Talk:Republika Srpska/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Wait until things actually happen

The article is stating that RS Ministry of Internal Affairs (entity police) and the entity Ministry of Defence (RS military) were abolished in mid-December of 2004 and integrated with BiH ministries. This is not quite true - an agreement was reached in autumn 2004 to establish a joined military command on BiH state level for two entity armies, but the agreement said that this should happen in three years. OHR (Peddy Ashdown) in mid-December proclaimed that this would now happen by autumn 2005, but the RS authorities rejected this, stating that the agreement was already signed. The same goes for RS Ministry of Internal Affairs (and the Federation Ministry of Internal Affairs) - Peddy Ashdown simply proclaimed that it is to be abolished (he did not abolish it officially, though - note the difference) and integrated into a new BiH state-level police, organized into five regions that are not following entity lines. However, this caused a big political crisis in RS and BiH, because the Serb politicians flatly rejected this. Thus, the best thing to do is to leave things as they are, maybe provide an indication that they might change but wait with article changes until things actually (officially) happen (the jury is still out on the final arrangements, and Bosnian Serb Army and RS Ministry of Interior exist unchanged at the moment; according to the article they are already state integrated/abolished, which is not the reality of the situation).

'Regions' in Republika Srpska officially do no exist

What is the source for the article claim that Republika Srpska is composed of 'seven regions'? There is no evidence that these regions exist in any official capacity - Republika Srpska is internally composed only of municipalities. Please provide some evidence (there is no word about existance of 'administrative regions' on any official Republika Srpska pages, nor can this be found on OHR pages) or erase the claim from the main article.

Intolerant name? Intolerant insignia?

There is a new addition to the article that goes like this:

"To some, the name and insignia of Republika Srpska are inherently intolerant towards other Bosnians and evoke very negative connotations of war-time problems for them. While I can understand the clause about the negative connotation 'other Bosnians' (I presume Bosniacs and Croats) have towards symbols (and the very existence of) Republika Srpska, I am not sure I follow the first statement. How can name and insignia be intolerant (?), and in what way are they intolerant?

Would the author please qualify? Thank you.

First off, this is not a new addition, it's from this commit back in September last year. Secondly, the notion of Republika Srpska being offensive to non-Serbs is much older, and fairly obvious to others -- this constitutional nation of BH decided that parts of BH are to be named and marked "Serbian" (which is what the adjective srpska means), and they used e.g. the eagle and the crown above the coat of arms, a symbol of the royalty of Serbia (which is on the other side of the Drina).
This shows a lack of tolerance for the other two constitutional nations which do not adhere to this kind of politics. Granted, having checkerboard and lilies on the flag of the Federation is similar, but at least they didn't name their entity after themselves and they combined those two different symbols on the same flag which indicates that they aren't being so exclusive.
Couple this with what went on during the war, and it'll be even more obvious why there's animosity. --Joy [shallot]
  • I am not an expert on heraldry and vexillology, but as far as I can see the insignia of Republika Srpska (such as the flag and the coat of arms) are just a variant of national symbols that Serbs use in general (Serbia now does the same, but Republika Srpska had these insignia way before Serbia reintroduced them last year). Are they intolerant by their very existence to those in Bosnia who are not Serbs? What would that imply in the long run?
The crown and the eagle are used in reference to the Serbian kingdom of the House of Obrenović, AFAIR. I'm sure that there are other Serb symbols that don't necessarily conflict with the fact that the country is a republic and that it's called Bosnia and Herzegovina... heck, that's being lenient, even. I can't think of many countries that would look favorably at the inclusion of national symbols of other countries on their flags. Compare the situation with the wartime statelet of the BH Croats "Herceg-Bosna" — it had the Croatian tricolor and the Croatian coat of arms, and everyone frowned upon it as something that was inherently detrimental to the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Joy [shallot]
What do you mean "I can't think of many countries that would look favorably at the inclusion of national symbols of other countries on their flags" There are 25 countries with the Union Jack, a symbol of the UK, alone.Aleksei
  • Again, without claiming to be an expert, I have never heard of any other Serb symbols beside a tricolour flag (red-blue-white) and the cross with four Cyrillic "S" letters on a shield with or without a double-headed eagle. They are Serb insignia in a general sense. I am sure the Kingdom of Serbia used them before but that does not mean that the symbols are explicitly referring to the state of Serbia - they are symbols of the Serbs as a nation (or an ethnic group) in general. This is the context of their use in Republika Srpska - not Serbia under the Obrenovici dynasty. The same goes for the Croats (their tricolour flag and the red-white chessboard shield; it is indeed used by Croatia, but these symbols are national symbols of the Croats wherever they are).
Well, you go ask those same Bosnian Serbs whether they want to avoid any reference to the state of Serbia... I cannot see much effort to distinguish their nationhood from their statehood in this matter, only the contrary. Which is okay in theory, but not when they need to live in a multi-national state such as BH. --Joy [shallot]
  • With regards to entity's name (Serb Republic), insignia and so forth: I always thought that Republika Srpska is supposed to be a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs at its core. I am not sure that there is any other purpose for its existence. If the entity cannot be called Serb Republic, if it cannot have Serb insignia and so forth, that would imply that it effectively cannot be a form a territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs. Its very existence would then be pointless - wouldn't that destroy the terms of the negotiated peace at Dayton?
We're describing a public opinion here - the existence of the Dayton Agreement does not imply that the public opinion cannot doubt some element or aspect of the Agreement. In other words, the people may adhere to the rules laid out in the agreement, but that does not mean that they may not dislike (parts of) the agreement. --Joy [shallot] 21:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think there is an overarching fact that needs to be said. Republika Srpska may have been envisioned as a form a territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs but in 2002 (the year may be wrong) there was a constitutional amendment that recognized that Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats are constituent nations of Republika Srpska. It is what you are logically concluding that by this amendment the purpose of Republika Srpska is pointless and the terms negotiated at Dayton are defacto destroyed. This is an absurd of BH and RS politics in general. Regarding the issue of "intolerant name and insignia" is that under same name and insignia Republika Srpska conducted ethnic cleansing and genocide (which they addmited recently) over other Bosnians while name and insignia does not reflect the essence that Bosniaks and Croats are also contituent nations of RS. It is logical response by Bosnians that those simbols evoke very negative war problems for them. Hence the court case was filed in BH constitutional court recently that asks for the change of the name and insignia. Perhaps saying that insignia and name itself are intolerant could be rephrased but it is merely a grammatical semantics. Also, please sign your comments so that we know who we are responding to --Dado 19:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Dado, let me try to get this right: you are stating that Republika Srpska was envisioned as a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs, and that it indeed existed as such a number of years following Dayton (until 2002?), but that this is now somehow not true because non-Serbs were added to the constitution? I think that you are mixing up a form with essence here. There are many countries which are clearly national entities (such as France or Germany) that are not defined in their constitution as such (they have a civic constitution instead, going for citizens of the country instead of a specific ethnic group). Nevertheless it would be ridiculous to argue that Germany is not a German national state because of the wording of its constitution. On a sub-national level, there is a Balkan example of Kosovo, which is not defined at all as a form of ethnic Albanian national autonomy but everyone would agree that it would be pointless to argue that it wasn't. I said that Republika Srpska is at its core/essence a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs; the constitution might state otherwise, but that doesn’t change some realities on the ground. As an administrative division of Bosnia that has 90% (or whatever the number is) of the population as Serbs, it would be fruitless to argue otherwise - especially given its history and origins. If Republika Srpska is not a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs, what it is then?

First it is not my statement that RS was envisioned as a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs but I was repeating it after you. I was simply stating that it is a bit absurd for an entity to bear a name of a single nation if it has declared itself as a "multinational entity". It is more absurd to justify its name and existance as such entity was created through genocide and ethnic cleaning. Per same logic Germany would still bear the name and insignia of the Third Reich today regardless of its history. You may be confusing the situation on the ground with the facts but that seems to be the trend these days in RS.

  • Dado: are you are now stating that Republika Srpska was never envisioned as a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs? What was it supposed to be then (you lost me here completely)?
  • Also, I went online to find out details about the court case you were referring to. As far as I understand this, Sulejman Tihic (a Bosniac member of the Bosnia's presidency, and the leader of the largest Bosniac party) started a case against Republika Srpska in front of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. His claim is that everything that ties Republika Srpska to the Bosnian Serbs is unconstitutional - Republika Srpska's name, Republika Srpska's flag and the coat of arms plus all other Serb-related insignia used by various entity's agencies, all place names in Republika Srpska that have "Serb" prefix in it, Republika Srpska's holidays (which are based on Serb Orthodox Christian calendar) etc. etc. etc. Frankly, the list only stops short of proclaiming Bosnian Serbs themselves to be unconstitutional. You might claim that this is about multiethnicity, but it seems to me that the real goal is to completely divorce Republika Srpska from the Bosnian Serbs, and sever anything that ties the two together. If the court sides with Sulejman Tihic Republika Srpska would become a pointless structure (and could be abolished as such), because it would stop being a form of Bosnian Serb autonomy on any level. This would effectively be the end of the Dayton system - with unforeseen circumstances. The more I think about this, the more it seems to me that this is the real motivation.
What you forgot to mention is that Sulejman Tihic is pursuing the exact same thing for Croats and Bosniaks in the federation, so it's a bit foolish to say that he is seeking to "proclaim Bosnian Serbs themselves to be unconstitutional" when he's hoping to achieve the same for all three ethnicities. A fairly effective analogy would be saying that France's policy on secularism in public schools is intended to "proclaim Islam unconstitutional." As for the symbolism, it cannot be compared to the heraldry of the Republic of Serbia for several reasons. First and foremost is that in the Republic of Serbia these symbols represent important historical states and periods, whereas these banners first flew over one half of Bosnia after the ethnic cleansing of its non-Serb population. Thus, it is fairly evident that they simply represent the Serb people which, like Dado said, is offensive and discriminatory to the other two constitutional peoples of Republika Srpska. The comparison to Germany and France is faulty. Once again, the symbols of Germany and France have a historical basis on the territories of Germany and France, and as democratic tri-colors they are not necessarily specifically attached to any of the particular coutnries' ethnic groups. Furthermore, whereas France and Germany do not list any constitutional peoples, the Republic of Srpska's constitution does, and thus it has a responsibility to all three of its constitutional people equally.
And by the way, the name of the ethnic group is spelled Bosniaks, not Bosniacs. Thank you. Asim Led 23:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Asim: There are many interpretations regarding Tihic's court case, but however you word it the bottom line is that the case is against the Dayton system itself. Tihic's court case is challenging the concept of ethnically based entities; it is a matter of fact that Dayton peace accords legalized the internal ethnic division of Bosnia-Herzegovina into two separate entities. For the last ten years all major news networks acknowledged this fact by informally referring to the entities as 'the Muslim-Croat Federation' (FBiH) and 'the Bosnian Serb Republic' (RS). It is clear that everybody recognized the entities as forms of ethnically-based territorial autonomy (RS in case of the Bosnian Serbs; FBiH in case of the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks), and it would be pointless to argue that, somehow, everybody was simply wrong for the last ten years. If the courts side with Tihic (by the way, it would be a legal absurdity for a court created by the Dayton agreement to decide that most of that agreement is unconstitutional, which does not mean it won’t happen), we are than talking about a major revision of Dayton through the 'back door' (as opposed to revising it openly, with a Dayton-like international conference). This would apply that the West (OHR and so forth) is actually behind the process (using a willing Tihic), because such a fundamental change could only be brought by whomever Ashdown is representing.

This statement that name of Republika Srpska is insulting for somebody is only POLITICAL anti-Serb statement and should be deleted. Does the person who wrote this consider that name of Bosnia-Herzegovina is insulting for Serbs? Think a little why the names of cities in Republika Srpska, which had prefix "Bosnian" were changed. So, Serbs accepted to live in Bosnia-Herzegovina (no matter that this name is insulting for Serbs) and non-Serbs also have to accept that they live in Republika Srpska. If somebody does not like this name it is only his problem (because this name is official one) and that doesn’t mean that we should to include this statement into article. What if you post this kind of statement for every country? We can post that name Romania is insulting for Hungarians who live there, we can wrote that name of Germany is insulting for Turks who live there, etc. In fact I have proposal: both names, Republika Srpska and Bosnia-Herzegovina should be changed (We can give former names to these lands: Vrbaska Banovina and Drinska Banovina). I am sure that nobody would think that these names are insulting, but the whole world would laugh at us. PANONIAN

The reason for a statement that name and insignia is intolerant to other Bosnians is clear from above conversation and it deals with most recent history of RS and the way and conditions under which it was created (ethnic cleansing and genocide). In history many names and insignia of countries were changed due to problems that its meanings represented (ie. Third Reich, USSR etc.) . I think that further discussion on this topic is pointless.--Dado 19:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This little tirade about the name "Bosnia and Herzegovina" being offensive to Serbs is laughable. Partly because of the sheer stupidity of the faulty analogy, and partly because it simply isn't true. Dado has pretty much echoed my thoughts on the matter. Asim Led 19:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For Dado: There is nobody here who wants to deny that genocide in RS happened, but RS is not isolated case here. Genocide also happened in Croatia and BIH Federation, and this genocide was against Serbs. So, if name and symbols of RS are controversial because of that, then names and symbols of BIH Federation and Croatia should be considered controversial too. Imagine that Serbs from Croatia demand that Croatia change its name, flag and coat of arms because genocide against Serbs, which happened under that symbols. However, it is not democratic that any minority anywhere impose its will to majority. Since Serbs are majority in RS, I do not see why minorities should to decide what would be a name and symbols of that entity. As for your statement that many names of states in history were changed because of similar reasons as RS, I want to hear what that states are (Third Reich and USSR didn’t changed its name, but collapsed as states, find some other example, please). For Asim: If you do not believe that name of Bosnia is insulting for Serbs, then ask Serbs who live there. I live in Vojvodina and I know some Serbs who come here from Bosnia and I can tell you that name of Bosnia is quite insulting for them (They even never saying that they come from Bosnia, but they saying that they come from Republika Srpska). For many of them Bosnia even doesn’t exist. PANONIAN

Genocide by RS was proven at ICTY. If you can find a credible court system that will prove the same for BIH Federation and Croatia I will support the move to take any necessary measures to right the wrong supposedly commited by that entity and country. Those responsible for genocide should bear the stigma of genocide, and it should serve as a warning to those who may in future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act. Until you and your friends realize what that means I won't have to waste my time trying to prove you anything.--Dado 05:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Genocide in Croatia is commited at least during WW2 as stated by Encyclopedia of Holocaust. Republic of Srpska's constitution has a responsibility to all three of its constitutional people equally. --81.93.75.129 10:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Republika Srpska: a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs or not?

I decided to open a new headline because in the discussion above (Intolerant name? Intolerant insignia?; please read for context) we came across a very important question which needs to be answered. As I said before, I always thought that Republika Srpska is supposed to be a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs at its core (without this element there is on other purpose for its existence as far as I can see). I say "at its core" in de facto context, recognizing that there is a discrepancy in real life between what something is on a piece of paper and what it really is on the ground (examples are constitutional definitions). Now Dado is raising a possibility that I had a wrong impression about Republika Srpska in the last ten (or so) years since I first heard about Dayton and Bosnia's entities, and that Republika Srpska never was (or never was envisioned; by whom?) a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs. I would now like to hear input from other people on this issue as well. Is Republika Srpska in its essence a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs, and if not - what exactly is it supposed to be?

I did not intend to claim that RS was or was not a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs. That was besides my point and an assumption that you have made.--Dado 01:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok. In that case let me ask you directly to avoid any confusion: Dado is Republika Srpska a form of territorial autonomy for the Bosnian Serbs?

I refer the answer to your question to whoever wants to answer it. My intent was to take claims assumed in my name out of this context.--Dado 02:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pictures from the camps in the main article?

Hm. We now have a picture from a camp in the main article. If the trend continues, next there will be mass graves and beheaded bodies. I am concerned that this is turning the main article into a propaganda page - even a Wikipedia entry for Nazi Germany has no pictures of camps and atrocities, and there are plenty. This really has no place in the main article. A Wikipedia article about war crimes and atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serbs (and others) should exist, but it should be a stand-alone and link to this page. Please do not post such pictures here because it is not appropriate, but create a separate article and provide a link.

I agree, I made a stub for Omarska. --Joy [shallot] 21:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys but I was just trying to make a point regarding the definition of the concentration camps vs detention camps. It also seems that some want to negate the significance and the level of attrocities commited by RS which is also not a part of the neutral point of view. I support a stub for Omarska and moving the picture to its appropriate page.--Dado 22:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A Map of Greater Serbia added? ("Early History" section)

Well now we have a map of what looks like a map of Greater Serbia with a support text that seems to justify the creation of RS. I don’t want to get into implicit reasoning of the person that added this to an article but his claims seem to be limited and simplistic to say the least. This addition either needs to be heavily edited or removed completely. By the way the territory of the RS was created by a GPS mapping software in Dayton, Ohio that calculated the 49% territory of BH in real time (it is a quite impressive piece of machinery by the way) with a final option calculated on a 20th day of the Dayton negotiations. The territory of RS has nothing to do with the history or geography of the region.--Dado 19:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the riddiculeous early history section of the Republika Srpska. Highly missleading and grossly POV. The fact of the matter is that the Republika Srpska does not need an early history because it was created for the first time in the 1990s. With countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina you can trace its development throughout history, through yugoslavia, to the banovinas in the early 20th century, to the austriohungarian province, to the Ottoman pashaluk, etc. With Republika Srpska you need to go no further than the war in the closing decade of the last century to find out where its boundaries and statehood comes from.

As for the map, it is completely wrong; a medieval joke that's already been debunked everywhere on wikipedia except articles where Serbian editors reign supreme. Like Joy once said, "(the map is) wildly inaccurate and prominently features the pan-Serbian mythological Serbia that spanned gobs of territory." See the De Administrando Imperio page for more information. Asim Led 21:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Before you proclaim DAI to be "a medieval joke", I would suggest you read "Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World" by medieval Oxford scholar Arnold Joseph Toynbee (ISBN: 019215253X). Books like this are made for people who think they know (but they don't). Nevertheless, I agree that such a map (and its context) should be in an article titled 'History of Bosnia' (or similar), and simply link here.

