Estavisti you know why I am disputing the article and you have just vandalised it by removing the disputed tag.  But in case you suffer from a short time memory loss let me summarize it for you
1. Map showing RS in context of Europe (see   and )
2. English translation in the introductory paragraph see (see  and others)
3. Monopolization of cyrilic script as only Serbian while removing other variants (see )
It is clear to me that you and others have no intention of reaching a compromise in this article but only push particular agenda that has not changed since the problematic map was first uploaded.  The same map has particular intention and it is summarized in the edit summary of the user who uploaded it and who is sitting out his 2 weeks ban from Wikipedia.  This more recent outburst of new users on this article who have never edited this article before which strangely follow the same editing politics can either be attributed to sockpuppeteering or untransparent lobbying outside Wikipedia.  So far we had 3 users who have violated 3RR 1 of which was banned for 8hrs. 2 users have vandalized the page by removing the POV tag and given a temporary majority presence have bullied and sabotaged all attempts to reach a valid compromise. --Dado 22:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dado, you are seemingly unable to understand words like "compromise" and "consensus". They don't mean that everything you disagree with should be compromised on, while you yourself can simply stick to your hard-line position. I have attempted to compromise with you, although I can't speak for the other users editing the article, and you've taken the opportunity every time to move the mid-point between us closer to yourself. As for the Cyrillic, of course it's not only Serbian, but the specific Cyrillic script you're claiming is Serbian. Take this analogy - we use Arabic numerals, but we don't call them Western numerals because of that. You call me a nationalist, but you're the one insisting on Bosnian this and Bosnian that. --estavisti 00:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't bosnian Cyrillic called bosančica or smt. like that? There was some form of cyrillic script used in Croatia and Bosnia in the past. I believe taht the term "bosnian cyrillic" is already  taken, and that you can't use it as a synonim for serbian cyrillic. --Ante Perkovic 11:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Dado, first off, I don't accept that Cyrillic is "official" is Bosnian. Bosnian Muslims reject Cyrillic and don't use it, but they want to claim it at the same time. They don't use it, and when you say it's "official", I assume you mean some third rate linguist has written in his pravopis bosanskog jezika "Bosnian uses two scripts: Latin and Cyrillic". That doesn't mean anything, if you can't see why then you're beyond help. Secondly, and more importantly, even if Cyrillic is used in "Bosnian", the Cyrillic used is the script devised by Vuk Karadžić for the Serbian language, with the unique letters ћ, ђ, џ, љ, њ. Even if this script is used to write Martian, it's still Serbian Cyrillic. Thirdly, you've been studiously ignoring my example of Arabic numerals, but we'll let that go. What that shows is that it doesn't matter who uses Serbian Cyrillic, in what language - it's still Serbian Cyrillic. Finally, Bosnian Cyrillic, as I have said before, and Ante has also mentioned, is a different script. It has been extinct for centuries. I hope you can let go of your hate and see things as they are for once. Pozdrav. --estavisti 16:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: Firstly, I don't really think I need to justify this revert, given that Emir has reverted a version which quite a few people agreed on. However, I feel this should be totally transparent, so here goes:
#The notes: they go at the end of the infobox. Why Emir reverted this is unclear to me. See any article with an infobox, the notes go at the end. i.e. Vojvodina
#The map of RS in Europe has been returned. I agree that the way it is now (showing RS alone) is wrong but it's better than nothing. Instead of deleting it, why don't you shade FBiH dark green, as is done in the England (Catalonia also has a similar style)?
#:::::England is a sovereign state so the comparison is moot.  Catalonia option is viable but given the size of BiH it is absurd and useless to further subdivid the small map.  Even the one showing RS alone is so small that you cannot see all borders of BiH and hence is biased and misleading.  To top it all off map's caption talks about location of RS in Europe which is beyond logic.--Dado 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding legitimacy, I don't see Dado's comments as POV, not veen close. Bosnia-Herzegovina was internationaly recognised republic at the time of the war, very much unlike Republika Srpska. RS army would be more like UCK in Kosovo. Dado's comments are not POV, these are very basic facts. The problem is Serbs refusing to see themselves as rebels against legal government, but that is much wider problem. --Ante Perkovic 00:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding translation of "Republika Srpska" to english, I must say that merely translating word by word doesn't prove anything. Otherwise, I would be living in "Croatian republic". But I don't, I live in Republic of Croatia. "Serb Republic" is as bad translation as "Croatian republic". --Ante Perkovic 00:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Estavisti's efforts to portray the translation are admittedly amusing, but as Ante shows the situation is more complicated than a certain group of users and sock puppets would have us believe. As for the statement that Wikipedia is meant to show the word "as it is", maybe so but the convention regarding introductions to articles about countries and regions is that official terms are used. It is absurd to simply try and have an English translation there in the first place. The space is usually used to include variations of the name in the appropriate languages: if there was an appropriate English name then it would be the title of the article and listing it would be completely unnecessary. But there is no such English translation, and I don't think it’s Wikipedia’s place to decide what the best approximate translation is. As to the commonality of the term being pushed, it is completely irrelevant when we take into account that the local name used for the article itself is far more popular than that anyways. There is a section for the name further down the article where the issue of English-language translation may be addressed adequately. Live Forever 05:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Live Forever, your biased approach is clear now that you deleted photos from this article, and not the Federation article. I'm affraid your opinion is not neutral and you can't be taken seriously. Please don't attack me after this message, I am just trying to solve a dispute, while you're just pushing your POV. Thank you, --KOCOBO 06:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen, Kosova: