Talk:Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Herzeg Bosnia.gif

Image:Herzeg Bosnia.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Current Situation

I added the Current Situation part. I hope it will not be taken off again by some Bosniak. (LAz17 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)).

You put newspaper repot in ecyclopedia article?! wich is very strange and unnecessary, because it is based on newspaper report about Ivo Miro Jovic statements etc?! Encyclopedia should contain facts related to the topic, not politics. For example this sentece:

"The current representative of the Croats(Zeljko Komsic), elected thanks to Bosniak votes, is not promoting this, but nonetheless the current among Croat politicians that is gaining in strength advocates the establishment of the third entity."

has nothing to do here in this article. I don't mind that you write article: "Croat politics in Bosnia" and you can explain different POVa, but this article is about Herzeg-Bosnia ceased to exist in 1994. Greetings. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the above sentence (no matter in what article) should be adjusted to encyclopedia, for example the sentence should contain facts like this: "Zeljko Komsic, a Croat member of BH presidency is against the idea of the Croat entity". This part is irrelevant: "the current among Croat politicians that is gaining in strengt", because it doesn't containt the facts, and isn't based on relevant source. Which current, according to whom is gaining in strength etc? Wikipedia should containt pure facts, neither speculation, nor politics. The Dragon of Bosnia 09:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Look here Dragon, this is relevant to Herceg-Bosna, and it is too small to be an article on its own. Furthermore, Herceg-Bosnia is related to politics. People need to be able to know what is currently going on with it. True, it is not exist, it does not mean that nothing regarding it is going on. (LAz17 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)).

That is exactly I was trying to explain to you. Wikipedia is not place for promoting political ideas. If you support third entity, that's ok with me (my POV is irrelevant), but there are other tools for such activities (blogs, forums etc), encyclopedia is not one of them. When you said: People need to be able to know what is currently going on with it. you actually disqualified yourself as an editor. Read: Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content, WP:RS and especially this: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. For instance this quote: Wikipedia content is not: 1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. If you continue to break these rules, I will be forced to ask for mediation. The Dragon of Bosnia 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not advocating anything to happen. This is not propaganda. It is simply the current situation with herceg-bosna, that there are moves to form it again. If you feel that what I wrote is not of a neutral point of view then do not delete it all in such a manner, but discuss how to change it to be more acceptable. (LAz17 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)).
I don't care, what are you trying to advocate. Simply that is not the content that should be placed in Wikipedia per WP:NOT. Herzeg Bosnia stopped to exist in 1994, so this is not even the current situation. This is my final word, I will ask someone to intervene here if you continue to import spam. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You say that this should be put into a Croat politics in Bosnia... yet much of the things under "History" is just politics, so why not put that also on a hypothetical new page? Why do not you delete that stuff? It's because you are a pro-Bosniak nationalist who hates the thought of the Croats having a third entity, so you do not want this to be shown on the page. (LAz17 17:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)).

Please, try to behave, this is place for discussion not for insults. The Dragon of Bosnia 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)