Sorry Dado and Asim, but seems that you both do not like RS much, and that is why you object, because I posted facts about early history of RS. But what I posted are only historical facts, and there is no scientific or historical reason to delete those. You can’t deny that Serbs in RS have early political history. So, as I said above, your reasons to delete this are only political and anti-Serb. So, both of you, try to show some tolerance, please. I didn’t go to Bosnia history page to delete history of Bosniaks, so, why you deleting history of Serbs? I reverted this page (and I will do this again) until anybody can show any scientific proof that I posted anything what is not a fact. I do not want to listen this Bosniak "patriotic" anti-Serb crap here. User:PANONIAN

And I don't want to listen to yet another round of pathetic attempts to stake a claim for the Serbdom of various regions to nourish modern day sociopolitical concerns and fears. There is no reason for an early history section of the Republika Srpska because, quite frankly, the Republika Srpska has no "early history" to speak of. The area of the present day Republika Srpska has previously not been united into a single unit (or even several separate units for that matter) based on statehood, ethnicity, religion, or political trends. In short, a wikipedia reader does not need to know anything before the war in Bosnia from 1992-1996 to understand what processes resulted in the formation of the Republika Srpska. What is being done here is comparable to making a page about the history of the United States during the middle ages. Considering that the section on this page purposely deals only with the Serb people in an "ethnic analysis" through a series of unrelated and obscure mentions of Serbdom we can further extend that analogy to a page on the "medieval history of the United States" that dealt only with various speculative European settlements and explorations of the time.
The "facts" themselves are equally ridiculous. "Serbs settled this region." Right. First of all, that is false. It is true that Serbs probably settled the sporadic eastern half of the Republika Srpska. The bulk of the western half however never once fell under control of Serb tribes or Serbian rulers, instead being a key component of Croatia until it was conquered by Bosnia. The region was even known as "Turkish Croatia" for years. Second of all, exactly what does it matter which age of migrations tribe loosely settled the region? It doesn't. Not anymore than the fact that the region was settled by Illyrians before them. The question of the tribal proto-ethnic make up of 7th century Bosnia is only significant to quasi-scholars who seek historical justification for today's geopolitical situation. If your sense of ethnic identity rests on some 7th century barbarians radically different from you in nearly every possible way, well I pity you.
Then on to the "Serbian" states of Zahumlje and Travunija. Let's assume this statement is true. So what? We're talking about medieval political units that probably fought and contested each other for power regardless of a mutual ethnic identity, not some vanguards of "Serbdom", a concept that wouldn’t truly be defined for almost 900 years. And what about the many other political units that controlled Republika Srpska at this time that were unrelated to Serbs? And "between 9th and 15th centuries, some parts of present day Republika Srpska were parts of Serbia." Yes, and? Many parts weren’t, and that rule by Serbia of the eastern reaches of Bosnia hardly left an impact felt today. The land was conquered by Bosnia, and it remained an integral part of it until today. Furthermore, for the past several centuries Bosniaks have made up the major ethnicity in a bulk of this area that once, 1000 years ago, happened to be ruled by Serbia.
And then the Drinska banovina. On its page you claim that most of this banovina is today part of Republika Srpska. Incorrect. Perhaps the majority of the land is part of the RS today, but nearly half the land today belongs to the federation (Kanton 10 and 1). This situation is similar to the two other banovinas whose territory today is partially in Republika Srpska. I know it's tempting to look for a historical predecessor to the Republika Srpska, but it really does not exist asides from the varying degrees of presence of Bosnian Serbs on its territory. As for De Administrando Imperio, Constantine continously contradicts himself. I do not need to read a book on the subject to see that the work has dubious information and faults identified by many modern historians.
There are two levels to my objection to this section. Number one is that it is shamelessly POV, looking only for various referances to the Serb name to imply that this region somehow "belongs" to the Serb people as some sort of "ancestral land". If we were to actually waste time writing a nonbiased "early history of the Republika Srpska" there'd be hordes of mentions of the Croat and Bosniak influence on the region, as well as numerous other historical states and empires that have had little direct impact on the formation of the present day entity. Naturally in a region that just loosely winds from one end of Bosnia to another we'd just basically be repeating the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina up to 1992 and the section would lose any value that people who originally had wanted it in there had intended it to have. Second, and far more importantly, is that its impossible to truly write the "early history of Republika Srpska". Instead we're left with the "early history of the regions that today make up the entity known as Republika Srpska" or, as mentioned above, "early history of one half of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is nearly identical to the early history of the other half asides from having more Serbs". Such a section is blatantly unnecessary and a magnet for pitiful nationalistic vandalism, nothing more. The section would bring 0 value to the article. Period. Asim Led 00:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Asim and Panonian: I have a suggestion on how to solve this. We have the "See Also" subsection in the main article. Perhaps Panonian could make a new article titled "History of the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina" or "History of the Bosnian (and Herzegovinian) Serbs" (or something similar), and provide a link to it in the "See Also" section (Panonian could use the text and the map he posted as the starting point for the new article). That way, anybody visiting Republika Srpska article would have a chance to read about the Serb history in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but that would not be a part of the main article itself. How this sounds?
That sounds like a good idea, and far better than the early history section here. I have nothing against Serbs and I realize they've played an enormous part in the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I'd be willing to help write it and as long as it was reasonably npov and respectful of the other two nations I'd be all for it. In fact, we have a similar article on the Bosnian language wiki written by Mir Harven that I'm sure would suit the puurpose[1]. Still, I'd be opposed to using that map. Asim Led 03:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the map, because it is in circulation ever since Toynbee first published his book on Constantine Porphyrogenitus and DAI in 1972. The version in Toynbee's book is very similar to this one (if not the same), and so far the map hasn't been contested as an inaccurate illustration of the situation described in DAI. What one does with it in terms of political (ab)use is a completely different matter; nevertheless, I would see no objection to its use in a potential article about the history of the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because it illustrates DAI - one of the basic texts for the study of region's medieval history. --66.139.77.214
Ah, one book from one scholar has something like that, and you've not seen it contested, and that makes it, and whatever else people extrapolate from it regardless of context, the universal truth. Rrrright. --Joy [shallot]
I have already explained why Image:Cpw10ct.gif is a piece of completely hyperbolic wishful thinking with regard (at least) to the western border at Image talk:Cpw10ct.gif and the linked Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina#pictures_recently_uploaded_by_Jwalker_and_ARD. It's amusing that this is revisited, but the distinction between amusing and annoying is quickly disappearing... --Joy [shallot] 09:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Joy: I transferred this discussion to the Talk page under the map itself - there is no point of having it here anyways. I added some more historiographical sources you can take a look at if you want to have a serious discussion about the DAI map. It seems to me that you tend to dismiss the map because you don't like what you see on it (which is about impression, not historical accuracy).
Well, judging by what you wrote at Image talk:Cpw10ct.gif, I could say the same thing... --Joy [shallot]

Perhaps I will open new article about history of Serbs in BIH/RS, if my free time allow me to do this. However, I am more interested in history of various political or geographical regions in the territory of Former Yugoslavia, then in the history of nations who live there (including history of Serb nation). So, I want to focus on two most important questions about history of RS: (1) it is not appropriate to start history of RS with the year 1991. It should to be at least some brief history of the region before 1991. This history could be titled: early history of the region, and we could at least wrote to which countries territory of present-day RS belonged in history (In 2 or 3 sentences at maximum). I will not insist that we include history of Serbs here, but we can wrote that territory of present-day RS belonged in history to Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungary, etc. (2) Vrbaska banovina is clearly an political predecessor of RS (They even shared same capital city), and it should be mentioned in this early history. User:PANONIAN

I completely agree with what Asim Led wrote about the present "Early History" section. It may be fixable, but as it is now, it's just silly. I can see why someone would want it, but it's still silly. The articles on the history of BiH and the article on the Serbs are appropriate, existent, and sufficient. --Joy [shallot] 22:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem to make a serious discussion about what to put in early history of RS section, but I do not agree with statement that early history of RS is covered with articles about history of BIH and history of Serbs (History of RS is completely other subject then history of BIH or history of Serbs). Now, look these articles about some other regions of Balkans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania You can see that both, Dalmatia and Transylvania have their own early histories written here (Their histories are not covered with articles about history of Croatia or Romania). RS is not different then any other region of Balkans and it should to have its own early history section too. Here is what I will do: I will open early history section again, but I will post there only few (I hope) undisputed facts from the recent history. So, I will leave space for other people to fulfil this section with more facts, which they regard as important. User:PANONIAN

Panonian, your comparison with Dalmatia (at least) does not make sense because the region of Dalmatia was *called* Dalmatia several centuries before the Slavs came, whereas the statelet of Republika Srpska has been called Republika Srpska since 1992, and never before in recorded history. A section about what came before can perhaps be alled "origins", but not "early history". And those origins are in the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are they not? Was it not the argument of those same people who founded the RS that they were being ignored as a constitutional nation of BiH when the republic's independence was being voted on? --Joy [shallot] 11:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling like I am taking crazy pills here. Dalmatia and Transylvania have early histories because they existed for several centuries and there is something to say about it. The information that you provide in Early History of RS is to say the least limited and false. You conviniently took out of the context few episodes in region's long and complex history and presented them as historical facts that are supposed to proove... what?? I don't see any relation of Vrbaska banovina (whose history is also quite missguided by the way) with today's RS. Your activity on this article is clearly done in a bad faith in order to misguide the truth about RS, which is pure and simple. There was no RS before 1992 and there was no RS history before 1992 (other than history of Serbs) nor there was a historical precedent that would justify creation of RS before 1992. Please move your assumptions and suppositions to an appropriate article where they can be verified agianst the complete set of facts about the region and people that inhabit it. --Dado 19:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For Dado: I want opinion about this issue from somebody who is not Bosniak or Croat (And who is not enemy of the Serbs and enemy of RS).User:PANONIAN

This bit is particularly enlightening to your attitude... Please stop imagining excessive hostility towards the Serbs and the RS where there is none. There has been little or no excessive partisanship in this article, only the occasional exchange of provocations that were soon reverted. The article clearly was not written from a POV that bashes RS, but one that analyzes it fairly normally. --Joy [shallot]

My opinion is that current version of RS history is anti-Serb and it sends certain political message. So, you and your friends here are the one who want to prove something with current version of RS history. You want to justify your political opinion that RS should be abolished.User:PANONIAN

Where do you find this opinion justification issue? Maybe in "A revision or withdrawal of the Dayton Agreement would not cause a discontinuation of Republika Srpska [...], only a democratic consensus."? If you are able to find this opinion in the article text that merely points out facts, maybe you yourself are afraid that the opinion is warranted and feel a need to counteract it? --Joy [shallot]

So your one-sided version of RS history tends to create a false impression that RS is genocide state. Serbs and RS can’t be charged for any kind of genocide, because genocide was only committed by one regime and isolated individuals, who have nothing to do with Serbs and RS. Statements about concentration camps (and similar things) have no place in normal and neutral history of RS!!! And you do not see relation between RS and Vrbaska banovina only because you do not want to see. I will not argue with you about this any more. You can continue to spread anti-Serb propaganda until some Serb who lives in RS come here to deal with you (I am not much interested in this article). User:PANONIAN

And Dado, I noticed that you wrote large historical section about history of Bosanska Krajina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosanska_Krajina So, an non-existing region such is Bosanska Krajina could to have its own early history, while RS (which is more state then region) can`t. User:PANONIAN

You are wholly incorrect about that. The history section for the region of Bosanska Krajina begins at the point where that territory acquired its name - it explains how it was called before when it became a territorial unit in itself (not just an unnamed part of other units) in *one single paragraph*, and then starts talking about it under that name. --Joy [shallot]

Panonian: I would suggest you to cool off and refrain from any more personal attacks (ie. fascists and hypocrite) as this clearly falls under Wikipidia's vandalism definition.--Dado 22:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What ever you say. You will--Dado 04:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)--Dado 04:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) not see me again in this talk page. User:PANONIAN

I said that I will not come to this talk page again, but I have to answer some claims here. I will not discuss here any more history of RS, but, Joy, just look this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosanska_Krajina See what is written there: "The numbers are still not determined but it is estimated that anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 Bosnians were executed as part of the ethnic cleansing campaign of the Bosnian Serbs". The person who wrote this (I will not name this person) accused the whole Serbian nation (not only responsible individuals) for ethnic cleansing against "Bosnians" (What ever "Bosnians" are in this case). Yet, the same person didn’t wanted to say that Serbs were ethnically cleansed from parts of Bosanska Krajina (And many Serbs were executed too). We know that Serbs were majority in Bosanski Petrovac, Drvar, Bosansko Grahovo, Glamoc and Kupres. It is obvious that Serbs were ethnically cleansed from that parts of Bosanska Krajina, but somebody didn’t wanted to mention this. And you claim that these articles are not anti-Serb.User:PANONIAN

Well, the sentence you quoted is narrow in scope, but it appears to be true (Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats and whoever else count as "Bosnians"). If there was other ethnic cleansing, please edit the article to include that. The above claim does not actually *contradict* yours. Just because someone is describing what happened to one's own people that doesn't make them anti-<other people>. On the other hand, when someone says that Serbia reached up to Una river in the 10th century, this *contradicts* the other texts that says medieval Croatia was there instead. --Joy [shallot]

Ok, you don’t have to trust me, I do not live in RS, but ask some Serb who live in RS and he will tell you are these articles anti-Serb or not. And I will not write article about history of Serbs in BIH/RS (If somebody else want to write this article, he is free to do that). My intention only was to write an early history of RS, but I can`t work with people who have political attitude. RS is mainly populated with Serbs and I regard every attempt to delete history of Serbs from early history of RS as attack on these Serbs.User:PANONIAN

But it's not the entire history of the Serbs that is being deleted, merely those narrow statements. The word Serbs is linked very early on in the article and when one clicks on it they get to the history of the Serbian nation. If you wish, we can make that explicit by saying For the origins of Republika Srpska, please see Serbs#History in the history section. --Joy [shallot] 12:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For example, you will never see me to write anything about Serb history in Kosovo page of wikipedia, because Kosovo is mainly populated with Albanians (And you will also never see me to delete history of Albanians there). Unlike some people, I am tolerant towards other nations, but I have zero tolerance towards certain political attitudes. User:PANONIAN

I have copied the last edit by Panonian to the Bosanska Krajina discussion page. Please if you have any objection regarding that article to use the appropriate discussion page as this topic is getting out of control. --Dado 04:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we are close to consensus here about the origins section, but I have to note that article about Bosanska Krajina is not history, but more geography. User:PANONIAN

autochthon history of RS

Maybe we found some compromise about early history of RS section, but the discussion about this question is far from over. All regions (and countries) in this World have two kinds of histories: "autochthon history" and "imposed history". Term "imposed history" means history of region in the periods of time, when that region was under foreign rule (term foreign rule could be defined in many ways, including the definition that even some present day regions are currently under foreign rule of country where they are located). On the contrary, autochthon history means history of region in the periods of time, when that region or its present constituent parts were independent or autonomous. Only autochthon history is a true history of any region in the World.

I admit that my knowledge about history of RS is not significant, so, I suggest that people who have more knowledge about this subject then me should to write the true autochthon history of RS. All independent or autonomous political creations, which originally existed in the territory of present day Republika Srpska, are important for this autochthon history.

So far, I found this:

1. Principality of Travunija (Trebinje) existed in the territory of present day RS in the 9th century.

2. Principe Pavle Radenovic ruled in the territory of present day RS in the 15th century.

3. Sandzak of Zvornik was administrative unit of Ottoman Empire in the 16th century.

4. Banja Luka County was administrative unit of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes between 1918 and 1922.

5. Vrbaska oblast was administrative unit of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes between 1922 and 1929.

6. Vrbaska banovina was province of Kingdom of Yugoslavia between 1929 and 1941.

7. Republika Srpska was established in 1992.

If anybody know more facts about autochthon history of RS (no matter if this autochthon history is connected to Serbs, Croats or Bosniaks), it would be good to post this information here, and then we can open new article about autochthon history of RS. User:PANONIAN

Regions in RS - again!

Where are you people getting this idea that Republika Srpska is divided into administrative 'regions'? There is no such thing as 'regions' in Republika Srpska, there are no offically existing administrative divisions in RS other then municipalities.

Srpska - noun and adjective

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

One-word name

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

Greater Serbia Link

This is the second time I have had to revert the anonymous deletion of the link to Greater Serbia. It is NOT conjecture or speculation that the geographical area comprised by the Republic is claimed by Serbian irridentists as part of a "Greater Serbia" - this is an objective fact. The link is highly relevant to anyone interested in the article and the causes of Balkan wars or Serbian irridentism, irrespective of whether that article or this one have ongoing debates with respect to neutrality. Anonymous users should not be constantly logging on and deleting RELEVANT links to other articles because of some bizarre POV they may have. The issue is quite simple: (a) There is (and has been for some time0 such a thing as Serbian irridentism, characterized by a wish to establish (or re-establish) a Greater Serbia. (b) A variety of geographical areas which are not currently part of the Republic of Serbia are claimed by adherents of Serbian irridentism to be part of a Greater Serbia (it may be obvious, but claiming certain geographical areas outside of current borders is required and definitive of and for the very existence of Serbian irridentism). (c) Republika Srpska comprises some of the geographical territory claimed by Serbian irridentists. (d) Therefore, a link to that article from this one is *most* appropriate. These are the objective facts. Please stop deleting links anonymously and from an obviously non-neutral POV that is simply interested in dissassociating this article from the claims made by Serbian irridentists. --Nicodemus75 21:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Geographical area comprised by the Republic is also claimed today by Croatian extremists as part of a "Greater Croatia" - this is also an objective fact. If Greater Serbia link should be here, so should a Greater Croatia one as well. To check the validity of my claim, see the Ustaše article, especially the Neo-Ustašism section and external links to present day Ustaša sites

One more thing: the area of RS is also claimed by adherents of Bosniak irridentism to be part of a Unitary Islamic Bosnia. If article have link to Greater Serbia, then should have links to Greater Croatia and Unitary Islamic Bosnia as well. The greatest threat for peace and stability in Bosnia are those people who want to turn this country into "Islamic Emirate". User:PANONIAN

That's fine, but there is no article for Unitary Islamic Bosnia, so it really is absurd to have a red-link to a non-existant article.--Nicodemus75 17:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right about that. There is also no proper article about Greater Croatia as well, since it is only redirect to the Independent State of Croatia, and that is not the same. I do not claim that Greater Serbia ideology do not exist, but it is not neutral to present only this ideology and not to present ideology of Greater Croatia or Unitary Bosnia. All these ideologies are equally destructive and somebody should write articles about last two for the sake of neutrality. User:PANONIAN

Chronic bad reverts and changes by anonymous user 81.93.75.129

Please stop making these unsubstantiated reversions and changes on a daily basis. Firstly, (and most importantly) your changes are riddled with grammatic errors which demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the English language and the meaning of some of the original text you keep trying to change, which you erroneously dub as "vandalism in action" (whatever that means). "In 2005, goverment of Republika Srpska refuse proposal for integrated police systems." Sentences of this poor nature have no place in the article, considering I have already expressed the rejection of the integration proposals in a grammatically correct manner. Secondly, your repeated reversions with respect to Banja Luka being the capital is a product of two things: an apparent lack of understanding of the unreverted paragraph which states that Banja Luka is the capital in the first place, and your refusal to provide a documented source that the constitution has been amended. Article 9 of the constitution names Sarajevo as the capital of Republika Srpska. I can find no evidence of an amendment to article 9 of the constitution in 2003 or any other time. The WP article already states that Banja Luka is the de facto capital of the state, there is no need for your constant (and grammatically incorrect) reversions stating an unproven change of capital in this manner. Your other changes are simply POV and nothing more, the fact remains that other Bosnians as objectively offended by some of the insignia. I have no horse in that race (not even being Slavic) - it is just a fact. Also note that this has been previously debated.--Nicodemus75 13:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

1. www.icty.org call Omarska, Tropolje and Manjaca detention camps so to call them concentration camps is untrue and that is vandalism. --81.93.75.129 09:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a semantic irrelevancy. "Detention Camp" and "Concentration Camp" are the same thing.--Nicodemus75 10:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Due to oxford dictionary, it is not. So, please use official ICTY terms. --81.93.75.129 10:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

2.To some, the name and insignia of Republika Srpska are inherently intolerant towards other Bosnians and evoke very negative connotations of war-time problems for them. This is also irrelevant because Republika Srpska is constitutional entity in Bosnia and Hercegovina. To some Serbians existence of Bosnia and Hercegovian envoke very negative connotations of war-time problems to them. But that sentence STILL don't appear in Bosnia and Hercegovina article. You add that sentence there and I can perserve old sentence (with evident grammar errors) here. --81.93.75.129 09:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This issue has already been debated and concensus reached by previous editors. The content of the article on Bosnia and Hercegovina is irrelevant to the contents of this article. I could care less what is or is not contained in that article or indeed if it has an article at all, for the purposes of stating factual and verifiable information in this article. "I" am not going to go "add" sentences to some other article because you want them there - if you wish to edit some other article, go ahead but contents of other articles have no relationship to your chronic unsubstantiated and poorly worded reversions here.--Nicodemus75 10:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see any concensus. If you don't have such sentenced in articles like Croatia (WW2 genocide in Croatia), in Germany, etc. it means that it don't have sence here either. --81.93.75.129 10:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Finally, you continue to revert out information regarding the capital of Repulika Srpska, despite my specific request to demonstrate that Article 9 of the constitution has been amended. If you do not stop making this blatantly POV reversion, I will have to file a complaint asking your power to edit this article be restricted. --Nicodemus75 10:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead - I have my opinion, you have yours. It don't SHOW that you have right. I must remind you that you had been suggested to use official ICTY (www.icty.org) information about war crimes in former Yugoslavia and you had been refused. So it might mean that you are biased. --81.93.75.129 10:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Constant changes and editing in "update-deduce" mode

I appreciate attempts to keep this page up to date, but I would also like to point out that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a news service. Changes that occur over time should be reflected in the article, but updating does not mean simply erasing the content that was previously true. To explain: last time I visited the page, it stated that the entity (RS) has its own army and ministry of defence. Now the page is only stating that the new state-level ministry is in charge, and that the entity armies are to be abolished - without any reference to the fact that the entity had its own army and ministry of defence during the 1992-2005 period (?). Next thing I suspect is that there won't be a word about entity's army in the article at all (with everybody wandering who was fighting the war there). This is not really updating - it is updating with constant deduction of important information along the way, and in my opinion this is not a way to do it. If there are changes (certain government branches are abolished, changed somehow or whatever), the new reality should indeed be reflected by the article but the old state of affairs should still be there as a reference (stated in past rather than present tense). I see that the main cause of these updates-deductions is user Dado, so I dedicate this comment (mostly) to him.

Unitary vs. united

I re-introduced unitary into the text, because this term implies a state that has no autonomous regions of any kind - only the state level and municipalities (thus, a highly centralized state rather than a federal/confederal arrangement). Bosnia without entities would be a unitary state. United Bosnian state means something else - it implies that there is in fact more than one Bosnian state which are supposed to unite, and that is not the case here.

A clear example of this would be the USA (the United States of America) - it is a federal state, but that does not mean that it is not united (or that it is disunited). If there were no state levels of government in the US that would imply a unitary state (centralized).

Ridiculous claim about the composition of the population

What is exactly the point of quoting erroneous information in the population segment of the article, and stating that the Serbs are 60% of the population when everybody knows that the Serbs are 85-90% of population in Republika Srpska, and that relocation caused by war on all sides is the fact of reality throughout Bosnia? There are no 27% of Bosniaks in Republika Srpska, and there are no 10% of Croats in Republika Srpska - this is science fiction and wishful thinking, and it should be removed from the article as such. Wikipedia is not a political forum but a collection of facts - some of you need to realize this.