this is getting ridiculous. All the photos on the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina are contemporary photos of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In contrast, most of the photos used in the gallery here predate the creation of the smaller Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity by decades. The Ferhadija mosque doesn't even exist anymore, destroyed by the very people who created the smaller Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity. What kind of hypocrisy is that? Galleres are meant to showcase the entity; to show users what they might expect to see if they were to visit. If we hypothetically had a picture of a 14th century native American village, would it make sense to use it in a gallery of the United States? Really, I'm genuinely curious as to what ingenious explanation you will be able to come up with. Live Forever 06:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, Kosova :) Please don't call me a hypocrit, when you're the one that focuses 90% of your time on Republika Srpska, whining about every single detail, while you spend no time on the Federation article. You take care of your Bosnian entity, and let the Serbs take care of the Serb entity. Thank you :) --KOCOBO 06:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Sorry. Live Forever 06:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've answered all of your questions above. If you were to actually follow the discussion on this talk page instead of blindly revoking any edits that don't suit your agenda, you would have noticed this. Live Forever 07:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep adding totally-disputed?  What exactly are do you think is not neutral POV and factualy accurate? --Lowg 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but with you I can no longer assume good faith. I have listed my concerns again, and again, and again on this talk page but you and the several other users have completely ignored them. User KOCOBO is the only one who has responded to the numerous issues I have brought up, and he merely lied about the content of other articles to label me a hypocrite and called me a troll and vandal without once touching upon the debate at hand. The rest of you refuse to participate in discussion and attempt to reach a consensus, label me a vandal (as if that is about make it so), blindly revert my constructive edits and wait for your numerical superiority to trigger bans. Sorry, but this is not the way wikipedia works. I've explained to you what I find not to be neutral and POV, what I don't find to be factually accurate; I've done it both on the talk page and in my edit summaries. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here so that we may try and reach a solution amongst ourselves, but if you further refuse to participate in the spirit of wikipedia than some other measures will have to be taken. Live Forever 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Map/translation issue is all that I know was disputed.  Can you please be create new section on this talk page, because reading above it seems that these issues were already addressed. --Lowg 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is exactly the specific type of cyrillic.  This is a fact, do you not like seeing the word "Serbian" is that the problem?  Perhaps it is you that does not have neutral POV, not the article. --Lowg 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by the arguments brought up earlier. In this context, taking into account the shared linguistic culture, tradition, and heritage of the people in question, going out of the way to label a script as exclusively belonging to one ethnic group is superflous nationalism. Even in the region itself the alphabets are not given national adjectives. Live Forever 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it's relevant in the context of RS, and it is a fact that is accurate.  Again, not sure why you can label article as factually inacaruate because of this? They are true facts. --Lowg 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also true that the entity in question is in Europe, but there's no point in labeling that in the template. These templates are meant to showcase the distinguishing features of a political unit; in this case, of a subdivision of Bosnia and Herzegovina (so the entity leaders, the anthem, the symbols, etc. are all perfectly acceptable). However, it absolutely does not matter that this entity is in that timezone or uses that currency, because these are things that apply to the country as a whole and are thus not distinguishing features of an entity that should be highlighted. Imagine clarifying that the dollar is used as official currency in the template of every single American state: absurd. Live Forever 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But they are factually accurate portraying locations in RS.  For some reason it seems its your POV that you don't like seeing historic pictures in the article, not that article is not a neutral POV. --Lowg 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not factually accurate. They may potray locations in what is currently known as "RS", but these locations were at the time part of Yugoslavia, the Austrio-Hungarian empire, etc. If you want to use these photos to illustrate said cities, that is also alright because these cities existed at the time the pictures were taken. The entity, however, did not; and it is simply misleading to viewers to use historical pictures that predate RS by decades to illustrate the RS. Live Forever 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This edit did not make sense to me in a 'name' section, to me when I am trying understand what a word means, the polictical information you give is not what I expect... It is worded in way that says only certain ethnicities have equal 'status', which is absurd and all ethnicities have equal status in RS, not just the ones you have mention.  I think in order to keep this it should be re-worded to emphasis that the status you are refering to is regarding political/governmental status, which is it what is seems to be the message you are trying to give.  Perhaps this information can be placed in another section where it makes more sense in the context of the section.  --Lowg 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't make sense in the "name" question, then why did prominent Bosnian politicians ask the constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to consider a case to change the name because it implied discrimination against non-Serb peoples? And I stand by my wording because I feel it does a perfectly good job expressing the issue. If you feel it doesn't, then feel free to try and re-word the sentence and we can try and reach a compromise. Live Forever 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If these are you reasons, then IMHO you are vandalizing the article and missusing the totally-disputed tag.--Lowg 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification 