Latest POV problems

  • Ethnic cleansing/Population transfer - doesn't matter to me, it just gets reverted with everything else.
    • It is ethnic cleansing. The word is used in all official documents in relevant institutions (Human Rights Watch, ICTY etc)
  • Languages - People who named the republic were speakers of a certain language and have named it in that language, and if it happens that some other languages have same grammar rules, it's completely irrelevant, be they official or not. For example, it may well happen that Slovene has the same rules, but it's irrelevant.
First of all, RS was officialy recognized in Paris in 1996. as a Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity with three official languages. So it is relevant. Emir Arven 13:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The name was not coined in 1996, but in 1991. Yes, three languages are official, but two of them had no influence on the name. Nikola 15:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
It makes no difference who coined the phrase. If you want to look at it that way than official language in RS is Croatian as the name was taken to parallel the Republika Hrvatska. --Dado 16:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
When explaining origin of a phrase, not only that it makes difference, who made the phrase is central issue. Croatian was not an official language, and the name is not parallel to Republika Hrvatska. Nikola 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, explain for instance why are you using words "international community" to describe NATO? Nikola 04:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


I have reverted Nikola's edits for following reasons: 1. He is removing critical factualy correct information from the article. 2. Edits were combination of reverts and edits manipulated in a way that one cannot track changes done by Nikola while questionable information is being sneeked in and other removed.

Both things are complete lies. Nikola
Do not resort to personal attacks. I have stated why I have issues with your edits and you should explain them (as you are doing) --Dado 16:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
No, you didn't explain why you have issues. You lied about my edits. And the third lie - I haven't made a personal attack. Nikola 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to dispute the article as it currently reads we will need to go point by point. Please list your issues here before editing the page again. Thanks --Dado 09:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • First, the two things mentioned above.
  • Official languages in RS are Serbian, Croatian and Bosniak, as is stated in the Constitution of RS.
    • In english there is no such thing as Bosniak language. It is Bosnian language --Dado 16:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but there is. Bosniak language is translation of phrase "Bosnjacki jezik" from Serbian. Nikola 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
        • And Bosnjacki jezik does not exist. It is a nationalistic extrapolation of Bosanski jezik as a pathetic attempt to discredit all things Bosnian. And why do you think we need to translate the word from Serbian language. We can go back and forth on this and I will not even attempt to change your opinion.--Dado 04:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
          • "Bosnjacki jezik" is phrase used, actually, prescribed to describe certain language in Serbian language. I think we should use the translation from Serbian because the constitution of RS is written in Serbian language. Nikola 19:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You are deleting info about UNHCR census, which is very important, as it is the only objective assessment of today's population of RS.
    • I have no problem with this data only if it is used in conjuction with data from 1991.
      • Don't see why not. Nikola 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Those responsible for concentration camps remain in positions of local authority." - who are they, who says that, etc. If they are responsible, why would Hague not indict them? If there is no evidence, then there is no evidence.
    • Some of them are indicted by the ICTY. Many are on lists scheduled for indictment at BiH courts. The section could be rephrased but the removal of the issue that the camps existed and were run by authorities of RS are facts.
      • If they are indicted, why are they not imprisoned? If they are "scheduled for indictment" (the first time I hear that there is such a thing), why are they not indicted? The issue remains. Nikola 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Are you claiming that concetration camps did not exist in Bosanska Krajina region and that RS authorities did not run it. There were several convictions at ICTY against people who participated in runing these camps. I will find more detailed info on it.--Dado 04:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
          • No, I'm only claiming that there's hardly someone who was a cook in one of them and isn't arrested by now. Nikola 19:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "name and insignia -- even the existence -- of Republika Srpska remains a matter of great controversy in Bosnia and Hercegovina, especially among the Bosniak population, many of whom view Republika Srpska as a state founded on genocide" - this would be funny if it would not be so mean. It is in fact Bosnia which is founded on genocide, for Serbs would likely be majority population in it had there not been genocide perpetrated upon them in WWII. Not to mention that for most Serbs even appropriation of words Bosnia, FBiH, Bosniak, Bosnian language etc. are a matter of controversy, yet respective articles don't mention it.
    • issue about name and insignia was disscussed before. Read the discussion. It is relevant to state that probably 70% of population of BiH considers RS to be founded on genocide. The genocide was proven at one occasion (Srebrenica) and indictments were issued for genocide on general teritory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yes there was a genocide over Serbs in WWII and it was conducted by fascist government of "Independent State of Croatia" which was defeated and disbanded. Bosniaks also suffered a genocide in WWII conducted by Chetnics predominantly in eastern Bosnia. Portraing name of Bosnia as equivalency for RS in historical context is misplaced and generaly manipulated by nationalist propaganda.--Dado 16:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I have, and I disagree still. We of course should write about feelings of 70% of BiH population, but it is not NPOV if, especially in this article, we write only about that and not about feelings of 90% of RS population (which, by the way, should be done in articles on BiH and FBiH as well - would you do it?). Your other points are irrelevant yet wrong - ICTY has no credibility whatsoever, the ISC government has employed local population to commit the crimes, Chetnik crimes are an order of magnitude or two smaller and could hardly be described as genocide, especially given reason for them. Nikola 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
        • We are talking about institutions here. Bosniaks dispute the RS institution (not necessarily Serbs) as much as ISC institution was (rightfully ) disputed in WWII. Again feelings about Bosnia are misguided and unjustified and used only to support nationalist politics. Also by claiming that ICTY has no credibility you have just lost all credibility. An intelegent person would not make such remark. We may have a creative revisions on hands here --Dado 04:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
          • No they don't. Bosnian Muslims dispute RS institutions much more than they have ISC's in WWII. And most Serbs dispute not only Bosnia as institution but even the very existence of Bosniaks, Bosnian language, their use of name "Bosnia", misappropriation of fleur-de-lis, etc. and you know that. And they would say that feelings about RS are misguided and unjustified and used only to support nationalist politics. And yet I have never felt the need to go to articles about Bosnia or Bosniaks and insert lengthy paragraphs about it.
            I don't know is is "intelegent" to claim that ICTY has no credibility, but it is true. ICTY is completely illegal, illegitimate, and doesn't have even a semblance of impartiality. It has no credibility whatsoever. Nikola 19:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "On December 15, 2003, the government of Republika Srpska established the Commission for the Investigation of the events" etc. - out of place, POV, and wrong. First, this is covered heavily in article on Srebrenica massacre, which is linked from this article. It is POV because that paragraph has around one fifth of its section, and it is heavily POV to create impression that the most important event in the war in which tens of thousands people were killed was a single massacre of 8,000, not to mention that the number is disputed; and it is heavily POV to devote so much space to it without devoting any space whatsoever to Serbian victims of the war. Finally, it is wrong, because the commission that the government established didn't actually arrive at that conclusion; but after that there was heavy political pressure, another commission was formed, and even then its member were pressured, etc. So, conclusions of the second commission can not be taken for granted, nor could the government's "acceptance" of them.
  • Large text below the map is overkill.
    • The texs is relevant. Perhaps it can be edited but not removed.
      • It is on the image page of the map and the caption says "click for more detail". Nikola 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Two versions about Dayton are similar, and I'm OK with both, though I think that it must be explicitly stated that cancelling of Dayton agreement would not cause a discontinuation of RS.
  • NATO and EU are not the international community, so the other version is factually inaccurate. Further, if the parliament is under pressure then it can't agree to anything. If someone points a gun to your head, do you agree to give him your wallet?
    • decisions were made based on influence by OHR which is UN appointed agency. UN is generally considered and international community. You obviously never had a gun pointed to your head to recognize the difference between a gun and political pressure.--Dado 16:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting that you can not be killed by political pressure? OHR is also mostly influenced by the same set of countries, so it still does not represent international community. Nikola 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The banknote is, as I said, not needed. There are no images of banknotes of countries in articles on their subdivisions.
    • The banknote is an RS issued version of official banknote in use in RS and BiH.
      • OK then, but it should have been in the caption. But the image says "Central bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina"? Nikola 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nikola 15:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Nikola asked me to look at this heating conversation and to give my oppinion. I've read the posts, and do have my comments, but some of these discusions are more/less closed by now, so I'll try to avoid heating them up again, and I'll just say that I mostly agree with Nikola's oppinions. -- Obradović Goran (talk 21:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say that the discussion is closed, but that both Dado and Emir were unwilling to discuss. Anyway, as we agree, I have edited the article to conform with the points. Nikola 09:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Let’s review shall we:

  • You are changing the name of Bosnian language to Bosniak language. Last time I checked we were speaking English and this is a Wikipedia in English language. Name Bosnian language is prescribed name. Serbs could call it Martian in their language for all I care but in this situation (or any other concerning English language) it is Bosnian.
    • English language doesn't have a body which prescribes words in it. Term "Bosniak language" is used in English alongside "Bosnian language", though more rarely. And the Constitution of RS uses term which in English would be translated as "Bosniak language". Nikola 11:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This is just Serb nationalism, again. Serb policy during the war in Bosnia is responsible for Srebrenica genocide killing more than 8000 people, because of their names and their identity, including language which they called Bosnian. The name of the language is defined in ISO-639 standard in English as Bosnian. All software (operating systems e.g. Windows XP and applications, including email services) use Bosnian language, because they act according to ISO standard.
Well, that bit about standards is all nice and true, but unfortunately, the constitution of Republika Srpska does not follow ISO 639 standard. Nikola 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
You are not improving the article, you are just continuing to spread nationalism, fascism and lies. And that is obviously your mission, according to your user page. --Emir Arven 13:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
My user page says that "My interest is in spreading knowledge about Serbs, Serbia, Serbian culture and history." Apparently it is YOU who has some problems when you read "Serbs" and think "fascism". Nikola 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You are removing the paragraph that talks about the name of RS. There are two court cases regarding this issue. First is a court case filed in the Bosnian constitutional court that asks for name of Republika Srpska to be changed as it clearly has a mono-ethnic connotations. For same reasons many cities in RS had to be changed to its original name. Second court case is in the International Criminal Court as part of the BiH vs Serbia Montenegro case for aggression that stipulates that aggression was conducted on Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which resulted in creation of illegal entity of Republika Srpska. (Federation of BiH could be considered illegal as well). Until these two cases are settled and judgments are made it is at least valid to point that there is a dispute about the name and existence of RS.
    • You are muddling the issue here. First, language rules for the creation of names of countries in Bosnian, and Croatian languages are irrelevant because the name is created in Serbian. Now, you don't want to hear my opinion about neutrality of Bosnian constitutional court or the International Criminal Court; either way, that paragraph is irrelevant POV commentary. As I said, for most Serbs even appropriation of words Bosnia, FBiH, Bosniak, Bosnian language etc. are a matter of controversy, yet respective articles don't mention it. I have not inserted such info in them because I don't think it is relevant, and so the same should apply here.
    • But, you know what, we might have reached an agreement here. If you still believe that that commentary is relevant, I'd let it stay in the article, but I'll also add equivalent commentary to articles on Bosnia, Bosnians, Bosniaks, Bosnian language etc. However, as I believe that they might attract vandalism, would you agree to revert such vandalism? If not, I can't let the commentary stay here as well as it would imbalance the article. Nikola 11:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said before you are just nationalist which is opsessed with Serbs, so you are not acting in the spirit of Wikipedia, so you are ready to spread incorrect information. But there is a cure for such behaviour. Emir Arven 13:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You are removing paragraphs about Srebrenica investigation which can only be seen as vandalism. I don’t understand what is your reasoning for removal of those valid and correct texts.
    • I shall copy the relevant paragraph from when I have first started the discussion, which has not been answered to:
    • "On December 15, 2003, the government of Republika Srpska established the Commission for the Investigation of the events" etc. - out of place, POV, and wrong. First, this is covered heavily in article on Srebrenica massacre, which is linked from this article. It is POV because that paragraph has around one fifth of its section, and it is heavily POV to create impression that the most important event in the war in which tens of thousands people were killed was a single massacre of 8,000, not to mention that the number is disputed; and it is heavily POV to devote so much space to it without devoting any space whatsoever to Serbian victims of the war. Finally, it is wrong, because the commission that the government established didn't actually arrive at that conclusion; but after that there was heavy political pressure, another commission was formed, and even then its member were pressured, etc. So, conclusions of the second commission can not be taken for granted, nor could the government's "acceptance" of them.
    • As you don't mention other issues, I hope they are no longer a problem now. Nikola 11:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a sick person can deny genocide in Srebrenica. Emir Arven 13:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a demented person can believe that everyone will believe something just because ICTY said so. Nikola 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Or let me give it a shot: It seams to me that your primary goal here is to portray RS as a state which is not quite independent but it sure would very much like to be independent but unfortunately it is hindered by piles of corpses that it was founded on and, darn it, it is part of a legally recognized country already. So the first thing to do is to disassociate RS with anything that refers to its legal “guardian” BiH or which is being identified as Bosnian. More perversely the next thing is to eliminate all those pesky corpses that are stifling our progress towards independence so let’s just shove them under the carpet (or secondary mass grave). Pathetic. --Dado 18:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would I have to do that when RS was created when Bosnia was still not a legally recognised country, and the Other Entity also has some piles of corpses on its own? Nikola 11:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Bosnia was recognised as independent country in april 1992. So you have again showed your Serb nationalism, spreading lies. But this is not strange becaue the ICTY is full of Serb War Criminals who have identical story. Emir Arven 13:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Republika Srpska was created in January 1992. Last time I checked January comes before April. Nikola 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nikola, I am not muddling the issue. It is as clear as day. There are cases in the court that talk about the name and existance of RS. To me it means that not only there is a public and political perception of the issue but there is also a legal backing for the claim. Comparison to the name of Bosnia is laughable. If you had a valid argument, one that is paralell to the one that I presented than you may had a point. On the other hand name Bosnia, Bosnian, Bosniak are internationally recognized and not disputed by anyone in any legal institution. Per your logic I could claim that there are many who dispute the name Serbs, Serbia, or Serbian (I would not do it because it would be equally rediculous).

I was referring to how you covered several issues at the same place. Yes, the issue exist, and I know that it exist, but I don't think it should be presented in this article, especially if similar issues are not presented in other articles on related topics. That there are no court cases in opposite direction is not surprising, legal system is not applicable to them. Nikola 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Even your claim that most Serbs disdain name Bosnian is dubious. I know many Serbs who don't object or in the worst case don't even have an opinion on the name. What you are talking about is a radical fringe (which you may be a part of); hardly a mainstream opinion.

Not the name, but the use of it. Nikola 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly on your personal page you are stating that you speak Bosnian language but you would not want to see the same noted on here as well.

Well, this page isn't about me, is it? Nikola 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of Srebrenica section. The section could be edited and reduced since there is a comprehensive article on Srebrenica that this article is refering to, but what you are doing is trying to completely disassociate RS involvement and responsibility for Srebrenica by deleting the entire secion. It is a worst case of warcrimes and genocide and it deserves to be mentioned. Your other comments and claims are simply wrong, pushing POV and pushing agenda.--Dado 15:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, it is not certain that it is the worst case, and even if it would be, it would still not warrant mentioning if other cases, some of them quite bad as well (for example killing of around 2500 Serbs in Kazani), aren't mentioned. RS certainly isn't dissociated with Srebrenica by removal of it, it is linked in the previous paragraph. Nikola 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The "so-called" IEBL line (why "so-called"?).

Why are some users constantly trying to present IEBL (Inter-Entity Boundary Line) as a "so-called IEBL" in the main article? IEBL has full official existence recognized through international agreements - there is nothing "so-called" about it (?). Please stop with this nonsense.

RS population information

Republika Srpska population info that I posted in the article can be found in a purchased copy of CIA 2005 factbook (September 20th, 2005). Basic scaled-down country information (in this case for Bosnia-Herzegovina) can be found online. Please do not remove information as 'poor' and 'unconvincing' - it is available in print and official.


I was referring Nikola's edits and mistakenly deleted your edits. Sorry for confusion. Could you also sign your edits. It feels strange talking to an IP address. Thanks --Dado 16:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

RS Municipalities

For the RS government's list of municipalities, see [2].

For the Constitutional Court decision (in English), see case U 44-01 decided September 21, 2004, at [3]. 24.30.82.211 18:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

For the list of new names established after the decision, see [4] (turn off Javascript, the page will redirect you to main page) Nikola 06:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Republican Administrative Units

Could person who added the section about Administrative Units clarify the name Republican. In english this word has different meanings from what may had been the intent of adding the name in this article and as it is currently used in the article it may be missleading and unclear. Plase provide original untranslated word. Thanks --Dado 21:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

In every case, the word is "republički" ("републички"). The translation "republican" is taken from the official English translation supplied by the OHR's legal department. The Law on Ministries ("Zakon o ministarstvima"/"Закон о министарствима"), available here: [5]. 24.30.82.211 19:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


Reason why I asked is becaude word "Republican" in most commonly used in the US to mean a member of or pertaining to the US Republican party and it is a first thing that comes to mind when reading about Administrative units you added. Eventhough, the article is about Republika Srpska it is the first thought that comes to mind and makes the section very strange to read. Also this wikipedia follows the original name of Republika Srpska and not the translated one so it would be a good idea to stay consistant when describing the Administrative units as well. I have added that administrative units pertain to RS. --Dado 03:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Emir Arven

"Incorrect! it was never recognised as a state. if u have something relevant to show (as an international official document) show us! and dont delete parts before discussion"

First you learn what an state is and then talk. Republika Srpska is internationally recognized as an "entity", but this entity is a state, not independent one, but it is a state within the Confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. User:PANONIAN

Bosnia is defined in the Deyton agreement not as a confederation, nor RS is defined as a state. Maybe you have some other official documents? Emir Arven 13:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So what if it is not defined in the Dayton agreement. It is not only thing which could define a state. Bosnia have attributes of an confederation and Republika Srpska have attributes of an state.

User:PANONIAN

As for the discussion, you deleted part about expelled Serbs from BIH Federation with no discussion. You want to hide the crimes of Bosniak government during the war, do you? User:PANONIAN

Well it was not true and this is not the article about Federation. Momcilo Krajisnik, one of the many Serb leaders that are now awaiting the trial in ICTY for War Crimes, invited the Serbs to move from Federation to RS. This saying is recorded, and DISS (Serb organization from Sarajevo) said that Serbs moved to RS because of his invitation and they are now sorry for that. Emir Arven 13:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

What is not true? Is in not true that Bosniak government during the war killed and expelled numerous Serbs? Please... Of course it is the truth, and those expelled Serbs escaped to Republika srpska, the only place where they were safe. And of course that Serbs were invited to move to RS, it was only place where they were safe from persecutions. User:PANONIAN

The opinion of hard-line Bosniak nationalists should Republika Srpska exist or not is not relevant for this article. The Bosniak government during the war was no better than the government of Republika Srpska and terrible crimes against ethnic Serbs were commited on the territories controlled by Bosniak government. PANONIAN 02:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Bull shit. The government in Sarajevo was the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the only legal and multiethnic government which was recognized by UN and the international community. On the other hand Serb rebellious government commited genocide in Srebrenica, and confessed that in 2005. Emir Arven 13:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Multiethnic givernment? Dont be ridiculous. It was Bosniak islamist government, even Osama Bin Laden was the guest of that government. And you forget to say that Muslim army from Srebrenica commited genocide against Serb civilians in neighbouring villages, did you? User:PANONIAN

Relevance of the claim about existance and name or RS is pointed out several times on this talk page. Please read it. Iterestingly most of the crimes commited against Serbs in Bosnian war happened in late 1993 and 1994 nearly two years after Serbs commited their crimes. One could consider it as retributions (although that does not excuse it). Also comparison of level of crimes of Bosniak government as same as level of crimes commited by Serb government is hardly valid and accurate keeping in mind that in 1993 and 1994, when majority of so called Bosniak crimes took place, Serbs held 70% of teritory of Bosnia while Bosniaks were fighting for the remaining 10% (20% being controlled by Croats). Bosniaks reported by far most casulties from the Bosnian war. It is also evident from ICTY that Serbs are by far most convicted for war crimes (some 75% while 5% of Bosniaks are convicted) --Dado 07:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Also what is "Confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina"? RS is an entity. End of story. Read Dayton agreement if you need proof--Dado 07:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first victim of the war was ethnic Serb (the wedding in Sarajevo). One could consider later killing of ethnic Bosniaks as retributions (although that does not excuse it), dont you agree?

As for the entity, entity is a state, I have nothing to talk with non-educated people who do not know what an state is. Texas is a state, Bavaria is a state, Tamil Nadu is a state, and Republika Srpska is a state. All of them are states, just not independent ones.

Also, Dado, and Emir, you should consider that your "crusade" against Republika Srpska here is finished. I did not have time before to deal with you, but I have it now, so I will greatly improve the article about Republika Srpska, and when I finish with it, the article will contain 0% of Bosniak POV and nationalist propaganda. User:PANONIAN

You shouldnt behave like a vandal. Wikipedia is not a place for wars, I understand that Serb nationalists think so, but it is really sad. You should give some useful contribution, not just lies and propaganda. The whole world is aware what has happened in Bosnia during the war. There is ICTY and around 120 Serbs, War Criminals, there. They had the sam story that you tell us here now. Don't be so pathetic. Emir Arven 13:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I am fed up with Serb nationalism and their lunatics who spread lies and incorrect information. You didn't show us any relevant document which says that RS is a state. It is just your POV. Entity, canton or a province are not the states. The first victim was not a Serb, they were Bosnian Croats in the village called Ravno in 1991, when Serb army destroyed the village and killed their people. After that there were Bosniak victims in Bijeljina and eastern Bosnia. And Radovan Karadzic in October 1991. said that the Serbs would killed Bosniaks and destroy Bosnia and Herzegovina. Emir Arven 13:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Emir, maybe you should, at least from time to time, engage in discussion, and not just ramble about Serb nationalists. Just a suggestion. Nikola 19:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I should not behave like vandal? Emir, you and Dado vandalizing this article for very long time with your nationalistic POV. I decided to make this article neutral in accordance with Wikipedia policy of neutrality. Am I nationalist because I want to clean the article from Bosniak nationalist POV? Please say what was nationalistic in my edits? You cannot, do you? But I can say what was nationalistic in your edits: fact is that ALL sides in Bosnian war commited war crimes and ethnic cleansing. It is against the Wikipedia policy to present here only Serb crimes and not to present Bosniak and Croat crimes against Serbs. I moved history section to separate article simply to prevent revert wars here, but if you want revert war with me you should know that nobody ever won in revert war with me. You are welcome to try of course.

I will not lower myself to your level of discussion about the question who started the war and who is convicted for war crimes. It is irrelevant. The important thing is to make neutral article and not one-sided Bosniak nationalist POV. Talking only about Serb cromes and not about Bosniak crimes is not a neutral manner of presentation. You talk about Srebrenica, but you do not talk that Muslim army from Srebrenica burned numerous ethnic Serb villages around the city and killed numerous Serb civilians in these villages before Serb army decided to capture the town to stop these attacks. The proper neutral manner of writing is to write about that too. There are only 2 manners to make neutral article:

  • 1. To write about things in neutral manner
  • 2. To post Bosniak POV and Serbian POV together, not only Bosniak one.

As for the question is a Republika Srpska state or not, the something which is named "Republic" cannot be anything else but a state. Every republic is a state. PANONIAN 18:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, I think that we should continue our discussion here: Talk:History of Republika Srpska. PANONIAN 19:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

"nobody ever won in revert war with me" are you people 5 year old. Take your blinds off. Nobody presented a counterarguement since my last comment--Dado 21:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Just joking about revert war, but I am quite often on the net, so I can revert pages quite often too. What your last comment you have in mind? My intention only was to prevent further revert wars on Republika Srpska page, and to move the dispute about history of RS to the appropriate article. I left only few sentences about history here, which do not include POV or the "speech of hate". The article about Republika Srpska should only say what Republika Srpska is, not to represent the opinios about its history. Besides this the history section was one-sided Bosniak nationalist POV and it is against the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. What is your counterarguement to this? PANONIAN 22:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should say something I can comment on and not generalize eveything as "Bosniak nationalist POV", whatever that it. Lets clarify something. What do you consider a "speech of hate". Be as specific as possible and state particular words and sentances that were noted on the article that made you come to such a conclusion. --Dado 22:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, what can you comment on anyway? Maybe this: the neutral way of presentation is to have article, which is not insulting for any of the 3 nations, which live in the Republika Srpska. Your version of the article is insulting for Serbs. Why? We know that all sides are guilty for the war crimes. If you write only about war crimes commited against the Bosniaks and do not talk about war crimes commited against the Serbs, then you send the message that Serb life is not important, you send the message that Serbs are minnor race, which should be exterminated.

Second thing, you can see that I did not deleted nothing, but simply moved history section to the new article. Since I moved it there, we do not need to have all that written here too. What I object here is the manner of presentation. The article about Republika Srpska should be neutral and should not represent the points of view (either Serb or Bosniak ones). An encyclopaedia article should have some important facts about its subject, in this case the subject is RS. Also, the article should not be insulting for people who live in RS (for all 3 peoples who live in RS). My version of the article is not insulting for any of these 3 peoples, but your version is (if my version is insulting for anybody, please say so).

Third thing, what is a Bosniak nationalist POV? For people who do not know this (you are not one of those people, of course), Bosniak nationalist POV is the point of view which have goal to spread propaganda to achive certain political purpose. The political goal of Bosniak nationalists is to create unitary ethnic state of Bosnia and Herzegovina only for ethnic Bosniaks, while Serbs and Croats would have only a minority status in that country (It is against the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which say that all 3 peoples, Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats are 3 nations of this country). Since it want to create unitary state, the Bosniak nationalism also want to abolish political entities, which make a country of Bosnia and Herzegovina (This is also against the constitution of this country, since the constitution recognize 2 political entities - Republika Srpska and BIH Federation). To achive the goal of "unitary state with no entities", the Bosniak nationalism spread propaganda against Republika Srpska, since RS as an entity is a barrage for creating unitary Bosnia. With this propaganda, the Bosniak nationalists want to "prove" that RS is "a genocidal creation", thus, because of "its genocidal nature it should be abolished". It is clear that they do not care about "genocidal nature" of RS, since if we use this view, the other entity (BIH Federation) would be also a "genocidal creation", as well as many countries of modern Europe. The obvious conclusion is that only problem, which Bosniak nationalists have with RS is that RS exist (no matter how the RS is created). So, every attempt to present RS as a "genocidal creation" is nothing but a Bosniak nationalist POV, which have one certain political goal - the abolishment of RS.

According to Wikipedia policy of neutrality, which do not support such political ideas, this kind of the presentation of the history of RS is not acceptable for one Wikipedia article. There should be separate articles which should speak about war crimes commited during the war against all 3 nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but this article should be only neuntral and non-biased representation of Republika Srpska, and which will not support political ideas of nationalistic politicians. The article should be written in the spirit of peace and tolerance and should not be insulting for anybody. I think that my version of the article is neutral and if somebody think that it is not, he should say this. PANONIAN 00:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, it is clear that the history of RS was tragic, it is clear that all peoples of RS - Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats suffered in the past, but we should not polute the present and the future with this tragic past. What can somebody think about the people who want to use this tragic past to achive their political goals? Those people who use the victims of Srebrenica for political purposes actually killing them for second time. Every crime have a name and a surname. People who commited crimes are charged for these crimes and they are now in prison (if they not, they should be there of course). But what can someone think about people who use the mischance of the war victims to create new conflicts or new wars. It is pathetic and it is sad. PANONIAN 01:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You are still rambling about nationalism. I have asked you simply what specific things in the article allow you to make a conclusion that article is written with bias and that there is a “speech of hate”.

I do not care for your perceptions of what Bosniaks want. I don’t care what they want nor what you want for RS. I do care that relevant facts about Republika Srpska are prominently placed on this article, facts which you are removing, hiding and censoring. These facts which are currently removed need to find their way back in the article

  1. Involvement of RS in Srebrenica genocide commited in its name as defined by ICTY and supporting organizations.
  2. Involvement of RS in the amount of war crimes commited in its name during the Bosnian War
  3. Involvement of RS in running of concentration/detention camps as they were reported by Human Rights Watch
  4. Involvement of RS in ethnic cleansing on its territory as it was reported by Human Rights Watch and proven by ICTY and numerous other agencies
  5. Involevement of RS in destruction of Bosnian-Herzegovinian heritage and culture on the teritory they currently occupy with facts collected by Anex 8 Commision for Protection of National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  6. Dispute about the name, insignia and hymn of RS as the court case is filed with Bosnian Herzegovinian constitutional court and
  7. Existence of RS as it is disputed through the case filed at the International Criminal Court that accuses Serbia Monte Negro for aggression on Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and de facto occupation through an illegal entity.

Once we have those truths established than we can talk about what you call “the spirit of peace and tolerance”.

For all equivalencies that you are pointing out, some of which need to be verified for accuracy, you are free to present them at their appropriate articles (Federation of BiH) --Dado 01:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that I explained very good the nature of Bosniak nationalistic POV. Your last post here is just another example of this nationalistic POV. I will repeat, these things which you want to put into article represent the one-sided biased way of presentation. You want to write about crimes commited against Bosniaks and you do not want to write about crimes commited against the Serbs. You want to post here only the Bosniak point of view. It is not disputed that some of the things you mentioned happened in the past, it is disputed should we include these things into this article or not. First of all this is article about Republika Srpska, not about history of Republika Srpska. I do not see why these things from the history should be mentioned in this article, since we have separate article about history of Republika Srpska, where these things are already mentioned. Why you want to place these things into this article? Can you explain your reasons? Do you want just to prove your political point or what? Here are your words: "Once we have those truths established". Well, did you know? Wikipedia is not a place for "establishing the truth". It is place for encyclopaedic presentation of subject. If you are here to prove some political point, please find another place for this. Also, these things from the history of RS are completelly irrelevant for the RS article. It is part of the RS history and proper place for this is RS history article. Also, I do not know what I can talk more with you. I just want to other people on Wikipedia know the nature of your edits and political goals, which stand behind them. If you want serious discussion with me, please answer two simple questions:

  • 1. What is wrong with the current article?
  • 2. Why you insist to post entioned things into article?

PANONIAN 02:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to answer some things from your post. One by one:

  • Srebrenica massacre was a retaliation for war crimes commited by Bosniak army from Srebrenica against the Serb civilians in neighbouring villages. If you write about Srebrenica and not mention this, then your writting would be biased.
  • War crimes were commited by all 3 sides in war and nobody here is innocent.
  • Concentration camps were held by all 3 sides.
  • Ethnic cleansing was performed by all 3 sides.
  • Destruction of heritage was act of all 3 sides.
  • Name of the RS is not disputed but officially recognized by the constitution of the RS and the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The fact that few nationalistic lunatics think that name of RS is disputed is not good reason to post this sentence into article.
  • The existence of RS is also not disputed but officially recognized by the BIH constitution and by the Internatiopnal community. Also, it is not International Criminal Court that accused Serbia-Montenegro for aggression, but former Bosniak government (You lie here with purpose or what?). Also, Serbia and Montenegro did not commited agression against Bosnia, it was civil war between people of Bosnia, while Republika Srpska is a entitity of those people who live in it. PANONIAN 02:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What planet do you live on! Do you follow news, read reports, books. I am starting to believe that you are writing from a cellblock in The Haag jail. I am talking about the article and the subject matter and you keep talking about me!?

Article as it currently reads, while it is accurate to a certain degree, is simplistic and hardly describes the situation in reality. It resembles German national mood immediately after WWII.

Above truths (established or presented) are relevant because the entire country is stuck in them socially, culturally, economically and politically. It is the everyday subject for its population and it can be found in every aspect of their life. The country cannot progress (move towards European integrations) because they are stuck in this history and the denial is not helping while revisionism and censorship is insulting causing strain and tensions (more so than the truth itself). This is free encyclopedia after all and should respect the right to free speech. Again and this time without pointing out questionable moral equivalencies and inverting the truth:

  1. Involvement of RS in Srebrenica genocide commited in its name as defined by ICTY and supporting organizations.
  2. Involvement of RS in the amount of war crimes commited in its name during the Bosnian War
  3. Involvement of RS in running of concentration/detention camps as they were reported by Human Rights Watch
  4. Involvement of RS in ethnic cleansing on its territory as it was reported by Human Rights Watch and proven by ICTY and numerous other agencies
  5. Involevement of RS in destruction of Bosnian-Herzegovinian heritage and culture on the teritory they currently occupy with facts collected by Anex 8 Commision for Protection of National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  6. Dispute about the name, insignia and hymn of RS as the court case is filed with Bosnian Herzegovinian constitutional court and
  7. Existence of RS as it is disputed through the case filed at the International Criminal Court that accuses Serbia Monte Negro for aggression on Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and de facto occupation through an illegal entity.

--Dado 03:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"What planet do you live on! Do you follow news, read reports, books. I am starting to believe that you are writing from a cellblock in The Haag jail."

LOL. Very funny. By the way, you cannot discuss here with me like a man, but you have to perform a personal "crusade" against me on the entire Wikipedia and to cry for help? Is that not childish?

"I am talking about the article and the subject matter and you keep talking about me!?"

No, I talking about biased nature of the things you want to post to the article.

"Article as it currently reads, while it is accurate to a certain degree, is simplistic and hardly describes the situation in reality. It resembles German national mood immediately after WWII."

We do not talk here about Germany but about RS and Bosnia. How do you know what is a national mood in this country since you live in USA? So, you agree then that current version of the article is accurate and not insulting for anybody? Your version of the article was here for some time and because of its biased nature it was a subject for constant revert wars. Do we need this on Wikipedia? We dont. We need an article which will not be biased and subject for revert wars. So, please say which one of these two goals is your:

  • 1.Do you want to work with me to find a compromise and to create non-biased neutral article, which will be acceptable for all, and which will not be insulting for anybody, or
  • 2.Do you want to "establish here your biased truths", which are not truth but views of SDA political leaders, and which will be subject of constant revert wars in the future as they were in the past?

So, which one of these 2 is your goal? Do you want to write neutral and decent article or to damage Wikipedia project with nationalist propaganda? If you want serious discussion how article should look, I will discuss with you.

"Above truths (established or presented) are relevant because the entire country is stuck in them socially, culturally, economically and politically."

Let be clear about one thing. What you call "truths" are not truths but political views of nationalistic extremists from Bosniak SDA party. So, the nature of their views is biased, thus not acceptable for Wikipedia.

"It is the everyday subject for its population and it can be found in every aspect of their life."

Wrong. It is every day subject for nationalistic lunatics from SDA political party. Ordinary people in Bosnia or RS do not care about this shit, but they care how they will find a job and live their lives.

"The country cannot progress (move towards European integrations) because they are stuck in this history and the denial is not helping while revisionism and censorship is insulting causing strain and tensions (more so than the truth itself)."

The country cannot progress because some people like you are stuck in this history (fortunatelly for the country, you do not live there, but let the people who live there to live in peace). You are obvious representative of revisionism here.

"This is free encyclopedia after all and should respect the right to free speech."

Only if this "free speech" is not insulting nationalistic propaganda.

As for your 7 lies (you call them "truths"), no need to repeat them, but since you did, I will repeat my answers to them:

  • Srebrenica massacre was a retaliation for war crimes commited by Bosniak army from Srebrenica against the Serb civilians in neighbouring villages. If you write about Srebrenica and not mention this, then your writting would be biased.
  • War crimes were commited by all 3 sides in war and nobody here is innocent.
  • Concentration camps were held by all 3 sides.
  • Ethnic cleansing was performed by all 3 sides.
  • Destruction of heritage was act of all 3 sides.
  • Name of the RS is not disputed but officially recognized by the constitution of the RS and the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The fact that few nationalistic lunatics from SDA political party think that name of RS is disputed is not good reason to post this sentence into article.
  • The existence of RS is also not disputed or illegal but officially recognized by the BIH constitution and by the Internatiopnal community. Also, it is not International Criminal Court that accused Serbia-Montenegro for aggression, but former Bosniak government (You lie here with purpose or what?). Also, Serbia and Montenegro did not commited agression against Bosnia, it was civil war between people of Bosnia, while Republika Srpska is a entitity of those people who live in it. PANONIAN 10:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thing Dado, about the article: you said that the current article is simplistic. Well is it better to be simplistic or to be nationalistic POV? PANONIAN 14:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Republika Srpska is not officially recognized by any country in the world except by Bosnia. Dayton Agreement that legalized such entity is signed by 3 men not by people of BOSNIAN NATION.

Republika Srpska is in Media and for Bosnians all over the world viewed as an insult to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead of punishing agressors for genocide and killings, these agressors were REWARDED by granting them "entity" in which all Bosnians, mostly muslims were ethnically cleansed totally and eliminated from Bosnian land.

Please do not add, change, delate, alter in any way my post or insert your own analyzes. If you have something to add, write your own post. -- 209.86.100.194 09:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Republika Srpska is located in the Bosnia and as such can not be refered as seperated "Country", neither as a "State" or some completely different "nation" but temporarily BOSNIAN entity.

Republika Srpska does not have full independency even today although this website and its content is the proof how hard they are trying. The world knows the truth so instead of makng them to change the facts, rather contribute to add the truth so their desperate posts look what they are: nonsense!

Republika Srpska is also not legally and officially recognized in any part of the world

except in Bosnia and Herzegovina only as the "entity" and not the state, not the independent country and not as some seperated Nation. You got to mention this fact!


Bosnians are extremely angry that Alija Izetbegovic signed such agreement with agressors of 2 remaining countries ( Croatia and Serbia )Tudjman and Mislosevic and Izetbegovic had no legal rights to chose the destiny of BOSNIANS on the account on their ethnic cleansing and genocide therefore this agreement is considered unconstitutional. For details why Bosnians believe it's unconstitutional go to: http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/people/harisfax.html

== Bosnians from all over the world are legally pursuing these issues about Republika Srpska, and are trying to regain the Bosnian country to her Independency as declared by the whole world in 1992. Republic Srpska in the land of Bosnian people is obviously proof that Bosnia is still occupied country since it does NOT grant the rights to the very own people - Bosnians! == On Feb 27, 2005 officialy begins their Trial - "Bosnia VS Serbia" where the existance of Republika Srpska is hanging in the air. Serbs committed genocide in Bosnia in the 21 century - see genocide photos: http://www.genocid.org/slike.php

THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA - CASE NO. IT-95-5-I THE PROSECUTOR OF THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST RADOVAN KARADZIC and RATKO MLADIC http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii950724e.htm


The above comments speak for themselves and require no further elaboration from me. It is for you to decide where to go from here, whether to accept the Dayton Agreement and Republika Srpska or reject it. Just don't forget to tell the facts that BOSNIA IS STILL OCCUPIED COUNTRY.


      • Please do not add, change, delate, alter in any way my post or insert your own analyzes. If you have something to add, write your own post. --209.86.100.194 09:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My answers to the anonimous user

Since anonimous user deleting my answers from "his" topics, I will post all my answers to his previous 4 topics here:

Answer to his first topic:

For anonimous user: There is no such thing as "Bosnian nation" or "Bosnians" and there never was. There are 3 nations in Bosnia: Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. Republika Srpska is officially recognized by all countries in the World as entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dayton Agreement was signed to stop war, if you attacking Dayton you probably want new war, right? Republika Srpska cannot be insult for Bosnia and Herzegovina because it is one of two parts that make Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no Bosnia and Herzegovina without Republika Srpska. And who might be agressor according to you? It was civil war between 3 nations of the country. There was no agressor from foreign country here. By the way, Serbs live in Bosnia for last 1,400 years and they were ethnic majority in Bosnia until 1971 when Bosniaks become a majoriry. You must know that Bosniaks are majority in that country only for about last 30 years. Have this in your mind if you talk about agressors. So, this entity (RS) was created for the native people who live in that land for last 1,400 years, and who were majority in that land for most of its history. And yes, Bosniaks were ethnically cleansed from Republika Srpska, but so were Serbs from Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Only in Sarajevo there were about 150,000 Serbs before the war. Where they are now? PANONIAN 10:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer to his second topic:

What is the point of this post? Republika Srpska is part of Bosnia and Herzegovina (nobody dispute this), but it is also a state, because every republic is a state. And where did you get that Republika Srpska is a "temporarily BOSNIAN entity"? It is entity in Bosnia, and if you with the term "Bosnian" define all 3 peoples of Bosnia (including Serbs) then it is also Bosnian entity, but I hear first time from you that it is "temporarily entity". Republika Srpska will exist as long as people who live in it want that. For all we know, it could be as long as 1,000 years or more. And where you get that "this website and its content is the proof how hard they are trying to have full independency"? They just want to live in peace like all peoples of this World. And yes World know the truth, so mister "anonymous user", I do not see what you want to achieve with this since it is quite obvious that you are nlt so anonymous, but you are actually Dado or Emir or their friend, so stop these games. And I really do not know who is desperate here. Only desperate man could play a role of anonymous user, while we all know who he really is. PANONIAN 10:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer to his third topic:

All wrong. Every country which recognize Bosnia and Herzegovina also recognize Republika Srpska as its entity. Also, RS is not independendent state, but it is a state because every republic is a state. Bosnians do not exist. There are 3 nations in Bosnia: Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats, but no Bosnians. And as I already told you, there were no agressors in Bosnian war, it was a civil war between 3 nations which lived in the country. And if somebody is angry on Alija, he should be angry on him because he started a war, not because he siogned a peace after this war, dont you agree? As for your statement about "unconstitutional issues", the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina was also unconstitutional. If the constitution was respected, Bosnia and Herzegovina would be still part of Yugoslavia (now called Serbia and Montenegro). LOL, and your link is an article written by Haris Silajdžić. He is one of those nationalistic lunatics from SDA political party about whom I talk all the time. PANONIAN 13:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer to his fourth topic:

I will only repeat some things: "Bosnians" do not exist, while Bosnia and Herzegovina is a state of 3 nations - Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats (that is what its constitution say). So, you and your friends from SDA political party do not legally pursuing these issues about Republika Srpska, since it is against the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As, for Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is already independent country, so I do not see how you can "regain the Bosnian country to her Independency" (Ridiculous). Republika Srpska is a land of Bosnian people (including Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats) who live in it, and yes Bosnia is still occupied country by the international millitary (EUROFOR), but your SDA liders are guilty for that, dont you agree? The existence of the Republika Srpska do not hanging in the air, while Serbs did not commited genocide against anybody (only Serb, Bosniak and Croat leaders commited genocide against peace and against all 3 nations of Bosnia, including their own). O yes, and was it in the 20th century, not 21st? As for Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić, they are of those leaders about whom I said that they commited genocide against peace and against all 3 peoples of Bosnia, including their own, of course. Fact is that ethnic Serbs from Bosnia have nothing with Mladić and Karadžić. As I said, every crime have a name and a surname, and names and surnames are mentioned here. So, charge the people who are guilty for what they done, but leave the Serbian people alone. And why would somebody reject the Dayton Agreement? To make new war in Bosnia or what? PANONIAN 13:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Serb nationalism

I just wanna say that the Serb hard-core nationalism is destroying this project. I ask administrators to stop this. You shouldn't tolerate this anymore. You just have to look to the ICTY and to see who is there, all presidents and leaders of RS, Radovan Kardzic (the first president of RS hiding in the woods of Serbia or Montenegro), Biljana Plavsic (she pleaded guilty for War Crimes), Nikola Poplasen (removed by the international community because of oppstructions and fascism), Momcilo Krajisnik (awaiting a trial for War Crimes in ICTY), Mirko Sarovic (also removed by international community) and so on...So dont behave like the vandals and fascists as PANONIAN and User:Nikola do. ---Wayat Earp

Very good point! All Serb political leaders are either War Criminals or hiding from the law or removed by the International Community. Emir Arven 14:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Most of what you wrote is false. Karadzic is believed to be hiding in the woods of Herzegovina; Plavsic has not pleaded guilty, but claimed guilt as a part of her plea bargain, and later she admitted to have lied; Poplasen and Krajisnik were not removed by international community but by a single person, put to its political position by a few Western countries etc. Nikola 10:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Karadzic is the most wanted War Criminal in Europe. It is irrelevant where he is hiding.
Plavsic pleaded guilty to a single charge of crimes against humanity and expressed "full remorse" in exchange for prosecutors dropping seven other war crimes charges, including two counts of genocide. Plavsic's statement repeated her admission of guilt. It said she had refused to believe stories of atrocities against Bosniaks and Croatians and accepted without question the claims that Serbs were fighting for survival. "I have now ... accepted that many thousands of innocent people were the victims of organized, systematic efforts from the territory claimed by Serbs...The knowledge that I'm responsible for such human suffering and for soiling the character of my people will always be with me."You can read his case here. Momcilo Krajisnik was arrested not removed by the International Community. He is on trial now accused for genocide in Bosnia. [6] Nikola Poplasen is a Serba nationalist who was removed by OHR (international community) because of his racism. The same case is with Mirko Sarovic. So it must be mentioned that all presidentds of RS are either War Criminals or just the nationalists romved by the International Community. Emir Arven 14:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You call me a "vandal" and a "fascist"?! LOL. Can you explain why? Did I deleted your posts from the talk page? No, I did not, but you deleted mine. So, who is a vandal here? Also, did I spreed a "fascist" speech of hate here, or you? Think about this. Also, what I said here what can be described as "nationalistic"? Can you elaborate? And you accusing me that I am destroying this project because I want to clean the Republika Srpska article from the Bosniak nationalistic POV and to make it neutral? And dont be surprised if administrators stop you, especially when they see that you deleted my posts from the talk page:

As for these former RS leaders, did I ever said that I support them? No, I did not, so do not put words into my mouth. I have bad opinion about them as much as you do, but what these leaders have to do with the Republika srpska or with the Serb people who live there? Of course, Bosniak and Croats war leaders were equally bad as Serb ones. PANONIAN 13:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

And please, do not sign your posts with the false name Wayat Earp. We both know that your true name is Dado or Emir or Mujo or Haso or what ever similar, but not Wayat Earp. PANONIAN 13:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Bosniak nationalism

It is quite clear that those gentlemans above presented the views and the political goals of Bosniak nationalism. I think that this article should be protected for very long time and that only administrators of Wikipedia should add new things into this article. These things should be first discussed here on the talk page, and if we all (me, Dado and other users) agree to post something into article then this should be posted. But if anybody of us object to posting some things, then it should not be posted. I think this is a fair proposal. Opinions? PANONIAN 13:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Panonian, I did not write the above text (although I agree with it, nearly in its entirety). It is safe to say that one cannot come to an agreement nor ration with you so any further discussion is pointless. The amount of relevant sources presented here should be more than sufficient to claim that current version of the article is far from the truth and needs to revised. Since this will cause you to have another one of your agressive irrational fits I only urge administrators to move this case to mediation or arbitration.--Dado 17:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well Dado, I 100% agree with third party arbitration in this issue. User:PANONIAN

Serb lies or Bosniak lies?

I have removed Serb propaganda from the History of Republika Srpska, never proved by anyone:

On the territories controled by the Bosniak and Croat authorities during the war, numerous war crimes against ethnic Serb civilians were commited, including ethnic cleansing, killings, making them a forced labour and closing them into the concentration camps. One of the examples of war crimes commited against Serbs is ethnic clensing of Serbs in Sarajevo. During and after the war (when Dayton Agreement was signed), almost all Serbs were driven out of Sarajevo. (zl_lat/pdf_lat/ nestali%20sarajevo%20lat.pdf Preliminary list of missing Serbian persons from Sarajevo 1992-1995)

Give us here any courte decision at all, about allegedly "ethnic cleansig of Serbs in Sarajevo". Sarajevo was surrounded by Serb army for 1300 days (the longest siege in the history) which killed more than 12.000 people, including 1500 children. Among those killed people by Serb bombs and snipers were around 1000 Serb civilians which stayed in Sarajevo. Stanislav Galic, a Serb general which was a commander of the Sarajevo siege is condemnd by the ICTY for War Crimes against Sarajevo civilians. Here is the court decision: Serb War Criminals So give us something relevant because you are just saying your opinion. The list of allegedly missing Serbs has been already disputed and qualified as a propaganda, because there are people that are alive and many of them are not from Sarajevo and many of them were/are not Serbs and many of them were fighting for Bosnia. For instance Divna Crnogorac (Serb), a woman whose husband, Ratko Crnogorac was a soldier of Bosnian Army, said that her husband was killed by the Serb Army on the 13th of August in 1993. in Dobrinja. She said that Serb propaganda put the name of her husband on the list just to spread propagnada. She said her husbend was fighting for Bosnia not for Serbia. You can read this here [7] But Serbs nationalists lied about this, and they wrote that he was killed by Bosnians. This is just one example. There are 411 people that are not even from Sarajevo. So this is just your way to continue policy started by Slobodan Milosevic, and other Serb War Crminals that are now in the Hague. Emir Arven 14:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You want the proof about ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Sarajevo? There were about 150,000 Serbs in Sarajevo before the war. Where they are now? Also, what you want to say? That Bosniak leaders were angels and that they did not persecuted ethnic serbs? Please... All sides of the war were EQUALLY GUILTY for war, for ethnic cleansing and for the war crimes. When I said sides, I speak about leaders, not about peoples. All 3 peoples of Bosnia were victims of the war. Also, I did not deleted a single word about crimes commited against the Bosniaks, so why you deleting this part about the crimes commited against the Serbs? It is not Serbian propaganda that Bosniak leaders were war criminals, it is a fact. Alija Izetbegović would be charged for the war crimes too, but he died before the court started a charge against him. However, there is a number of Bosniaks who are charged for war crimes. So, since they are charged for war crimes, it is quite obvious that crimes against the Serbs did happen. Do you think that life of one ethnic Bosniak is more valuable than the life of one ethnic Serb? You have section named "Crimes against the Bosniaks" and you can write there what ever you want about these crimes, but do not delete the section "the crimes against the Serbs". PANONIAN 14:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You want the proof about ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Sarajevo? There were about 150,000 Serbs in Sarajevo before the war. Where they are now? PANONIAN 14:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There were not 150.000 Serbs in Sarajevo. I am from Sarajevo, my friened is a Serb, my aunt is a Serb so dont lie. You asked me where the Serbs were. Some of them left Grbavica or Dobrinja (parts of Sarajevo) which were controlled by the Serb army when Grbavica became the part of Federation in 1995. according to Deyton agreement. They left because their president Momcilo Krajisnik, accused for War Crimes invited them to leave Sarajevo and move to so called Srpsko Sarajevo (Serbian Sarajevo) to build Serb paradise on the Earth. Emir Arven 15:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, what you want to say? That Bosniak leaders were angels and that they did not persecuted ethnic serbs? Please... All sides of the war were EQUALLY GUILTY for war, for ethnic cleansing and for the war crimes. PANONIAN 14:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

All sides are not equal quilty. ICTY accused 146 people for War Crimes in Bosnia and Croatia:
  • 106 Serbs (72,6 %)
  • 31 Croats (21,23%)
  • 9 Bosniaks (6,16%)
  • Serbs received 554 years prison sentence, until now. (76%)
  • Croats received 142 years prison sentence, until now. (19,4%)
  • Bosniaks received 33 years prison sentence, until now. (4,5%)
Just Serb political leadership was accused for War Crimes including genocide. Emir Arven 15:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Your data cannot be consider since you didn't prove it is official ICTY data. --Oldadamml 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

When I said sides, I speak about leaders, not about peoples. All 3 peoples of Bosnia were victims of the war. Also, I did not deleted a single word about crimes commited against the Bosniaks, so why you deleting this part about the crimes commited against the Serbs? PANONIAN 14:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

When you give us here a court decision which prove the crimes I will let it stay. Otherwise it is just propaganda. Emir Arven 15:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not Serbian propaganda that Bosniak leaders were war criminals, it is a fact. Alija Izetbegović would be charged for the war crimes too, but he died before the court started a charge against him. PANONIAN 14:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Another lie. Serb government of RS in 1996. send accusation against Izetbegovic, but Louise Arbour as a chief prosecutor of ICTY said it was just Serb propaganda and drop it. In 2001. Serb governmant of RS made another accusation and send it to the ICTY, but for the three years there was not an answer. In the meanwhile Alija Izetbegovic died. Emir Arven 15:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


However, there is a number of Bosniaks who are charged for war crimes. So, since they are charged for war crimes, it is quite obvious that crimes against the Serbs did happen. Do you think that life of one ethnic Bosniak is more valuable than the life of one ethnic Serb? You have section named "Crimes against the Bosniaks" and you can write there what ever you want about these crimes, but do not delete the section "the crimes against the Serbs". PANONIAN 14:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • 106 Serbs (72,6 %)
  • 31 Croats (21,23%)
  • 9 Bosniaks (6,16%)
  • Serbs received 554 years prison sentence, until now. (76%)
  • Croats received 142 years prison sentence, until now. (19,4%)
  • Bosniaks received 33 years prison sentence, until now. (4,5%)
Just Serb political leadership was accused for War Crimes including genocide. Emir Arven 15:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. All three sides committed war crimes at various points of the war, but only one side went into war with the genocide and extermination of a people for their own geopolitical gain at the front of their agenda. There's a big difference between the complex and organized ethnic cleansing of several hundred thousand Bosniaks and Croats along with destruction of their cultural heritage, and the burning of some provincial church by a renegaede Bosniak militia.
In territory controlled by Bosniaks, its difficult to find an Orthodox church that was destroyed. In territory held by Serbs, its hard to think of a mosque that remained standing. Live Forever 20:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


Here we go again with the "ethnically cleansed Sarajevo" stories. Here's a text I wrote a long time ago for wikipedia, dealing with the matter. Live Forever 20:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


Among the more controversial topics regarding the siege of Sarajevo is the alleged ethnic cleansing that took place at the time. Namely, after several years in the 1990s characterised by denial of the widely held view of the Serb role in the Yugoslav wars, a trend has developed in the 2000s where Serb nationalists have attempted to draw Bosniak and Croat parallels to such infamous examples of attrocities as Banja Luka and Srebrenica. Regarding Sarajevo, the typical claim is that between 1992 and 1995, 150,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Sarajevo, with several thousand killed. The allegations were brought to the media forefront in early 2005 when the premier of Republika Srpska, Pero Bukejlović, claimed that genocie was committed against Serbs during the siege of Sarajevo that exceeded that of the Srebrenica massacre.

Such claims are, upon careful analysis, fairly easy to refute. First of all, the often cited number of 150,000 ethnically cleansed Serbs is impossible, considering that there were only around 150,000 Serbs in Sarajevo. For such ludicrous claims to be true, every single Serb in the entire Sarajevo region would had to have been ethnically cleansed. The mere existance of some 40.000 Serbs in the Sarajevo area today refutes this. Furthermore, the number of killed and wounded in the siege of Sarajevo has been carefully documented. Out of 12,000 people killed, around one fourth were ethnic Serbs or people of Serbian ancestry. Taking into account civilian and military deaths, the number of Serbs killed is relatively proportional to the percent of the Sarajevo population they made up at the time.

Asides from these documented victims there were, according to the international red cross[8], only 242 ethnically Serb missing persons in the Sarajevo area. Granted this is a significant number nontheless, but when it's taken into account that the number of missing persons for various towns in East Bosnia is in the thousands, the popular nationalist claim is proven baseless. Furthermore, the ability of the bosnian government to stage a genocide of such a magnitude while under siege and being perpetually bombarded is highly questionable. The Hague has yet to make any accusations for individuals that had a role in the alleged Sarajevo genocide, which cannot be said of most major centers of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Commander Musana Topalovic Cace did commit crimes against Sarajevo citizens in 1993, but he was quickly liquidated by the government. Certainly it is plausible that some Serbs were ethnically cleansed, but more than likely these were isolated incidents and not a consequence of direct government action or strategy. Tellingly, though hundreds of mosques in Republika Srpska were demolished, no orthodox church was harmed during, or following, the siege of Sarajevo.

Of course the question remains; what happened to the 100,000+ Serbs who are no longer in the city? It must be noted that following the siege of Sarajevo the population of the city had srunk by around 250,000 people, meaning that besides Serbs 150,000 former citizens of Sarajevo of different ethnicities were also no longer there. Ethnic cleansing had certainly occured in areas of the city held by Serb radicals; Ilidza, for example, had 9 detention camps for non-Serbs. It is no secret that Karadzic's intention was to split the city into two at a point that would have required the ethnic cleansing of over 150,000 Bosniaks and Croats. Once the war was over and Sarajevo firmly in the hands of the Bosniak-Croat federation, it is understandable that many Serbs would not have wanted to stay in a city where they would have been viewed with suspicion and been a clear minority. In the communities of Grbavica and Ilidza, seized by Serb radicals during the siege, Serbs looted and destroyed what was left of the area to make life harsher for returning Bosniak and Croat refugees. Upon the return of the ethnically cleansed, the remaining Serb community was harrased and looked upon with suspicion, pushing many more to leave the city as well[9]. Thousands of the Serbs who had left the city by then went to what is today "East Sarajevo", a politically distinct Sarajevo suburb that in reality is virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the city and home to a couple dozen thousand Serbs. Leading up to the siege itself, the Serb forces surrounding the city had allowed many Serb citizens to leave while forcing members of other nationalities to stay behind.

Today, Sarajevo citizens of all nationalities generally take accusations of ethnic cleansing in Sarajevo during the war as a highly offensive insult. In response to premier Bukejlovic's statement, many have demanded a public apology to all Sarajevo citizens. The president of the Serb citizens council/Citizen's movement for equality, Mirko Pejanovic, stated that "Nobody, not even Bukejlovic, can change or cover up the truth for the sake of current political needs. In Sarajevo, during the four year siege carried out by Karadzic's military forces and the SDS, there were deaths of Sarayliyas of all ethnicities. The people were both suffering and dying from hunger, cold, they were being killed by mortar shells... among the 12,000 killed Sarayliyas recorded in the war, at least one fourth were members of the Serb nation or had Serb ethnic ancestry. Thus, we can not talk of an extermination or genocide of Serbs, but of a responsibilty of the SDS and Karadzic's military forces for the overall extermination of Sarajevo and Sarayliyas, and within that of the Serb people"

To Wikipedia Administration - OFFICIAL COMPLAINT

I am very shocked that your user by the name "PANINI" acts so recklessely and intentionally engages in public abuse. Yesterday, I had a courtesy not to edit the article written about Republika Srpska but instead I have written a post that came up for some reason as several posts in your disscusion page. I have noticed immediately that Panini altered all my posts and inserted uncalled insults towards me, accusations about my identity, an arguments that are irrelevant to the topic of disscusion, not to mention making my post looking totally different by including his hate material.

I went back to read other posts and I have noticed that "Panini" insults people who disagree with him throughout this page calling them names and assuming their nationalities with no facts, then dismissing their disscusion points based on his assumption and creating chaos here. I have thought this is the free encyclopedia where public abuse by registered users is prohibited.

I have signed my post with time stamp and my IP address, and I see no reason or any use of having these type of attacks on me. Mainly because I have no idea who people here who do post on regular bases are, and I see no reason for PANINI to attack me personally on any bases not to mention on the basis of my identity or my signature.

QUOTE:( And yes World know the truth, so mister "anonymous user", I do not see what you want to achieve with this since it is quite obvious that you are nlt so anonymous, but you are actually Dado or Emir or their friend, so stop these games. And I really do not know who is desperate here. Only desperate man could play a role of anonymous user, while we all know who he really is. PANONIAN 10:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

Therefore, I ask the Administration of Wikipedia respectfully, to remove PANINI from Wikipedia for promoting hate and prejudices against anyone who post for the common good and reputation of this site. I do wonder how do you allow someone who intentionally attack people so fanatically, to remain on the Wikipedia, and I truly hope that will change.

I do not want to have any discussions with "Panini" on this matter, therefore I am asking respectfully no to alter, delete, add, insert or change this letter because it is officially addresed to Administration of Wikipedia. If my previous post was a burden I do not mind to delete it completely until this issue is resolved. --209.86.99.80 17:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing comments you disagree with, even if you think they're blatant lies. These are the diffs in question: [10], [11], [12], and [13]. I will not get involved in the content dispute, but removing the discussion by other users is not tolerated. Discuss your ideas, and try to reach a consensus so I can unprotect this page. If you do not think that is possible, file a Request for Arbitration. Titoxd(?!?) 23:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

REPLY ON THE ABOVE COMMENT:

My letter was addressed to Administration of Wikipedia, and you haven't introduced yourself so I am not sure with whom I am discussing this. I am asking respectfully no to alter, delete, add, insert or change this letter because it is officially addressed to Administration of Wikipedia. I also do not want to have any discussions with "Panini" on this matter.


Interestingly you have not mentioned anything about "PANINI'S" fanatical behavior and public abuse towards me. If you are not willing to remove "PANINI" from Wikipedia I will have to address this issue to someone who will. At least you could of mention that his fanatical hateful behavior and uncalled insults and assumptions about my identity are not tolerated.


It is a shame that it takes you so long to enforce the rules and leave this page to continue to provide false information to public. The page Republika Srpska "as it is" now is insulting and ridiculous. If PANINI is the reason for this delay, he needs to be removed. As of now, the page is highly one sided and provides false interpretations of events that took place, especially in regards of History of Republika Srpska, as well as false figures, explanations, political events, almost everything is twisted and manipulated. Not to mention denials and twisted statements about territory, even the Presidential facts. I can't believe you are still keeping this material as the public information.


Your possible resistance to do the right thing could be a problem on Wikipedia. I am waiting for your response in regards of "PANINI" removal and change of Republika Srpska information immediately. Your unwillingness to correct the issue and remove "Panini" will not make this project going anywhere, and certainly it's not going to make me go away because I will pursue this further.


"PANINI'S" abusive and uncivil comments inserted into my post after I clearly said to post his own opinion in separate section is just a proof of his fanatical harassment that needs to be immediately eliminated from this page. Personal attacks towards me, and disruptive assumption of my Nationality, my Identity and accusations of me being some other user in his replies to me constitutes personal attacks.


I am pretty much sure if you are "American" and someone posts that "American" indeed don't exist you would think that "PANINI" is hateful person who should NOT work on this project. He needs to be removed. He is promoting hate and prejudices about users, makes assumptions about my nationality and identity and this can not be tolarated. --209.86.96.97 15:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My short ahswer to the anonymous user:

Would you like to show where I insulted you and included hate material? I only made assumtion about your identity and I still believe that your are not anonymous user, but one of the registered users involved in the discussion on this talk page. I have right to make assumption about your true identity because it is a very strange coincidence that you appeared exactly now when I tried to clean Bosniak nationalistic POV from the Republika Srpska article. Also, why you call me a PANINI? What or who is a PANINI? My nickname is PANONIAN, which derive from the name of the Pannonian plain where I live. Also, since you accuse me that I insult people personally or that I insulting people because of their nationality, can you show where I done this? No, you cant, do you? But I can show where you deleted my posts from the RS talk page:

As you can see, one of the administrators also warned you not to do this. So, stop this childish accusations. PANONIAN 16:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This has gone too far

Ok, this has gone too far. I have nothing to discuss with people who have this kind of behaviour. Is there anybody who want serious discussion about this article? I do not have time to argue with so much nationalistic POV, but one thing is certain: the article about RS should be neutral, and should not be written in the spirit of nationalistic propaganda. User:PANONIAN

Proposal

The article currently completely omits one whole and the most important section in the history. There is literary a gap between August 1992 and September 1995. Following is the text that needs to be placed back in the section on History with approporiate references and sources --Dado 22:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC):

"From March 1992 Republika Srpska was one of the war parties in the Bosnian War. Since the beginning of the war, the VRS (Army of Republika Srpska) and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, particularly with regard to:

  • The ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population from the territory claimed by Republika Srpska [14],
  • Creation and running of concentration/detention camps [15]
  • The long military seige of Sarajevo,
  • The massacre of Bosniak men and boys following the fall of the United Nations-declared safe area of Srebrenica
  • The destruction of Bosnian-Herzegovinian cultural and historical heritage on the teritory controled by authorities of Republika Srpska [16], [17].