message: I just want to make clear, I am not claiming Serbian Cyrillic for one ethnic group. Some users are persistantly ignoring my point about Arabic numerals. I suppose that name claims 1234567890 exclusively for Arabs? The name of something has nothing to with who uses it. --estavisti 23:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still doesn't work. In context, this script is simply referred to as "cyrillic" without any national adjective. It's history is understood regardless. Live Forever 00:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hilarious. Now I'll simply kick back and relax while the page is protected and then maintain the totally disputed tag for as long as you decide to be a smartass. Live Forever 00:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been placed in the 99th percentile of enough prominent language and writing tests in my academic career to know that my english is perfectly fine; perhaps your comprehension isn't the best? The fact that you seem to think I admitted to "[obstructing the article] for the hell of it" certainly seems to indicate this. Live Forever 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a hint: you just proved one of them. Live Forever 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me? I didn't even touch upon any "academic achievements" until you made your wiseass remark about me not knowing the language. I'm more than ready to discuss the issue; I've been on this talk page the whole time, unlike yourself who's only here now that the page protection ensured that your numerical majority didn't allow you to bully those disagreeing with you anymore. And please don't even get me started on (to put it kindly) "catty remarks", which I've had to put up with from you and your like on this article ever since you first tried to force the controversial edits several days ago. You ignore any attempts at discussion or cooperation for as long as you can, and then when you're finally forced to come around you come armed with a stockpile of little condescending remarks and snide retorts. And then you have the nerve of telling the other side that they're stalling discussion? Pathetic indeed. Live Forever 06:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian Cyrillic 