Because of the circumstances of its creation, the name and insignia -- even the existence -- of Republika Srpska remains a matter of great controversy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially among the Bosniak population, many of whom view Republika Srpska as an entity founded on genocide. A legal court case was filed in 1993 in the International Criminal Court on behalf of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that accuses Serbia and Montenegro (than Yugoslavia) for aggression through creation and support of Republika Srpska. The case is to go into trial on 26 February 2006."

Proposal is rejected!!!

It is one-sided biased view about RS, thus it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. PANONIAN 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Ok, I have 2 counter proposals:

  • 1. The entire RS history section should be moved to this article: History of Republika Srpska. For example, this was done in the articles about Montenegro and Kosovo (both articles with similar problems in the history section). So, if we move entire RS history to the new article, the further revert wars about RS would be prevented in the RS article, and would be moved to the history subarticle. I do not see reason why history events should be mentioned in the main RS article, since we have separate history article (It is only one click away).
Even if not controversial, this should be done for reasons of style. Similarly, Politics of RS and Subdivisions of RS could be moved in separate articles. Nikola 21:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 2. If the first proposal is not accepted, I have second proposal: to write RS history section in the neutral manner and not to support the views of any of the sides. I agree with Dado that current article omits part about Bosnian war (but I do not agree that this part is most important, since RS lived only 3 years in the war, while it live 10 years in peace). In the current history section I purposelly did not write anything about Bosnian war, to prevent disputes and revert wars about this section. However, I agree that we can include mention of the events during the war, but only in the neutral manner. The historical views presented by Dado are not neutral, but one-sided bias, which I already presented here:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republika_Srpska#Dispute

The following view about RS presented by Dado is completely unacceptable for the article: "Because of the circumstances of its creation, the name and insignia -- even the existence -- of Republika Srpska remains a matter of great controversy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially among the Bosniak population, many of whom view Republika Srpska as an entity founded on genocide"

Why it is unacceptable? Look at the ethnic map of RS before the war:

You can clearly see that most of the RS territory was inhabited by the ethnic Serb majority. So, the claim that "entire RS" is founded on ethnic cleansing or genocide is simply not true. You may say that ethnic cleansing war performed in the parts of present day RS territory inhabited by Bosniak ethnic majority before the war, but not in the entire entity. It is quite clear that the territory of present day RS had Serb ethnic majority before the war (60% Serbs, 27% Bosniaks, 10% Croats, 3% others). The one could say that these Bosniaks and Croats were ethnically cleansed from the parts of RS where they were majority, and only for those parts of the RS could be said that "their inclusion into RS was followed by the ethnic cleansing", but most of the other parts of the RS were included into this entity because local Serb majority voted for this. That have nothing to do with the ethnic cleansing or genocide. Also, if you look at this map again, you will notice how many territories with ethnic Serb majority before the war are now part of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbs were ethnically cleansed from all these territories.

So, finally, what is my proposal? We can include part about Bosnian war in the RS history section, but this part must be correct and neutrally presented. Something like this:

  • "Between August 1992 and September 1995, the RS was one of the sides in the Bosnian war. During the war, ethnic cleansing of people of different ethnic origion was performed by all sides involved in war. Bosniak and Croat civilians were ethnically cleansed from territories of present day Republika Srpska, while Serb civilians were ethnically cleansed from what is now the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

This should be a base for the sentence, but other people are welcome to improve it.

As for the views about RS, we can also present this in the neutral manner:

  • "The modern views about Republika Srpska are different among various ethnic groups within the Bosnia and Herzegovina. For Serbs who live in it, the Republika Srpska is the only guarantee for their survival and existence as a people on these territories. On the other hand, for some ethnic Bosniaks who were ethnically cleansed from Republika Srpska, the creation, the name and insignia of this entity remains a matter of controversy."

Opinions? PANONIAN 14:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I second both paragraphs. Nikola 21:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree with the part about the name controversy. I would however in stead of “creation” state “existence” because this is an ongoing issue.

Regarding other material I want to put few things straight. The proposal I placed here was not my POV. It is hardly even written by me as it merely puts facts together in a coherent paragraph. These facts have been linked to sources: ICTY, HRW, Harvard University, Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina and State Commission for Documentation of War Crimes on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If you actually took a minute and cared to read through those you would not be so blatant about dismissing it or even worse come up with rhetoric not based on scientific research.

All the institutions you mention are heavily biased. If you make a list of statements by various institutions that suit your POV, it is still your POV. Nikola 21:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I refuse for this information to be tucked in at some article that will be again bound for edit wars. It is relevant information regarding RS. Each point is no longer than one sentence long and contains links for further disambiguation for a users to be completely informed about the issue. All pages about countries (although I am not advocating to use the same method here since RS is not a country or a state and it does not fall under the same methodological category) have at least limited information on all aspects of its history.

You have not presented a single irrefutable fact that can be comparatively calculated with the facts that I and others have presented. All you have done is to label these facts as Bosniak nationalistic POV (which is in itself ridiculous as most of these reports were not even written by Bosniaks) and resorted to personal attacks on the credibility of users that have brought these facts to light. You have been completely unreasonable and I think that anonymous user that posted the complaint above has a good reason to complain, as much as he may have not understood in the beginning the concept that he is not supposed to delete other people’s posts. You have been bullying every person that presented reasonable factual information or a scientifically calculable argument. You have resorted to diverting focus off the subject by pointing out questionable and in few instances completely wrong moral equivalencies. You are holding this article hostage by disputing beyond the scope of Wikipedia. You will need to change your attitude a great deal if you consider contributing to this article. --Dado 17:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok Dado, I could give you a long answer to your last post, but that would return us back where we were. I want to make some progres here, so, I just want to ask you do you agree with these 2 sentences?

Nikola agreed with both sentences, while, as I understand, you also agree with this sentence (I changed it in accordance with your suggestion):

  • "The modern views about Republika Srpska are different among various ethnic groups within the Bosnia and Herzegovina. For Serbs who live in it, the Republika Srpska is the only guarantee for their survival and existence as a people on these territories. On the other hand, for some ethnic Bosniaks who were ethnically cleansed from Republika Srpska, the creation, existence, name and insignia of this entity remains a matter of controversy"

However, you did not said do you agree with second sentence:

  • "Between August 1992 and September 1995, the RS was one of the sides in the Bosnian war. During the war, ethnic cleansing of people of different ethnic origion was performed by all sides involved in war. Bosniak and Croat civilians were ethnically cleansed from territories of present day Republika Srpska, while Serb civilians were ethnically cleansed from what is now the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina"

If you generally agree with it, please say so, and change this sentence in any manner you think it should be changed. You can also write one or two sentences with the other things you want to put into article, and I will tell you my opinion about these sentences. PANONIAN 01:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentance if everyone else agrees as well. As for the second portion I first want to know what makes this incorect:

"From March 1992 Republika Srpska was one of the war parties in the Bosnian War. Since the beginning of the war, the VRS (Army of Republika Srpska) and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, particularly with regard to:

  • The ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population from the territory claimed by Republika Srpska [18],
  • Creation and running of concentration/detention camps [19]
  • The long military seige of Sarajevo,
  • The massacre of Bosniak men and boys following the fall of the United Nations-declared safe area of Srebrenica
  • The destruction of Bosnian-Herzegovinian cultural and historical heritage on the teritory controled by authorities of Republika Srpska [20], [21]."

Spare me the rethoric that it is Bosniak propaganda, nationalist POV, one sided and the rest. I want to know what is untrue about these statements which are as you should notice supported by sources. Moral equivalencies if there are any they first need to be verified and substantiated by relevant sources (preferebly court order, state agency or reputable organization). Debunked statements and false claims are not acceptable. If they pass as valid information we need to decide where they should be included and why (if they concern suspected ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Federation of BiH than it should be listed on that particular article). Do your reasearch as I have done mine --Dado 02:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is Bosniak propaganda, nationalist POV, one sided, and this is not propaganda. Nikola 19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What is untrue here? Let see: we can generally say that what you posted is true, but I object to presentation: in the very short history as it is presented in the current article, we should not to writte so much about one specific event from the history, while many events are not even mentioned. As I already said, since its creation in 1992, RS lived 3 years in war and 10 years in peace. Much things happened in the RS history during these 10 years, and these events are not even mentioned. RS article should contain only several most important facts, and if somebody want to read more, he should follow link to the History of Republika Srpska where he will find this. So, can you write little shorter paragraph? PANONIAN 03:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

These events, however, are directly responsible for not only the creation of RS in its current form but for most everything of significance that happened to it in the following ten years. Live Forever 04:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Samo isprobavam boje za potpis. Nek Dado predloži kraću verziju pa će čuti moje mišljenje. PANONIAN (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I second Live's comments. Looking at this quantitatively, if out of 10 years the country spent 3 years in war ergo 30% of its existence in time was spent in war. Comparatively to, lets say Serbia (just an example while it can be any country) 30% of time would mean it was in high intensity war for nearly 300 years. It is far from any reality but if it was true I would be quite sure that a significant portion of the article would be devoted to it.

So one could conclude that the significant amount of time in which RS existed was in war and the consequences of that war are still very much present. I admit that if RS continues to exist for long time and conducts itself in a manner to repair the damages caused during the war, these facts will be less and less significant or they will be balanced by actions taken to repair the damages (Case point Germany). Today they are the most prominent thing about RS and still nothing (if very little) is being done about it. In fact in many cases they are even glorified.

I don't know how to make the paragraph any smaller and not eliminate the information. I could have written a long paragraph elaborating each point but it may not be necessary because, as you have pointed out these and other issues can be elaborated on History of RS as they are on several other articles which are already linked (Siege of Sarajevo and Srebrenica Massacre).--Dado 16:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at this madness! RS must conduct as if it is responsible for the war it was imposed upon it! Nikola 19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"I don't know how to make the paragraph any smaller and not eliminate the information."

Well, maybe like this:

  • "From March 1992 Republika Srpska was one of the war parties in the Bosnian War. Since the beginning of the war, the VRS (Army of Republika Srpska) and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide (see: the Srebrenica massacre), the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population, creation and running of concentration/detention camps, the long military seige of Sarajevo, the destruction of cultural and historical heritage"

Is that not shorter with all information included? Of course, that should be your answer, not mine. Now here is my answer to "your" (assumed) answer - this is what I would agree to include into article:

""Between March 1992 and September 1995, the Republika Srpska was one of the war parties in the Bosnian War. During the war, ethnic cleansing and war crimes against the people of different ethnic origin were performed by all sides involved in war. Bosniak and Croat civilians were ethnically cleansed from territories of present day Republika Srpska, while Serb civilians were ethnically cleansed from what is now the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Many of these Serb civilians escaped to Republika Srpska.

The VRS (Army of Republika Srpska) and the wartime political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide (see: the Srebrenica massacre), the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population, creation and running of concentration/detention camps, the long military seige of Sarajevo, and the destruction of cultural and historical heritage. Most of the individuals responsible for these acts were arrested, charged and convicted, excluding the few, which are still in escapade.

After the Dayton Peace Agreement, a large number of political and social reforms was made in the Republika Srpska as a effort to make this entity, as well as the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina, eligible for joining the European Union."

This sentance is implying that RS hs applied for membership to EU which is not the case. Only BiH is being considered for EU membership and reforms that are taking place are to strenthen BiH and weaken entities. The sentance is misleading but it can be easily fixed:

"After the Dayton Peace Agreement, a large number of political and social reforms was made in the Republika Srpska as a effort to make Bosnia and Herzegovina, eligible for joining the European Union."

--Dado 15:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this a fair compromise or not? PANONIAN (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how is this compromise? This includes Dado's version whole. It presents massacres in Srebrenica as genocide, doesn't mention any war crime against Serbs specifically while specifically mentions many war crimes by Serbs. I can't support this version. Nikola 09:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Nikola, if you have information about the war crimes against the Serbs, please write this here (I do not have time to search for it on Internet). Also, you can try to propose what would be acceptable for you from the Dado's version, so your and his version could be joined together somehow. PANONIAN (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to repeat it again. This is not "my version". This has nothing to do with you or I agreeing to something. I have presented issues with sources in mind and I have listed these source. You have not. I have repeatedly asked that you present evidence (relevant and correct) on this article and at History of Republika Srpska. As I have said I could decide not to change paragraphs that you want to put in as a compromise to end this discussion (although I inherently disagree) but as long as they are not supported by facts they will be subject to justified changes and eliminations by other users. We can all agree that this is a controversial subject and thorough research is required. --Dado 16:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is your version. From various sources you selected only those that suit you - so, that is your version. Nikola 17:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would not exclude that it was the destruction of the Bosnian Herzegovinian cultural heritage as it pertained to particular teritory and I would not exclude links to sources for these claims as I do not want to go though this again with someone else. Otherwise the paragraph is saying the same thing. Last paragraph is unnecessary as this was already mentioned in the article.

This sentence is a bit questionable. "Most of the individuals responsible for these acts were arrested, charged and convicted, excluding the few, which are still in escapade." Eventough in essence it is correct the process of arresting and convicting people is far from over which is what the sentance is implying. For example there are 20,000 names of people who were involved in Srebrenica massacre alone. It is yet to be determined how many will end up on trial. In fact some are still in position of government of RS (this is quite probable while it cannot be confirmed as the list is still classified). I would not make the sentence so closed ended. Perhaps it should say something like this:

"Many of the individuals directly responsible for these acts were arrested, charged and convicted, excluding the few, which are still at large (see Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic). Recently a list of nearly 20,000 individuals who were involved in Srebrenica massacre alone was released (provide link). The arrests and trials of all war crime suspects is still ongoing."

As for your addition about all sides being equally guilty (technically that is what the paragraph is claiming). Personally, I disagree but we can put that to the side for a second. Even if I decided to agree with you as a matter of compromise (although I don't have any moral mandate to make such compromise) there is still no information to support your claim. In fact I would refer you to the text Live has posted above about debunked claims by SDS party and MUP RS, and the war parties distribution of convicted people at ICTY that Emir posted. Unless you can disclose valid proof to counter those facts, your claims will remain unsupported and subject to editing. Perhaps quantifying responsibilities for war crimes among different parties would help or in other words maybe we could add ICTY data that Emir presented.

Also I want to hear what others who have posted here think as well. --Dado 01:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have 3 big disagreements with you here:

  • 1. It was not only "Bosnian Herzegovinian cultural heritage", but also the "cultural heritage of Republika Srpska". This sentence implying that it was not also a heritage of Republika Srpska, which is not true. Maybe we can write that it was "Bosniak cultural heritage". PANONIAN (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It was Bosnian Herzegovinian heritage. Most of the distroyed monuments were listed as part of the Bosnian Herzegovinian national treasure in 1950's. If you wish I can find documentation on this. I am not claiming this because there were merely located in BiH but because they were legaly listed as bellonging to BiH.--Dado 16:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Did you read what I wrote at all: It was not only "Bosnian Herzegovinian cultural heritage", but also the "cultural heritage of Republika Srpska". We do not talk about 1950 here but about 1992-1995. If we want to be correct we can wrote either "Bosniak cultural heritage" either just "cultural heritage". PANONIAN (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes I read what you stated and I am correcting you that at the time of destruction the monuments were officially part of and listed under the National Heritage of Bosnia and Herzegovina (translation may be different but the meaning is the same) since 1950's and into 1992 through 1995 meaning that at the time of their destruction the monuments were distroyed counter to the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina that was written to protect them. Cultural heritage list of RS was not compiled until later time after 1995. Also not only monuments that one could pertain to Bosniak were distroyed. Many churches and even some non-religious monuments were distroyed or damaged (National Library in Sarajevo).--Dado 20:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 2. Last paragraph is very important, since as I already said, something should be written about last 10 years of RS history too. PANONIAN (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I will revisit this sentence.--Dado 16:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 3. As for the charging process, I even would not comment your claim that "nearly 20,000 individuals were involved in Srebrenica massacre". You want to say that there were more killers than the victims? This claim is totally insane and illogical. Carla Del Ponte already said that there will be no more charges for anybody and the Hague Tribunal will work only until 2008 (After this year it will work only for Karadžić and Gotovina). So, the charging process is almost over. It must be noted in the article that guilt is individual in this matter, and that INDIVIDUALS were charged for their acts, not the political entity or people who live there. PANONIAN (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • ICTY is scheduled to complete their cases of top accused by 2008. Lower profile cases are being transferred to BiH courts and some Serbian courts. Those may take decades to process all. I did not claim that all 20000 were killing nor does the report state that. The report says they were involved at various levels (from command to logistics). While the specifics cannot be claimed until the list and indictments are declassified it is at least relevant and correct to state that this is ongoing story.--Dado 16:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Still, it must be written in the manner to imply that the guilt is only indidual not collective. PANONIAN (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support proposals of User:PANONIAN and User:Nikola. --Oldadamml 14:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Bosniaks Muslim propaganda =

The view about RS presented by Dado is completely unacceptable (Bosniaks view Republic of Srpska as an entity founded on genocide).

Look at the ethnic map of RS before the war:

--Oldadamml 14:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I would suggest you change the title of the section seeing as:
  1. All major information presented on this discussion page that you have labeled as "Bosniaks Muslim propaganda" comes from non-Bosniak and non-Muslim sources.
Are you trying to say that only Bosniak Muslims can spread Bosniak Muslim propaganda? Nikola
I merely find it somewhat amusing that you're labeling human rights watch and the red cross as such. Live Forever 18:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Many of us, such as myself, are not "Bosniaks Muslim" as you imply, and take offense to the statement.
I agree with this, I prefer the term Bosnian Muslim myself. Nikola
Your provocation has been noted. Live Forever 18:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. It is just plain grammatically incorrect.
If you continue with the immaturity and provocations (that you have become infamous for in the past and are once again showcasing here), I, for one, will make sure you are dealt with accordingly.
And now on to the often repeated (and faulty) argument of ethnic territory maps. The map of Bosnia and Herzegovina posted above goes into an exruciating level of detail by splitting the country up as far as "local communities"; little subdivisions of municipalities that often don't even have one square kilometer of land under their jurisdiction. If you look at the "Serb territories" within the present-day federation you'll notice that there isn't anything that resembles a major city, even on a regional level. Compare this to the Bosniak majority or mixed ethnic structure in significant regional centers such as Banja Luka, Prijedor, Doboj, Brcko, Bijeljina, Trebinje, etc.
Furthermore, these ethnic maps all create the impression that the Bosnian population lives equally dispersed throughout the country. This is simply false. Bosnia's rough mountainous geography ensures that even though a municipality may encompass several hundred square kilometers, its population may live in only a small group of dispersed villages. Add on top of this government owned land and national parks and it becomes clear that these "ethnic territory" maps really aren't suitable for showcasing the extent of ethnic cleansing. Careful situation-by-situation analysis of demographics and events on the ground make it clear that the bulk of the ethnic cleansing during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out as part of a genocide by the RS and Serb authorities. Live Forever 20:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Ethnic maps create accurate impression. It is true that entire Bosnia is not equally inhabited, but so accounts for RS or FBiH so it doesn't matter. Nikola 12:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, as most Bosniaks and Croats in Krajina and Posavina were concentrated in small urbanized areas while Serbs in central Bosnia were concentrated in small rural regions, it does create a false impression. Live Forever 18:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
That is exactly the reason why the maps give correct impression. Maps done by municipalities would show that Bosniaks live on larger territory than they actually live on. Nikola 18:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

SERBIAN PROPAGANDA: "REPUBLIKA SRPSKA" ON WIKIPEDIA QUOTED:

QUOTE: "Republika Srpska" can be translated into English as Serb Republic or Republic of Srpska. The word "srpska" can be interpreted as an adjective ("Serbian"),

      • Republika Srpska can NOT be translated as "Serb Republic". This translation is inaccurate equivalent in English because it may imply that "Republika Srpska" is a republic. The 2nd translation "Republic of Srpska" sounds more appropriate but it's also problematic for the very same reason. Republika Srpska is not a "REPUBLIC". Republika Srpska is an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore the untranslated version "Republika Srpska" has been used in the Constituition as the only officially appropriate name for this Entity.
      • The Constituition ( English version )CLEARLY STATES: "3. Composition Bosnia and Herzegovina shall consist of the two Entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (hereinafter "the Entities"). http://www.mvp.gov.ba/HTML/ENG/ustav_BiH_eng.htm Republika Srpska is UNTRANSLATED.
      • To avoid confusion the World is using MAINLY untranslated version ( Republika Srpska ) as the offcial name for this particular Entity in Bosnia. It should be the only name used on the page.( with clear and not missleading explanations. See part in bold below. )Reference: The Constituition http://www.mvp.gov.ba/HTML/ENG/ustav_BiH_eng.htm

Term "Republika Srpska" should not be propagated as systematic effort to persuade public to adopt this term as anything else but the "Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina". It's not a real republic. All other missleading terms and explanations on the page need to be deleted as they are propagandistic in nature. Republika Srpska is not a "REPUBLIC". Republike Srpska is an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This needs to be very clear.


QUOTE: .... and, bearing in mind language rules for the creation of names of countries in the Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian, also as a proper noun.

      • This material is meaningless, unless there was some hidden message propagandistic in nature. What language rules is he talking about? Bearing in mind language rules for CREATION OF NAMES OF COUNTRIES... Author is trying to make an impression that Republika Srpska is a "country" and the name was a name "for the country", or was created originally with such intent. This needs to be deleted.

QUOTE: The local name "Republika Hrvatska" for Croatia is analogous, although in that case there has long existed an appropriate Latinized translation of the name ("Croatia").

      • This sounds like comparison "country to country" or "republic to republic". Intent was there as author has given an example of internationally recognized country "Croatia", trying to make it as if "Republica Srpska" = "Serb Republic" = "Republika Hrvatska" = "Croatia" are all analogous language wise. What is the point of such comparison?

This is simply not true. Here again, Republika Srpska is not a country. This needs to be deleted and there is no point on trying to make it LOOK AS IF IT IS COUNTRY if it is indeed an Entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The fact is that Republic Srpska is also not "REPUBLIC" but Entity and can NOT be compared through language manipulations with real internationally recognized country names or Republics such as "Hrvatska" (Republika Hrvatska). This has to be CLEARLY stated.

QUOTE: Because of the potential for confusion between "Serb Republic"/"Republic of Srpska" (Republika Srpska) and the "Republic of Serbia" (Republika Srbija), the name "Republika Srpska" is often used in its untranslated form in non-Slavic countries. This article follows that convention. (The government of Republika Srpska uses the term "Republic of Srpska" in the English translation of the Constitution and other documents.)

      • The author is trying to imply that these are 2 different countries. Also the author is leaving an impression that "Republic Srpska" has own government unrelated to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Government as a whole. This propagandistic material needs to be deleted.

We all know that Republika Srpska is not a country. Should this deletion become a burden to those who are persistently abusing Wikipedia for propaganda, I am going to pursue deletion on Complaint Page together with all evidence where some other people who are not necessarily working on Republika Srpska page will help out Wikipedia to bring this page to FACTUAL INFORMATIVE PAGE not Serbian Propaganda.--209.86.104.17 21:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


More Bosniaks propaganda

Yesterdays Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,1639014,00.html can show that name Serb Republic is in everyday use. So terms Serb Republic and Republic of Srpska are in use and as we translate "Republika Hrvatska" as Republic of Croatia the same way it can be "Republika Srpska" translate as Republic of Srpska. --Oldadamml 14:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

So in your demented world-view I suppose the creators of google would be pawns of the well-oiled Bosniak propaganda machine as well? A search for "'Serb Republic' Bosnia' comes up with 67,900 results, while a similar search for "'Republika Srpska' Bosnia" comes up with 364,000 results. This means that in the english language the most common name for the smaller Bosnian entity is the one already used by wikipedia. Live Forever 20:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we should use the most oftenly used term, but we should also note other frequently used terms and also that they are more correct than the most often one. Nikola 18:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

For anonymous user

I do not know how you expect to talk with somebody since you deleting posts of other people from "your" topics? Therefor my short answer for you is here: there is one nice institution named school and there is one nice person named teacher who will tell you everything you want to know about these subjects. PANONIAN (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary

Following is a summary of segments that need to be added to the History section of this article per above discussion. Please do not write in this segment of the talk page. Write your name next to the section that you agree to or use the “Comments” segment bellow and refer to sections by their numbers

1.

Section is generally agreeable to: Dado, and Emir Arven

"From March 1992 Republika Srpska was one of the war parties in the Bosnian War. Since the beginning of the war, the VRS (Army of Republika Srpska) and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide (see: the Srebrenica massacre), the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population [22], creation and running of concentration/detention camps [23], the long military seige of Sarajevo, the destruction of Bosnian-Herzegovinian cultural and historical heritage [24], [25]."

2.

Section is generally agreeable to: Dado and Emir Arven

"Many of the individuals directly responsible for these acts were arrested, charged and convicted by ICTY, excluding the few, which are still at large (see Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic). Recently a list of nearly 25,000 individuals who were involved in Srebrenica massacre alone was released [26]. The arrests and trials of all war crime suspects is still ongoing."

3.

Section is generally agreeable to: Dado and Emir Arven

"After the Dayton Peace Agreement, a large number of political and social reforms was made in the Republika Srpska as an effort to make Bosnia and Herzegovina, eligible for joining the European Union."

4.

Section is generally agreeable to: Dado, Panonian and Nikola Smolenski

“The modern views about Republika Srpska are different among various ethnic groups within the Bosnia and Herzegovina. For Serbs who live in it, the Republika Srpska is the only guarantee for their survival and existence as a people on these territories. On the other hand, for some ethnic Bosniaks who were ethnically cleansed from Republika Srpska, the creation, existence, name and insignia of this entity remains a matter of controversy"

5.

Moving the entire history section into the subarticle History of Republika Srpska is generally agreeable to: Panonian and Nikola

Comments

  • Panonian would also agree with section 1. (yet, a little modified), but only if Nikola and others also agree with it, and only if people of Republika Srpska do not consider this section insulting, since the crimes of other side are not mentioned (and they should be)
  • Section 5. proposal is not realistic as it serves only to hide issues while an abriviated history section in this article is necessary based on comments in above discussion. It has generally been agreed by all parties before that history section is necessary. --Dado 04:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • For what my opinion is worth, if there is enough information to write a daughter article about the history of the republic, it should be done, leaving only the non-controversial points in this page. Titoxd(?!?) 17:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been protected for quite a long time, now, and there does seem to be progress. Time to unprotect? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Controversial elements will be elaborated on the duaghter article History of Republika Srpska including the allegations about the crimes against Serbs. These are the bare minimum that have been confirmed with appropriate sources and that need to be mentioned. I think it was time to unlock this page long time ago but I want to know what others think --Dado 14:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not at all happy with the fork of this article, which it appears to me may be of a type that violates out Neutral point of view policy, but that's another matter. Since there is no evident ongoing dispute here I'll unprotect. m:Protected pages considered harmful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and unprotect it (although you did so already.) The fork, as I understand it, has been tried in other articles before, so I think it is a solution if there is an agreement on what to write in this article as a summary. Titoxd(?!?) 17:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if not controversial, the article is very long, so that itself is a reason well enough for the fork. Nikola 15:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The article is reasonable size and even more to the point than many other. Summary is sufficient.--Dado 15:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The article was some 40K long before the history was cut out. Nikola 10:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Section 1. is generaly agreed by at least two users. Panonian has expressed that it would be acceptable to him as well if crimes about serbs are included. I have proposed to create a section about those claims in the daughter article History of Republika Srpska. We can try that and see if there are any more objections and move that discussion to the History of RS article.

No, this is not true. First, these two users were on the same side in the edit war; thus, no compromise has been reached. Second, Panonian said that he would agree only if I also agree; but I don't agree. Nikola 15:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
makes no difference. It is obvious that you are not willing to accept the truth but to push radical agenda. One cannot reach a compromise with you --Dado 15:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Only agenda I see is your constant removing of any mention of any war crimes committed on Serbs and maximally exaggerating of war crimes committed by Serbs. Nikola 09:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sections 2. and 3. were actually proposed by Panonian. I have revised them only slightly to what I belive is more acurate and balanced. It is acceptable to at least two users. There are no specific objections to those so I assume that we can at least for now work with what we have

Again, two of you agreeing is not a compromise. Nikola 15:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Section 4. is generally agreeable to all sides.

Section 5. basically wants to say that sections 1 thru 4 should be thrown out which defeats the purpose of this discussion and it is quite illogical to me. No additional proposals were made.

I wish to end this dispute as much as the next person. If there are no furhter comments or objections I will add above sections to the text.--Dado 18:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


Article 7: "The Serbian language of iekavian and ekavian dialect and the Cyrillic alphabet shall be in official use in the Republic, while the Latin alphabet shall be used as specified by the law. In regions inhabited by groups speaking other languages, their languages and alphabet shall also be in official use, as specified by law."

Bosniaks and Croats constitute at least 9% of the population. In addition to this I am quite certain that the constitution was amended since--Dado 15:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

They may be 90% of the population, but if their languages aren't official, they aren't official. The constitution as presented on the web page is with amendments included, so if there is an amendment on this it would certainly be there. Nikola 09:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Revised article

ChrisO, I appreciate your contribution and I would gladly revert to your version of the article but I had to go back a step further as I (and few other users who have been active here) have no idea what to do with this user (User:Nikola Smolenski) that keeps violating this and other pages with quite aggressive agenda. See also [27], [28], [29], [30] [31] --Dado 03:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You're making it to look as if I'm doing something bad. Nikola 06:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you are. Reverting with the comments "attempt at rewrite is even worse than original text" and no attempt to explain why you think it's worse is not good Wikiquette. I should also note that you are coming very close to breaking the 3 revert rule in repeatedly reverting the article, as are User:Dado and User:PANNONIAN. Repeatedly reverting without an attempt to explain edits isn't an acceptable tactic, for any of you.
No, I am not. First of all, you shall notice that Dado is mentioning several other articles, not this one. Second, you are the one who tried to rewrite the article, so you know why it is worse. Or maybe I should think that you really believe in that large-scale campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocidal massacres you wrote? Nikola 13:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
In that spirit, I'll explain my "attempt at rewrite" and add a few other comments.
1) We do not need a long list of municipalities in this article. It's supposed to be a summary, not a detailed article - I've split the municipalities info off into Municipalities of Republika Srpska. Please don't attempt to restore this; it's simply not appropriate for an overview article.
I agree, and I have suggested the same myself. I have not revert that change. Nikola 13:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2) I think you have a fair point about the official languages. That particular box is meant to refer to the state- or entity-wide official languages. If you're quoting the RS constitution accurately (and I have no reason to doubt you) then it seems clear that the only entity-wide official language is Serbian. If Croatian and Bosnian are used locally, this is worth noting, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that they had an equal entity-wide status.
It is possible that they are used entity-wide, but defined in a law, not in the constitution. But I don't know what the law is exactly, so this seems safe enough. Nikola 13:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
3) You haven't said what you dislike about the history section. I note, though, that you has several times removed any mention of what the RS did during the Bosnian War. Whether or not you like it, the historical record shows (a) that the RS was one of the belligerents in the war, (b) that it was responsible for human rights abuses on a massive scale, and (c) that its leaders were indicted for war crimes as a result. I don't think that it's acceptable or credible to leave that out - it would be like providing a history of Germany with no mention of the unfortunate business between 1939 and 1945. We also have to explain the aftermath of the war and describe the current condition of the RS.
The historical record also shows that (a) there are belligerents in the war other than RS, (b) they were responsible for human rights abuses on a massive scale, and (c) that their leaders should have been, but were not indicted for war crimes as a result. Unless that too is integrated in the article, I feel perfectly justified in removing any mention of the war. Nikola 13:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a core of our dispute here. Nikola tries to somehow "cancel out" the crimes commited by RS leadership by allegations that the other side did the same. I will not go into details but only note the difference in the reasearch methodology. We have presented evidence provided by international and legal institutions whose work and credibility is generaly acceptable in the public and the world. Nikola on the other hand has resorted to claim allegations from nationalistic sources of questionable reputation and agenda whom even a uninformed user can see that are purely propagandist in nature whose claims were already disputed and debunked. Same propaganda machinery has worked for last 15 years and potentially led to the war. (see also discussion at Talk:History_of_Republika_Srpska#The_court_decision about these sources)--Dado 16:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
No, the core of the dispute is that you are trying to remove any mention of crimes committed over Serbs, while overexaggerating crimes committed by Serbs and trying to present that all of them are proven without any controversy which they are not. Nikola 22:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
You both have a point: we do need to put the RS's actions into an appropriate context, but it's clearly wrong to argue that "because POV X is not mentioned POV Y should not be mentioned either." That's not what NPOV is about. -- ChrisO 23:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
If you doesn't like my version, I suggest that you come up with an NPOV alternative that covers the same ground. Leaving out entire key sections of RS history (I presume for POV reasons) isn't acceptable. -- ChrisO 00:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe it is acceptable if the alternative is worse. Anyway, Panonian attempted to write his version in a neutral manner, which I uphold. That was reverted. I have no reason to believe that my rewrite won't be reverted too. If someone writes about the war in a neutral manner, I'll of course support it. As I said, what you wrote is even worse than Dado's version, so of course I reverted it. Nikola 13:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Your objection is something that is already dealt with at WP:NPOV, under "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete": "The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly."
You shouldn't simply delete something that you disagree with (and I note that you haven't said specifically what you disagree with) - you should be suggesting an alternative form of words, as we are supposed to work towards consensus. I'll discuss the history section further down this page. -- ChrisO 23:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect info

"Other languages and alphabets are official on local levels." This sentence is incorrect. Bosnian and Croatian language are also officila in RS. According to Amandman LXXI to the constitution of RS, official languages are Bosnian/Serbian/Croatina. Emir Arven 14:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Aмандман LXXI

1. Српски, хрватски и бошњачки језик, ћирилично и латинично писмо, равноправно се употребљавају у Републици Српској. Начин такве службене употребе језика и писма уређују се законом.

2. Овим амандманом замењује се став 1. члана 7. Устава.

Translation:

Amendment LXXI

1. Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language, cirilic and latin alphabet, are equally used in Republika Srpska. Official use of those languages is directed by law. 2. By this amendment clause 1 of article 7 of the consititution is replaced. [32]

--Dado 18:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That seems fairly convincing. Nikola, do you have anything to add to this? -- ChrisO 11:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes. As the full text of the constitution has a lot of ammendments listed in it, I assumed that all of them will be, but they apparently are not. However, I notice that the translation is wrong: "бошњачки језик" means "Bosniak language", not "Bosnian language" (that would be "босански језик"). I'll change this in the article. Nikola 22:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Wrong, that quote is in Serbian language. There is not "Bosniak language" in English terminology, just Bosnian language. See ISO-639. Also the amandman quote in Bosnian language (latin alphabet) verifies this. -- Emir Arven 00:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is. The constitution doesn't use a term from ISO-639. I think that Serbian version of the constitution is the authoritative one, so Bosnian version may say domething else, it still isn't relevant. Nikola 11:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is in English, not in Serbian. We are talking about terminology in English that is used by ISO standard. It is very relevant.--Emir Arven 11:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is in English, but it is talking about a constitution which is in Serbian. We are talking about terminology in English which is not used by ISO standard. Nikola 14:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The official languages of the Republic Serb are all three, just like all three are official languages of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to User:Emir_Arven's harsh acusations I am a Serbian nationalist (:O), but I agree with User:Dado HolyRomanEmperor 15:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

History section - a collaborative approach

Nikola keeps deleting the revised history section that I proposed, but so far he hasn't said what's wrong with it (other than that he doesn't like it at all) or suggested an alternative form of words. Rather than fighting a revert war over it - which isn't how it should be done anyway - I'll paste the text here, and we can discuss it. Nikola, could you please explain which particular points you object to? And will you suggest an alternative rather than saying that you don't like any of it, which doesn't get us any further forward? -- ChrisO 23:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

OK Nikola 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Creation of Republika Srpska

The creation of Republika Srpska was sparked by the political crisis that followed the secession of Slovenia and Croatia from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in June 1991. The leading Serb political party in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serb Democratic Party, led by Radovan Karadžić, opposed any suggestion that Bosnia should also leave Yugoslavia. At this point, Serbs constituted about 33% of the population of Bosnia, with Croats and Muslims making up the rest of the population.

You have refactored the paragraph so that it seems that there only was a single political party, Serb Democratic Party, which opposed when in fact most Serbs, supporting SDP or not, were opposed. I don't factually dispute this, but only think that previous version (...was created... without clear reference to who) was better. A compromise might be mentioning both (say, ...Bosnian Serbs led primarily by SDP...). Nikola 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair points... OK, let's try an alternative version of this paragraph: -- ChrisO 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The creation of Republika Srpska was sparked by the political crisis that followed the secession of Slovenia and Croatia from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in June 1991. Most Bosnian Serbs opposed any suggestion that Bosnia should also leave Yugoslavia. At this point, Serbs constituted about 33% of the population of Bosnia, with Croats and Muslims making up the rest of the population.

OK, I'm inserting this in the article. Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The SDS established unofficial "Serb autonomous provinces" (SAOs) in areas where Serbs constituted a majority of the population. An assembly was created to represent the SAOs in October 1991. The following month, the SDS organized a referendum on whether the SAOs should remain in a common state with Serbia and Montenegro. The Bosnian Serbs voted overwhelmingly in favour, and on January 9, 1992 the Bosnian Serb assembly proclaimed a separate "Republic of the Serb people of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (later renamed as the "Republika Srpska").

I again don't have some dispute, but I think this is too detailed for this article (the previous version went straight from creating the assembly to the referrendum). OTOH, this is important, so maybe it should stay. I also don't think that SDS organized a referendum, didn't the assembly do it? Nikola 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, given that the SDS effectively ran the assembly, it amounts to the same thing. But let's try a modified version: -- ChrisO 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The leading Serb political party in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serb Democratic Party, led by Radovan Karadžić, organized the creation of "Serb autonomous provinces" (SAOs) within Bosnia and the establishment of an assembly to represent them. In November 1991, the Bosnian Serbs held a referendum which resulted in an overwhelming vote in favour of staying in a common state with Serbia and Montenegro. On January 9, 1992 the Bosnian Serb assembly proclaimed a separate "Republic of the Serb people of Bosnia and Herzegovina".

This too. Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The government of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared the SARs and the referendum to be illegal and invalid, and in February-March 1992 held a national referendum on Bosnian independence from Yugoslavia. It was largely boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs but the remainder of the population voted by a large majority for independence. An independent Bosnia was proclaimed in March, by which time the country had already plunged into war.

Here we have a dispute. The referendum held by Bosnian government was illegal too, and I can't believe that you didn't know that, but you haven't mentioned it at all. The referendum was also unsuccessful (it did not manage to gather necessary 66.66% votes), or at least it is disputed whether it did. You also removed mention of declaration of independence of Bosnia, RS, name change etc. which I believe is very important. Nikola 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
98% voted for the independence and 68% of the voting body showed up to vote. The results were confirmed by international UN observers. The referendum was not illegal. The constitution stipulates that the republic is sovereign to secede at any point once the will of people is confirmed. Serb leadership decided not to participate in this political process. Their obstructionist declaration that the referendum is illegal is not relevant nor legaly valid.--Dado 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
No. Even Noel Malcolm asserts the number of only 64%[33]. The constitution also required that all three constitutive people agree to such a decision, which obviously did not happen. Lastly, this particular stipulation ran contrary to the constitution of SFRY so itself was unconstitutional as well. Nikola 08:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a fair point (although probably a bit too detailed for an overview article). Try this revised paragraph: -- ChrisO 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The government of Bosnia and Herzegovina held a national referendum on Bosnian independence from Yugoslavia in February-March 1992. It was largely boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs but the remainder of the population voted overwhelmingly for independence, though the legitimacy of the vote and the outcome was disputed by the Serbs. Bosnia's declaration of independence was formally recognized by the European Community on April 6. The following day, the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared its independence from Bosnia, and on August 12, 1992, the reference to Bosnia and Herzegovina was dropped from the name, and it became simply Republika Srpska.