message: I'm taking a wikibreak from tomorrow, so I'll just leave you with a few examples of the use of "Serb Republic / Bosnian Serb Republic" by major English-language mass media (unfortunately while taking a totally biased approach to it (or Serbs in general), but what can you do?).
#TIME magazine
#TIME magazine
#The Guardian
#The Guardian
#The Observer
#BBC
#BBC
#BBC
#BBC
#CBS News
#ABC (Australia)
#ABC News (USA)
#The Washington Post
#The NY Times
#Deutsche Welle
#New Statesman
#Foreign Affairs
#Foreign Policy
#FOX News
#Human Rights Watch
#Human Rights Watch
These aren't at the original pages: 
#The Times
#The Sunday Times
#The Spectator
You'll probably try saying something like there's so few of them. Took me five minutes. Enjoy disputing this! :-) --estavisti 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this proves what exactly? That "Serb Republic" is one plausible english translation of "Republika Srpska"? Nobody was disputing that. Live Forever 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Republika Srpska or Republic of Srpska is right name for this Bosnian entity. On BCS laguage it is not Srpska Republika. --Pockey 01:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Image:RSwelcome.JPG. --Pockey 01:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serb Republic 

message: Or I'll protect the article AND go on a week long vacation.  If I don't see Kocobo in talk in the next few hours, he'll be reverted, and that's what will happen.  Wikibofh(talk) 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop edit warring... 

message: Article is marked as "Totally Disputed". Why is entire article marked as NPOV and factually inaccurate?  Will remove tag if no reason given why entire article is marked as not neutral point of view and inaccurate. --Lowg 08:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're placing emphasis on the wrong things again. As far as I understand, the "totally" part merely means that not only the neutrality of the article is questioned but the factual accuracy is well. It does not mean that the entire article is disputed, because if that were the case we'd only have a few articles to use the tag on. The tag in this article highlights disputed content starting from the very top (labeling the script as "Serbian") to the very bottom (using pictures that have nothing to do with Republika Srpska to illustrate Republika Srpska). In closing, I'd like to remind you that withdrawing dispute tags without reaching consensus on an ongoing debate is officially considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Live Forever 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Placing "Cyrillic" instead of "Serbian Cyrillic" would just be another POV, which is why I'm offering an alternative that solves the issue. Live Forever 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is dispute now??  You want to remove it altogether?? Stop being vague and avoiding the question, otherwise I don't know why you want to keep the entire article totally disputed. --Lowg 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: I suggest we remove it altogether because that way we completely get rid of any dispute. That's the same thing that featured articles about countries/territories do; they list the name of the entity in its official languages on top of the template and don't necessarily clutter the lead section with it. See for example India. Live Forever 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "totally disputed" 

message: There are more than enough images of Republika Srpska to capably illustrate it without resorting to using misleading photographs. I'm specifically referring to the first three pictures in the gallery, as well as the ones of Doboj and Sutjeska. The gallery section is supposed to showcase the topic of the article; in this case a modern political entity with a relatively recent past. How is this modern entity showcased by pictures that predate it's existence by decades? Live Forever 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said this many times on Wikipedia and will repeat again: Republika Srpska is not only political but also geographical entity, thus everything what is connected to the geographical area that is now known as Republika Srpska is also connected to Republika Srpska. That is an general principle that is used everywhere. PANONIAN (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Used where, exactly? Looking over the comparable featured articles I don't see any galleries at all. In fact, the main established Wikipedia articles I'm familiar with take the opposite approach in regards to history and modern political divisions. Notice, for instance, the way Wikipedia treats the issue of China, Republic of China, and People's Republic of China. Your argument doesn't make any sense; history is supposed to be the objective analysis of the past regardless of present political circumstances, but you're practically saying that it changes from day to day depending on how things are in the present. So if Republika Srpska was hypothetically abolished tomorrow, suddenly those pictures wouldn't apply? Either way I think you're missing the point. The gallery section is presumably meant to show people "Republika Srpska", and those pictures do not show Republika Srpska. They may show territory and places that are now part of Republika Srpska, but they are not Republika Srpska. All philosophy about historiography aside, the pictures are flat out misleading and inaccurate. Live Forever 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, this IS NOT history, but GEOGRAPHY. Republika Srpska is geographical entity and these images are relevant for that geographical area. If it cease to exist, then images will not be relevant, but since it exist, the images are relevant. I will repeat, RS is both, political and geographical entity, and while politicaly it was created in 1992, its geographical area exist from the time of the creation of planet Earth, thus that make images relevant. PANONIAN (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but black and white photographs from half a century ago have more to do with history than geography. Furthermore, RS is not a geographical entity as you claim because its "geography" is completely based on its nature as a political entity. Even if there was some sort of "geographical" Republika Srpska it would be irrelevent because this article is about Republika Srpska as a political entity. It's simple logic: the gallery is meant to accurately illustrate the topic in question, right? How do 19th century photographs accruately illustrate the modern political entity? Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "RS is not a geographical entity as you claim because its geography is completely based on its nature as a political entity". So? Geography of MANY states and regions is completely based on its nature as a political entity. What is your point? And this article have also history section (hence historeical images), and have also cities section (hence images of the cities), etc, etc. And this article IS NOT about Republika Srpska as a political entity, but about Republika Srpska as a political and GEOGRAPHICAL entity. Try to notice the difference. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Second thing, your quote: "I've removed the whole thing based on other featured articles and the old debate." What articles? Here I will show you some that have Cyrillic name in them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojvodina , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro . Enough? PANONIAN (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about featured articles, recognized for their quality by the wider Wikipedia community. Articles such as India, Nepal, People's Republic of China and others. Instead of cluttering the lead section with information of minor interest to an english-language wikipedia, these articles list the local variations of the topic's name on the top of the infobox template. This approach is particularly helpful for political entities which have numerous official scripts and languages, such as Republika Srpska. Furthermore, it neatly avoids having to name the script in question and, consequently, the entire debate we had here earlier. That is why I proposed this solution in the first place. Live Forever 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These countries you mentioned do not use Cyrillic script. See Russia, Ukraine or Kazakhstan for relevant examples. PANONIAN (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying there's something special about cyrillic which makes it incomparable to those other scripts? Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying that if Russia article use Cyrillic script there, there is no reason for us not to use it too. PANONIAN (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Because that picture is a postcard from the 19th century. The Serb editors on this article are simlpy bending over backwards to counter my points simply because of who I am and what they percieve me to represent, to the point that they're reinforcing such absurdities as using a socialist era picture of the Ferhadija mosque to illustrate the then non-existent political entity that eventually destroyed it and then fought against efforts to reconstruct it. If my co-editors here would think rationally for a second, they would realize that using a blatantly outdated picture in the "gallery" section is clearly wrong and better the article by using a modern picture of the same location (For instance, the public domain image on the bosnian language version of the "Bridge on the Drina" article). Live Forever 00:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, did that land not exist in the 19th century? Was it just non-existant then? Whats wrong with having a postcard in the gallery? Yea, sure, the entity did not exist in that name then, but I believe Serbia was once a part of Yugoslavia.. so, would putting pictures from 1988. be something bad? No, my dear Wikipedian, no. Thank you, --serbiana - talk 01:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comparison is faulty because Serbia existed before Yugoslavia, and even during Yugoslavia it was a seperate political entity within the greater state. And if the picture from 1988 was misleading (for instance, showing the USCE building in 1988 when it has just recently been completely rebuilt), then yes; putting up such pictures would be bad. Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let say like this: Banja Luka is a city in RS and history of Banja Luka is part of the history of RS, hence the image. PANONIAN (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My point exactly. If Live Forever prove that Banja Luka and Višegrad did not existed in the 19th century, then we can remove images of course. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is less whether Banja Luka and Višegrad existed and more whether pictures of Banja Luka and Višegrad from back then accurately represent modern day Banja Luka and Višegrad in Republika Srpska. They don't. Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But point is that that these images DO represent Banja Luka and Višegrad, which are cities in RS, no matter if they represent them as they are in 2006 or in any other year. PANONIAN (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just a matter of principle. Why in the world would we use an outdated postcard when we can use a modern image from when the bridge was actually part of Republika Srpska? I don't want to make any sudden changes before reaching consensus though. Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason: BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE MODERN IMAGE OF IT!!! By all means please go there and take a modern picture of that bridge and then replace image with new one if you want. PANONIAN (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding image of mosque, the mosque was destroyed, but it will be rebuilt, and since it is part of the RS cultural heritage, no reason why we should not have this picture here. PANONIAN (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are plenty of reasons why we should not have that picture there. First and foremost, it doesn't accurately showcase Republika Srpska, which is what that gallery is supposed to do. If you want to, you can put that picture in the culture section (with the necessary explanation), but not the gallery. Live Forever 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image do represent cultural heritage of RS, and the purpose why all these images are in gallery is because of rational use of article space. And to correct you: the image gallery is not supposed to show Republika Srpska, but to show images relevant for any section of this article, including culture section. PANONIAN (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said, the mosque will be rebuilt (I think that rebuilt already started), so it is very small period of time from its destruction to its renewal (In larger period of time mosque was not destroyed). I think the best picture here would be one of rebuilt mosque when rebuilt is finished. PANONIAN (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fairview, the problem is that we cannot use all images on Wikipedia, but only images that are free for use. Copyrighted images cannot be used here, and images posted here in gallery are only images of RS free for use that exist on Wikipedia. If you have more images free for use (those that you made by yourself for example) and if you want to upload them on Wikipedia, by all means do it. However, please do not upload copyrighted images because they will be deleted from Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, that image of Višegrad from your link cannot be used on Wikipedia because web site where image is placed claim that: "Photographs from the TrekEarth Gallery section are also protected under United States and international copyright laws and may not be reproduced or transmitted in any way without prior, written permission from the respective photographer." PANONIAN (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have some images of RS free for use please upload them to Wikipedia and post them either here either in articles about these cities. Regarding Brčko, Brčko District belong to both, RS and Federation, thus it is not wrong to post images of Brčko into articles about RS or about Federation. I do not insist that any of the images currently in the gallery should be there, but they should not be removed if they are not replaced with some other image. If anybody have some other images to replace the current ones, by all means... PANONIAN (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I did not. Where is that image? You have some link? PANONIAN (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry Fairview, I actually just uploaded another alternative. I don't mind which version of the 3 that we now have, but think the 1890 one looked the best.  --Lowg 21:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What ever, I just put there a picture of another mosque that exist now and the image is from 2005. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So would it be alright with you if I replaced the current image of the Visegrad bridge with a modern one? Live Forever 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can replace any old image with new one if you have new images with proper copyright status. PANONIAN (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery images