Now, wait. First, it is disputed whether the outcome of the referendum was valid, but this was not disputed just by the Serbs. I doubt that Malcolm is a Serb, yet he accepts that the referendum was invalid. Second, is it disputed at all that the referendum was illegal and unconstitutional? I never heard anyone to dispute this.
I'm reading that chronology, and it is an interesting read. 1990-07-02: Parliament of Slovenia enacts Declaration on Full Sovereignity of the State of the Republic of Slovenia. 1991-01-14: The Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia dismissed three articles of the Declaration of Sovereignity of Slovenia. I can't find a similar decision about Bosnia, but there isn't much difference. Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
It is fruitless to have a constitutional debate about this. It is safe to say that the situation was complex. On one hand constitution did ask for all three people to find concensus but it is ambigious to what norms to follow. Also if SDS removed itself from the political process by abandoning the BiH parlaiment it does not mean that Serbs as a constitutent nation removed itself from Bosnia and they should have participated in the process towards consensus even without SDS. Their apathy does not make the process illegal. In fact SDS worked for next 3 years on trying to distroy the same constitution that they are now calling on.
This weasely terms just convince me more that I am right. The situation is quite simple. The constitution did ask for a concensus. The concensus was not achieved. SDS was legitimate representative of Serbian people. Serbs should not have participated in the process - they did not wanted the process to happen at all. They were right to withdraw themselves from it, and their withdrawal makes the process illegal. SDS did work completely outside of the constitution, but after it was completely destroyed by Muslims and Croats. Nikola 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
As for the legality of the referendum, the results were confirmed by the UN as legal and were accepted by nearly all world countries. I am sure a lot of paperwork can be dug up on this. Opinion of few disgruntled or uninformed individuals do not justify even considering this an issue.
So, now Malcolm is an uninformed individual but when you need him you will base entire article on a single quote by him? Funny :) No, the results are disputed, accepted or not. Nikola 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
BiH did have a declaration of re-affirmation of their soveregnty in mid 1991. I can find the exact date of the declaration but I don't know why is this relevant.--Dado 16:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Me neither. Nikola 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Republika Srpska and the Bosnian War

During the next three years, Republika Srpska was one of the three main belligerents in the Bosnian War (the others being the Bosniak-dominated Bosnian government and the Bosnian Croat statelet of Herceg-Bosna. Although it had a smaller army than the Bosnian government, the Bosnian Serb army (the VRS) was considerably better equipped and prepared, due to the support of Serbia's President Slobodan Milošević.

No. Sorry, "support of Serbia's President" is a no-go. There was support, but of entire FRY, not just by one man, and it was limited to humanitarian aid. RS did have more weaponry, but only because it managed to snatch more from JNA. Nikola 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there was support by the entire FRY. As to the nature of support see [34]. I don't think that can be considered humanitarian. Also there were reports by UN observers in Zvornik (city on the border between Serbia and Bosnia) that at various occasions the city was shelled from the teritory of Serbia.--Dado 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's say that that is acceptable, but still it doesn't show that support of FRY was primary reason for VRS to be better equipped. Nikola 08:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The support of the FRY clearly was the reason for the VRS to be better equipped - the VRS was armed and equipped by the JNA, which was commanded from Belgrade. Bear in mind also that the VRS wasn't established (and the JNA discontinued) until May 1992 - which means that for the first two months of the war the Bosnian Serb forces were fighting under the formal auspices of the JNA. I should also add that it's also pretty well established now that Serbian government forces under the Ministry of the Interior (MUP) were actively involved in fighting in Bosnia - see the ICTY's indictment of Milosevic. [35] We should also mention the RS being supported by paramilitaries. Here's an amended version of the paragraph: -- ChrisO 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Now, the problem with your first sentence is that this wasn't happening at the same time. When Bosnia declared independence, JNA was in it, and it couldn't just teleport out. It then began to withdraw from Bosnia, but couldn't pull out all of its equipment. Some of it ended in Muslim and Croatian hands, most ended in Serbian. There was some support later, but it was small in comparison to the initial loot. Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Well they could not teleport themselves out but they could have not shot at the civilians. You are in a huge denial if you believe that vast amounts of military equipment and personel were not intentionally given to VRS by FRY.--Dado 16:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually some of the cruelest massacres in the Bosnian war were committed by Muslims against unarmed JNA soldiers. It is no wonder that some of weaponry was left behind. Nikola 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

During the next three years, Republika Srpska was one of the three warring sides in the Bosnian War (the others being the Bosniak-dominated Bosnian government and the Bosnian Croat statelet of Herceg-Bosna. The RS started the war in a much stronger military position than its rivals. Its army, the VRS, was created from Bosnian Serb members of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and was armed and equipped from JNA stockpiles in Bosnia. It also had the support of various Serbian paramilitary forces, as well as special forces units from Serbia itself. In addition, Serbia's President Slobodan Milošević provided extensive logistical and financial support for the Bosnian Serb military.

First part is OK, but I have some problems with second part. Here is my suggestion (I bolded the differences). Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I have a problem with the portion of this paragraph. It was well established fact, documented by UN observers, that the aid from FRY was far more than humanitarian. It included the aid in military equipment and personel, resources to fight the war. Even some of the personel was on the payrol of FRY JNA. The section should reflect this if we are talking about the involvement of FRY. --Dado 16:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I wrote "humaniterian, logistical and financial support for the Republika Srpska and its military". AFAIK, there was no personell on the payroll, but some officers were receiving military pensions. Nikola 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

During the next three years, Republika Srpska was one of the three warring sides in the Bosnian War (the others being the Bosniak-dominated Bosnian government and the Bosnian Croat statelet of Herceg-Bosna. The RS started the war in a much stronger military position than its rivals. Its army, the VRS, was created from Bosnian Serb members of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and was armed and equipped from JNA stockpiles in Bosnia. It also had the support of volunteers and various paramilitary forces from Serbia. In addition, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provided extensive humaniterian, logistical and financial support for the Republika Srpska and its military. Finally, by nature of Serbian ethnic distribution, it had better initial strategic position.

What did you mean when you said "special forces units from Serbia"? Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Republika Srpska leadership laid claim to territories with a significant Serb population and, during the spring and summer of 1992, the Bosnian Serb army (the VRS) and allied Serb paramilitary forces took control of around 70% of Bosnia. Much of this area was ethnically mixed; Serbs constituted less than two thirds of the population. However, the RS leadership took the view that Serbs could no longer live alongside Croats and Muslims. Its forces carried out a large-scale campaign of ethnic cleansing and mass killing aimed at driving out non-Serb population within the republic's borders.

I can't agree with this at all. Who says that RS leadership took that view, and that it organised a large-scale campaign of ethnic cleansing and mass killing? Also, at the same time there was ethnic cleansing of Serbs outside of RS, but that is not mentioned at all. Nikola 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
One of the strategic objectives of RS was to "Establish state borders separating the Serbian people from the other two ethnic communities." Just an example--Dado 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
How does establishing a state border equates with a campaign of ethnic cleansing and mass killing??? Nikola 08:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Think about the wording - "state borders separating the Serbian people." Unless each and every Serb-inhabited house had a state border running around it, the only way a contiguous border could be created was by removing non-Serbs within the border. I note also this from the Milosevic indictment: "On 12 May 1992, at the 16th Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina ... General Ratko MLADIC told the Assembly that it would not be possible to separate Serbs from non-Serbs and have the non-Serbs simply leave the territory. He warned that attempting this process would amount to genocide." [36] Karadzic was also quite explicit about this, saying that Serbs "cannot live with other nations. They must have their own separate existence" (ref. Foreign Affairs 72, no. 2 (March-April 1995)).
You should note that Serbian language doesn't have "the". I'm not sure what was written in original, but it would be quite awkward to even say something like that in Serbian. Note also that it says "the other two ethnic communities". If we follow your interpretation, it should have been something like "people from the other two ethnic communities". So, it is obvious that "Serbian people" refers to entire Serbian ethnic community, and no to its individuals. Wouldn't Mladic quote actually be evidence to the opposite? He warned that it would not be possible to separate Serbs from non-Serbs. I agree with him. Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what trick with word are you attemting here. That they did not mean to separate Serbs from other ethnic groups or what? Mladic warned that the separation of Serbs from other groups would lead to genocide which shows the premeditation to what has been later proved as partially successful act of genocide. I don't know if there is a bigger argument for those claim that there was a genocide in Bosnia.--Dado 16:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Separating one ethnic group from another is not the same thing as separating every member of one ethnic group from any member of another ethnic group. Mladic warning is actually proof that he did not condone genocide, as he warned that it could happen. Nikola 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
As for the campaign of ethnic cleansing and killings, are you really claiming it didn't happen? It's been admitted by the current and wartime leadership of the RS (e.g. concerning Srebrenica) - see also Biljana Plavsic's plea of guilt for involvement in "a crime of the utmost gravity, involving a campaign of ethnic separation which resulted in the death of thousands and the expulsion of thousands more in circumstances of great brutality". [37] I think we can pretty much call it an established fact. -- ChrisO 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Each admission in front of ICTY was part of a plea bargain and thus doesn't prove anything at all. It is good that you mention Biljana Plavsic specifically, because in an interview she gave in March she admitted that she lied in her plea. And all of this is even without mentioning that ICTY is illegal and illegitimate institution, and even if it would not be there are serious doubts about its impartiality. ICTY ruling!=established fact. Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
So on one hand we have an official statement and on another an opinion. This should be a no brainer. As much as I don't care for her internal process to which she reached two opposing epiphanies official statements is what is generally accepted. --Dado 16:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say "official statement" and "an opinion"? And why don't you care about her "internal process"? Nikola 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

By 1994, the United Nations estimated that a million non-Serbs had been driven out from Republika Srpska and by the spring of 1996, a United Nations census indicated that Serbs constituted 96.8% of the population of the republic. However, the campaign resulted in 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.

I can't agree again. Same political factors which claimed that there is a campaign have condemned it and formed ICTY to persecute RS leadership. Big wonder, ICTY concluded that a campaign took place. Nikola 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Another thing I have now noticed: even if it would be established that there was a campaign, it does not follow that this campaign resulted in worldwide condemnation. For example, in Operation Storm, Croatia did conducted a large scale campaign of ethnic cleansing of Serbs, but that did not resulted in worldwide condemnation. Nikola 08:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I've said above, it has pretty much been conclusively proved - and admitted - that there was a campaign. As for the worldwide condemnation, you only have to look at the (non-Serbian) press at the time to see how much criticism the RS attracted. If you want to look for formal diplomatic criticism, I suggest that you browse the UN Security Council resolutions index for 1992-95 [38], which shows that the UNSC repeatedly criticised the Bosnian Serbs for their actions. See for instance resolution 941 (1994) "on violations of international humanitarian law in Banja Luka, Bijeljina and other areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the control of Bosnian Serb forces." [39] -- ChrisO 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
See above too. I agree that there was worldwide condemnation, but I don't agree that it was because of the ethnic cleansing. As I said, during the same period other entities in the same region were practising ethnic cleansing, and there was no worldwide condemnation. We can safely conclude that worldwide condemnation of RS had nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Disagree with the opinion. First because of improper use of the term ethnic cleansing as something that was systematically performed on both sides equally and because there is overwhelming evidence that the world condemnation was directed towards RS. Maybe if RS did not send 1 million Bosnians fleeing to all parts of the world for them to tell their experiences about RS maybe the condemnation would not had been as bad. --Dado 16:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it was directed, but no, it was not because of ethnic cleansing. Try reading what I wrote. Nikola 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In 1995, Republika Srpska came close to collapse in the face of Muslim/Croat military offensives and a concerted two-week campaign of NATO air strikes. It lost about a third of its territory and was forced to accede to the Dayton Peace Agreement, agreed on its behalf by President Milošević. Under this accord, it was recognized as one of the two entities that compose the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The borders of Republika Srpska were fixed at 49% of Bosnia's territory, with the Muslim/Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina constituting the other 51%.

This is OK, though I wouldn't use terms like "forced to accede". Nikola 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The point I was making here was that the RS didn't have much choice about acceding to the Dayton Agreement - it was that or be overrun, in effect. Perhaps we could say that it "was left with little choice but to accede"? -- ChrisO 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
How about "acceeded"? It's not that Dayton was so bad for RS in the first place. RS delegation was part of the Dayton negotiations. It's not so certain that it would be overrun. Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The post-war Republika Srpska

Since the war, Republika Srpska has undergone many changes. Its wartime leaders resigned after they were arrested or went into hiding following war crimes indictments, although in practice Radovan Karadžić continued to exert considerable influence for years after the war's end. Some of the non-Serbs expelled during the war have returned to their former homes in Republika Srpska; the non-Serb population has increased to about 10% of the total. However, the republic has experienced severe economic problems and widespread corruption, which have seriously hampered its recovery from the conflict.

This is mostly OK, but needs more work. Who says that Karadzic exerted considerable influence? Also, economic problems and corruption existed before, and have merely continued. Nikola 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought the continued influence of Karadzic was pretty much a fact? From 1997: "Biljana Plavsic, the President of the Bosnian Serbs, dissolved the parliament earlier this year after she began accusing her opponents of corruption, saying they were being backed by Mr Karadzic." [40] The Bosnian Serb government's move to Banja Luka in 1998 was apparently prompted by the anti-Karadzic faction attempting to break the power of the pro-Karadzic Pale faction. [41]
I take your point about the economic problems and corruption - they're common issues across the entire region. Try this for size: -- ChrisO 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the war, Republika Srpska has undergone many changes. Several of its wartime leaders were arrested or went into hiding following war crimes indictments, although in practice Radovan Karadžić continued to exert considerable influence for years after the war's end. Some of the non-Serbs expelled during the war have returned to their former homes in Republika Srpska; the non-Serb population has increased to about 10% of the total. However, like in many other former communist countries, both of Bosnia's entities have experienced severe economic problems and widespread corruption during the transition to a market economy. This has seriously hampered Bosnia's recovery from the conflict.

Karadzic's faction is not Karadzic. Let's say "exerted a degree of influence" and it's OK for me. Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The UN-appointed High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina has greatly influenced the post-war development of Republika Srpska. Several of its wartime aspects of independence, such as a separate currency, have been abolished. A number of senior Republika Srpska officials have been removed from their posts by the High Representative after being accused of corruption and blocking the process of reform and reconstruction. It is likely that the powers of the republic will be further reduced in future, along with those of its Muslim/Croat counterpart, as a unified Bosnian state is further re-established by the international community.

I have a neutrality dispute here. This paragraph is written as if the changes are positive, yet most of RS population view them as something very negative. Nikola 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's add a sentence: "These changes have been very controversial within the Republika Srpska, as many Bosnian Serbs regard them as a threat to their rights of self-government." -- ChrisO 12:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Still not good enough, but I can't think about this anymore, let's solve it later. Nikola 13:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A million non-Serb refugees???

"By 1994, the United Nations estimated that a million non-Serbs had been driven out from Republika Srpska"

I do not think this is possible, if the total population of the RS is 1,490,000, and if 60% of population before the war were Serbs, then it is simply not possible to be a million non-Serb refugees. PANONIAN (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Republika Srpska controlled up to 70% of Bosnia and Herzegovina at various times. The figure of one million probably includes those forced to flee from places such as Ilidza that were later reconquered by Bosnian and Croatian forces. Live Forever 22:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

It has been correctly pointed out that the word "vandalism" has been misused in the edit summaries of this article - see the similar problem at Talk:Banja Luka#People supported by the authorities. If the objection was to this talk page, deleting someone's comments is indeed defined as vandalism (except to remove a personal attack), but the word "fascist" might be covered by Wikipedia:No personal attacks, not Wikipedia:Vandalism - of course both are bad. Art LaPella 02:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of user PANONIAN's comments, thats been brought up several times as an example of "the other side's vandalism" by users Nikola and Panonian. In fact, these deletions were done by an anonymous user who showed up in the midst of the debate and hasn't participated at all since. No side condoned what he was doing and nobody denied that what that anonymous user did was vandalism. Thus, I don't see why we're still dwelling on this brief isolated incident. Live Forever 02:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't find it now so I'll take your word for it. It looks like this page considers most any disagreement to be vandalism. Art LaPella 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Art LaPella, you are right, but don't take his word for it because he is not telling you the truth. He probably hoped that I will never show up again, because I am the one who complained about PANONIAN indeed ( and probably not the only one ) under the title: OFFICIAL COMPLAINT - see above. I am still waiting until someone finally decides to remove him. It is so clear that he is using propagandic material on Wikipedia, insults all Bosnian genocide victoms by claiming they have never existed after they were in fact brutally killed, not to mention that he insulted me on every occassion I attempted to clarify the facts accusing me of being someone else. Maybe due to the war against Bosnians, he completely became paranoid so every single person who comes and posts is "some old user who changed the name". I am surprised that you haven't noticed how many months went by and nobody warned him about his attitude, until you appeared in November! Dado and some other people I can see are doing excellent job, they are civillized people and reading all nonsense posted are obviously having hell of the nervs if they can deal with such a hater. That's why I could not even participate because PANONIAN is here. If he delets everything we post, there is no need for posting on my behalf. If you chose not to remove PANONIAN it's ok too because guess what REPUBLIKA SRPSKA, temporary Bosnian ENTITY is going to be removed soon due to New Constitution in 2006, so this page will probably just remain the history of failed Serbo-nationalists who occupied Bosnia in 1992, committed genocide against Bosnians, killed and tortured innocent people, bombed Sarajevo for 5 years, and killed all non-Serbs in order to create ethnically cleansed territory then moved into their houses, erected the statues to Serbs who have never been in Bosnia in their life time ( LOL !) and claimed that there has never been BOSNIAN NATION, knowing that Bosnia is and was country of bosnian people just to find out in 2006 that Serb Entity called RS is eliminated because it was created on genocide. The whole world knows that, we are just laughing .... how desperate chetniks are trying to keep up at least 1 Wikipedia page about Serb Entity. the excat same entity was eliminated in Croatia, don't worry they did excatly the same thin and claimed Croatia as Serbian Republic or something smaller who cares. They are losing every war and they will lose this one too. Just imagine how painful is going to be for chetniks on this page to find out that all propaganda here was nothing but wasted time, the biggest failure and loss in the history of Serbian nation, in addition with failure and loss of Kosovo centuries ago. However, you and/OR Wikipedia Adminstration kept holding a vandal and hater to continue to spread his propagandic material although you have received a complaint from me and waited so long to do anything to make this page go forward. It's ok, it's too late anyway. We don't need it. This page will be a history in the section of Serbian propganda one day. To manipulate public and think how everyone is stupid to figure out that Serbs are officially one of 5 nations in the world who comitted genocide is not bery bright and smart thing to do. I am taking an opportunity to give compliments in regards of other users who actively participate: Dado, Emir and other Bosnians and Bosnian Americans who worked hard and have been civillized, and wish them Happy New Year. Keep up the good job and don't work too hard on this page because RS entity is going to be the history of Serbia soon! Wikipedia is not the most credible source. People are not using it as before so it's going to be irrelevant soon. Probably because of users like Panonian. I am going to visit the site again to see if any improvements has been done. --209.86.97.172 19:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm American with no ethnic ties to the Balkans, but I'm not an administrator. I notice nobody has misused the Wikipedia term "vandalism" lately. But it's hard for an outsider to determine which users use more propaganda than others, or who should be banned. I can confidently predict that nobody will be banned for something that happened months ago, when no action has been taken since - that seems more likely to lead to more arguing, not to improving anyone's behavior. But I will comment on the debate as it stands now. It seems unusual that the two paragraphs about ethnic cleansing were removed without suggesting substitute paragraphs. To discuss Republika Srpska without any mention of ethnic cleansing (except a link to a history page) is like writing an article about Hiroshima without mentioning the atomic bomb. Art LaPella 20:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


I don't think so, only a few editors do. Nikola 10:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

(Un)constitutional

What is currently disputed in the article? The dispute faded in early December and the article looks mostly fine to me, with notable exception of the following paragraph:

The referendum and creation of SARs were unconstitutional, and was declared to be illegal and invalid by the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, in February-March 1992 the government held a national referendum on Bosnian independence from Yugoslavia. This referendum was also unconstitutional, and in addition unconstitutional in the Constitution of Yugoslavia; it was largely boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs. It is unclear whether it was successful, estimates ranging at 64%-67% support for independence (2/3 of the population was needed). Despite this, an independent Bosnia was proclaimed in March, by which time the country had already plunged into war.

Apart from obvious "my referendum sucks? yours too!" attitude, it's also barely comprehensible; I'm sure that could be sorted out. Since I don't know all the facts from the time, I suggest something along these lines:

The referendum and creation of SARs were proclaimed unconstitutional by government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (and court?), and declared illegal and invalid. However, in February-March 1992 the government held a national referendum on Bosnian independence from Yugoslavia. That referendum was in turn declared contrary to BiH (and/or Federal) constitution by Serbs/Federal government/Some high court; it was largely boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs. It is unclear whether it was successful, estimates ranging at 64%-67% support for independence (2/3 of the population was needed). Despite this, an independent Bosnia was proclaimed in March, by which time the country had already plunged into war.

Duja 14:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I did not realize that this section was still in the article. I agree with you. I would propose these edits to your version:

The referendum and creation of SARs were proclaimed unconstitutional by government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and declared illegal and invalid. However, in February-March 1992 the government held a national referendum on Bosnian independence from Yugoslavia. That referendum was in turn declared contrary to BiH constitution by newly established Bosnian Serbs government; it was largely boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs. Despite this, an independent Bosnia was proclaimed in March, by which time the country had already plunged into war.


The referendum for independence was successful. The voter turnout was between 64-67% of which some 98% voted for the independence. The results were monitored and confirmed by UN observers as valid and legal.--Dado 19:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Per your numbers, the referendum was not successful. 98% of 67% is 65.66%, which is smaller than necessary 66.67%.
What kind of math is this? 66% votes were required. 98% voted for independence. End of story.--Dado 17:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, you have inserted a sentence which implies that Bosnian Serbs were the only ones which considered the referendum unconstitutional, which is not true, and deleted sentence about its failure, which is why I have returned old version of the paragraph. Nikola 11:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)