message: My recent trip to former Yugoslavia made me realize that the Republika Srpska and the Federation of BiH already are acting like they're their own countries. Schooling differs, like who a hero in the '92-'95 war was. Also, they use Cyrillic in the Repulika Srpska and Latin in the Federation. Also, when I was in Doboj, I saw a channel (I think it was called "K3"), where it's logo had "K3" in front of a map of, not the whole of Bosnia, but just the Republika Srpska. Also, when I was crossing the border from Croatia to Bosnia (I think this was in Slavonski Šamac/Bosanski Šamac), there was a big sign saying: WELCOME TO THE REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA (with that in Bosnian, too, of course). There was a big Republika Srpska flag in front, too. At least the license plates are the same... The Runescape Junkie 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to correct you, WELCOME TO THE REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA sign was not in Bosnian, but in Serbian Latin script. :) PANONIAN (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, close enough. It's pretty much the same, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian, with the exception of a few words. If only I was born before the war started...←T•h•e  R.S.J.→ 15:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is Getting Crazy... 

message: What is an absolute need by some users to disrupt the sensitive balance of this article is beyond me. This issue has been discussed to death and some still see the need to initiate edit wars for no apparent other than biased reasons--Dado 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The three official languages of RS are Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian. That is a fact that some are just going to have to get used to. --Fairview360 00:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to remind you people that Serbian language have two scripts - Cyrillic and Latin, thus writting that only Cyrillic is Serbian script is not only wrong but also ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language issue in name varian, yet again

message: One problem about all the lines of ethnic purity and deporting non-Serb population.  As I understand it, Bosnia had a lot of Roma, and they generally allied themselves with the Serbs during the war.  Does anyone know if the Bosnian Serb forces also deported Roma en masse.  I expect that a few cases occured, but we can't say that the government was involved in deporting the non-Serb population if it left the majority of the Roma in place.  Anyone know for sure?  This link suggests friendly Serb-Roma relations, although that website tends to favour the Serbs a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epa101 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally know 3 Roma families that were also deported with whome I have lived in the refugee camp.  The issue is that a great number of Bosnian Romas are Muslim so they were expelled based on their religion not necessarily the ethnic origin. --Dado 15:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting.  I didn't know that many Roma are Muslim.  Is this also the case in Kosovo?  I understand that many Albanians in Kosovo perceive the Roma to be on the side of the Serbs. Epa101 20:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not all Roma are muslim, and not all roma were on one or the other side. For example the Roma in Kosovo were mostly on the serb side and as such are procecuted by the Albanians in the post NATO occupation envirment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.15.13 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roma and ethnic purity

message: #It shows the RS within BiH in Europe, what's the problem?
#What is a local constitution?
#"Foreign affairs" - if you think about it, people who hate links between Serbs should like this title, as it implicitly says Serbia is foreign to the RS.
#"Conflict with Bosniaks" - Misrepresents the nature of the conflict. --estavisti 13:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanations 

message: #The map shows it in a European context. I don't see what's objectionable about the words "in Europe".
#Changed the phrasing around the government. To attempt to portray it as a "national" government is ridiculous, as it represented only one of the three nations.
#The BiH customs service - changed the phrasing so the people don't get BiH/FBiH confused any more than is unavoidable. "State-level" is simple, clear, and NPOV.
#In the conflict between the entities section, the action and reaction have been reversed. I have corrected that. I have also edited it for style, deleting a few largely irrelevant statements. A few POV phrasings have been corrected. No "responded defiantly", "slammed back at" etc 
--estavisti 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: News just in - the RS flag and coat of arms are constitutional.  // estavisti 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is totally incorrect. RS flag is constitutional, but the coat of arms and athem are not. Here is the source (it is official and in english, unlike yours).  And Igor Radojičić, president of National assembly of RS, suggested that NSRS should form a board which is going to make proposal for symbols of RS. You can read it here (if you don't understand bosnian, I will translate you in english :D). --Kahriman 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols 

message: That orthodox holiday is NOT A NATIONAL HOIDAY IN RS, because it has been doomed as UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN BIH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkalada (talk • contribs) 12:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On St. Stephen's day 

message: Banja Luka very clearly is the capital of Republika Srpska. This does not have anything to do with it being an independent country (in the same way that Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota without it being an independent country). Therefore I am taking out "de facto". Feel free to comment here if you feel otherwise. Cheers Osli73 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think de facto referred to the fact that the official capital is Istočno Sarajevo (which I'm not 100% sure of, but see here and here), rather than being a weasel word. Duja► 08:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  de facto capital  

message: Here's a link to a site that plays the National anthem. Where could that be put into the article?Osli73 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natinal anthem 

message: Hi, I can't find any reference to what facts are actually "disputed". If there aren't any good reasons we should take the tag away.
Regards Osli73 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disputed section" tag 

message: First of all who agreed to anything. Osli73, clearly disliked (even accused as a Serb) by 99.9% of the Bosniak community, is not someone who is  forming a consensus. Secondly no one stepped in while the consensus was forming. Now you may say "Oh, now it is too late, why did you not step in". Well, a clear answer is "life" (people are busy). Anyways, there was a consensus until (if a may say so) a biased admin came about. 
===A little "history":===
User:God of Justice and I resolve our disputes, while LaughingMan and I are deciding the issue over whether there are six months to change the flags. No biased admin
An anonymous user (since he knows the interface/usage of wiki most likely a known user) changes and reverts the articles. 
So, the anonymous user changes back to the unconstitutional (current) version and Nlu comes in and blocks the page. Arguments stopped two days before and nothing else was added. A CONSENSUS was made, honestly, there was more of a consensus then there is now. However, I guess anonymous users have more write (And please refrain from telling me anonymous users have all right to be here, I know they do, but if they do not discuss then the problem arises) when they vandalize.
Please read his statement which has nothing to do with anything:
:However, it should be noted that the Wikipedia community, for good or bad, is not bound by the ruling of the Constitutional Court. I think a consensus is still necessary; that's particularly because it's unclear whether the Republika Srpska authorities will abide by that ruling, which makes the issue murky. See, for example, Republic of China, which is not recognized by the world community, but is treated differently by the Wikipedia community.
:and then we have Serbs saying:
:User:hadzija (estavisti) stated that Wikipedia is not the place to form new ideas, languages, viewpoint:
:"the language may be under construction (it can't be "re-born", as it has never existed before). However, as of January 2007 it has not been codified or internationally recognised. I'm sure its construction is not dependant on Wikipedia. So, when it has been constructed and is internationally recognised (i.e. has an ISO code at least), then we can talk about a coherent new language which can have its own Wikipedia."
Now...
Then if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on facts there is no need for any deciding. We have to abide by rules even if some do not like it. Hey, User:Nlu, you stated that most of the world does not recognized the Republic of China. Well, think about it again (I am implying most countries do recgonize RChina)...
My main point is: "is Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) going to be based on facts or general liking"? Vseferović 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, because I happened to protect the wrong version suddenly I must be biased?  Again, I invited RFC to hopefully so that non-Bosniaks and non-Serbs can step in and give different perspectives.  Apparently, you're afraid of that. And you really don't know the situation if you are implying that the Republic of China is in fact recognized by the international community.  Apparently, you don't even know that Bosnia and Herzegovina's government, for example, doesn't recognize the Republic of China.  (And, by your logic, since the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not recognize the Republic of China as a state, its existence is illegal and therefore its article should be deleted -- which, obviously, would be absurd.)  Whether the flag and the other symbols should stay should be determined by consensus, not by partisanship and not by nationalistic feelings.  The Wikipedia community reached a consensus that the Republic of China should be treated as a coequal state (under WP:MOS-ZH) despite its lack of recognition by the international community, despite much of the feeling of users who are in or from the People's Republic of China that ROC is an illegal state.  Well, illegal or not, it exists; I'd say that a similar situation applies here.  --Nlu (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more note: whether correct or not, everybody who was involved in the edit warring was misbehaving.  If I were truly "biased," I could have simply blocked everyone involved for 3RR violations.  And suddenly, once the protection was in place, the people who were not so busy that they edit warred suddenly became so busy that they can't bother to make reasonable arguments here?  Sorry, I don't buy it.  --Nlu (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I even warned one of the Serbian users User:GodofJustice of the 3RR policy and no you could not have blocked us. I stopped at two and continued reverting (as I would say for a just cause) the next day. It was anonymous users that did the reverting, etc. It seems you are not comprehending the extreme-ultra nationalistic Serb who said "rv, Vandalism Bosniak" to User:kahriman and then "rv, Vandalism another Bosniak" to me. I am proud but this is outright nationalistic verbal assault. Furthermore, you do not seem to understand that Republika Srpska is now where near comparable to the Republic of China, now where. Republika Srpska is Bosnia and Herzegovina and has no autonomy. Republic of China is its own nation. I think that most of the world recognizes RChina if RChina is Taiwan. (I may be mistaken), but I think many confuse Republika Srpska with Republic of Serbia, two totally different "things". Vseferović 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense 

message: User:God of Justice and I resolve our disputes, while LaughingMan and I are deciding the issue over whether there are six months to change the flags. No biased admin
An anonymous user (since he knows the interface/usage of wiki most likely a known user) changes and reverts the articles. 
So, the anonymous user changes back to the unconstitutional (current) version and Nlu comes in and blocks the page. Arguments stopped two days before and nothing else was added. A CONSENSUS was made, honestly, there was more of a consensus then there is now. However, I guess anonymous users have more write (And please refrain from telling me anonymous users have all right to be here, I know they do, but if they do not discuss then the problem arises) when they vandalize.
Please read his statement which has nothing to do with anything:
:However, it should be noted that the Wikipedia community, for good or bad, is not bound by the ruling of the Constitutional Court. I think a consensus is still necessary; that's particularly because it's unclear whether the Republika Srpska authorities will abide by that ruling, which makes the issue murky. See, for example, Republic of China, which is not recognized by the world community, but is treated differently by the Wikipedia community.
:and then we have Serbs saying:
:User:hadzija (estavisti) stated that Wikipedia is not the place to form new ideas, languages, viewpoint:
:"the language may be under construction (it can't be "re-born", as it has never existed before). However, as of January 2007 it has not been codified or internationally recognised. I'm sure its construction is not dependant on Wikipedia. So, when it has been constructed and is internationally recognised (i.e. has an ISO code at least), then we can talk about a coherent new language which can have its own Wikipedia."
Now...
Then if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on facts there is no need for any deciding. We have to abide by rules even if some do not like it. Hey, User:Nlu, you stated that most of the world does not recognized the Republic of China. Well, think about it again (I am implying most countries do recgonize RChina)...
My main point is: "is Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) going to be based on facts or general liking"? Vseferović 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, because I happened to protect the wrong version suddenly I must be biased?  Again, I invited RFC to hopefully so that non-Bosniaks and non-Serbs can step in and give different perspectives.  Apparently, you're afraid of that. And you really don't know the situation if you are implying that the Republic of China is in fact recognized by the international community.  Apparently, you don't even know that Bosnia and Herzegovina's government, for example, doesn't recognize the Republic of China.  (And, by your logic, since the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not recognize the Republic of China as a state, its existence is illegal and therefore its article should be deleted -- which, obviously, would be absurd.)  Whether the flag and the other symbols should stay should be determined by consensus, not by partisanship and not by nationalistic feelings.  The Wikipedia community reached a consensus that the Republic of China should be treated as a coequal state (under WP:MOS-ZH) despite its lack of recognition by the international community, despite much of the feeling of users who are in or from the People's Republic of China that ROC is an illegal state.  Well, illegal or not, it exists; I'd say that a similar situation applies here.  --Nlu (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more note: whether correct or not, everybody who was involved in the edit warring was misbehaving.  If I were truly "biased," I could have simply blocked everyone involved for 3RR violations.  And suddenly, once the protection was in place, the people who were not so busy that they edit warred suddenly became so busy that they can't bother to make reasonable arguments here?  Sorry, I don't buy it.  --Nlu (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I even warned one of the Serbian users User:GodofJustice of the 3RR policy and no you could not have blocked us. I stopped at two and continued reverting (as I would say for a just cause) the next day. It was anonymous users that did the reverting, etc. It seems you are not comprehending the extreme-ultra nationalistic Serb who said "rv, Vandalism Bosniak" to User:kahriman and then "rv, Vandalism another Bosniak" to me. I am proud but this is outright nationalistic verbal assault. Furthermore, you do not seem to understand that Republika Srpska is now where near comparable to the Republic of China, now where. Republika Srpska is Bosnia and Herzegovina and has no autonomy. Republic of China is its own nation. I think that most of the world recognizes RChina if RChina is Taiwan. (I may be mistaken), but I think many confuse Republika Srpska with Republic of Serbia, two totally different "things". Vseferović 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A little "history":

message: Can someone please review this site: Ustavni sud Republike Srpske  to see if any further information can be found.  The Republic of Srpska Government  site still reflects the Flag and Coat of Arms. // Laughing Man 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the page back to the one WITH symbols.  PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE (this is to all users).  Firstly, the FLAG of the RS has not been deemed unconstitutional rather it HAS BEEN DEEMED constitutional due to the "pan-Slavic" character of its colours.  The coat of arms and the anthems HAVE been deemed unconstitutional however, this ruling has not become ENFORCEABLE until the Court publishes its ruling in the Official Gazette (expected March, 2007).  The court has thus given the Parliament two months to adjust the coat of arms and take out the reference to Serbia and its "king" from the anthem.  Boismortier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boismortier (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another source? 

message: Section "Republika Srpska and the Bosnian War" was never really agreed upon, so let's give it another try.
:...the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provided extensive humanitarian, logistical and financial support for the Republika Srpska and its military with the ultimate goal of annexing the territory controlled by the VRS and making it a part of Serbia.
I think that there is absolutely zero evidence in regard to this "ultimate goal". Nikola 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The VRS and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide (see: the Srebrenica massacre), the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population [12], killing, torturing and raping at detention camps [13], the long military siege of Sarajevo, and the destruction of Bosnian-Herzegovinian cultural and historical heritage [14], [15]. [...] While not including genocide nor crimes against humanity and in far smaller scope certain Bosniaks have also been convicted of war crimes for their conduct during the war, including murder, rape, wanton destruction, and inhumane treatment of prisoners. [6]
This is certainly much better than before, but ethnic cleansing, killing, torturing and raping at detention camps, destruction of Serbian cultural heritage are still not mentioned. Nikola 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: by the spring of 1996, a United Nations census indicated that Serbs constituted 96.8% of the population of the republic.
This sentence is completely out of place if it is not known which percentage of the population were Serbs before the war, and ethnic cleansing of Serbs is still not mentioned. Nikola 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: However, the republic's actions produced worldwide condemnation, the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 1993 and the eventual indictment of the Republika Srpska military and civilian leadership for war crimes.
Perhaps one word, "only", would fit nice in there somewhere. Nikola 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: *Bosnia's Serbs to lose wartime emblem, MSNBC/Financial Times, April 11, 2007.
Well, it seems now even Milorad Dodik agreed on replacing the Bosnian Serb Republic symbols.--MaGioZal 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I have your attention, the title for this article is a controversial topic, so if you wish to see it renamed, please use WP:RM rather than simply going ahead and moving, with all the chaos that ensues and so on. Thanks in advance. El_C 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Read this