Category talk:History of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Are "History of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina" and "History of Republika Srpska" categories really necessary? They largely share the same history. For example, Herzegovinian rebellion is categorized into both, but it really has nothing particularly to do with either the Federation of the Republika. These cats seem to be pushing some POV as these entities are hardly so different as to need to categorize hundreds of years of Bosnian history into each of them. Perhaps we should restrict the cats to recent history, or abandon them altogether. Input welcome. --Thewanderer 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- They share some articles, as many other history categories share them. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_prefecture_of_Illyricum Do you see how many categories share this article? However, each of them also have some articles that cannot be found in another categories. Same thing is with Republika Srpska and Federation, they share some articles, but some of them do not. If for example "History of Catalonia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_Catalonia) or "History of Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_Wales) exist, then why these two cannot? Regarding Herzegovinian rebellion, it belong to both categories because this rebellion happened in the territory that now belong to both. Republika Srpska and Federation are not only political but also geographical units and their history is not only their political history, but also a history of the geographical area that they include. That is generally accepted principle. See this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_prefecture_of_Illyricum You can see that all these states and regions to which historical categories this article belong did not existed in the time about which this article speak. So, we cannot have double principles, one for example for Hungary and Austria and another for Republika Srpska and Federation. PANONIAN (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Also, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_Croatia You can see that this category have some articles about events before Croatia was actually formed. So, if you want to exclude Herzegovinian rebellion from Republika Srpska and Federation categories then you should also exclude these articles from Croatia category and many other articles from many categories. So, let talk about STANDARDS and NOT about double standards, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- They share some articles, as many other history categories share them. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_prefecture_of_Illyricum Do you see how many categories share this article? However, each of them also have some articles that cannot be found in another categories. Same thing is with Republika Srpska and Federation, they share some articles, but some of them do not. If for example "History of Catalonia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_Catalonia) or "History of Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_Wales) exist, then why these two cannot? Regarding Herzegovinian rebellion, it belong to both categories because this rebellion happened in the territory that now belong to both. Republika Srpska and Federation are not only political but also geographical units and their history is not only their political history, but also a history of the geographical area that they include. That is generally accepted principle. See this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_prefecture_of_Illyricum You can see that all these states and regions to which historical categories this article belong did not existed in the time about which this article speak. So, we cannot have double principles, one for example for Hungary and Austria and another for Republika Srpska and Federation. PANONIAN (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- However, Catalonia and Wales are historical regions which will exist long after we die. While you can claim that the Federation and the Republika are geographical regions, they are mostly political. They could cease to exist tomorrow if BiH politicians so choosed. The point of this is that they have no separate history. For example, you have chosen to categorize Alija Izetbegović and Blaž Kraljević solely under the Federation, but they are certainly a part of the history of the Republika just as well. On the flipside Chetniks and Rodoljub Čolaković are solely categorized under the Republika but could be categorized under the Federation as well. This seems to indicate you consider Croat and Bosniak history to be Federation history, and Serb history to be Republika Srpska history, which does not fit into Wikipedia standards either. If we worked through all these articles, nearly all of them would probably have both categories. --Thewanderer 13:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, hey, I told you no double standards, did I? Catalonia and Wales ARE NOT historical regions, but present-day political units. Former Welsh Principalities and Catalan Counties WERE historical regions, but present-day Catalonia and Wales are only political successors of such historical regions, but they themselves ARE NOT historical regions. Do not mix history and geography please. Second, entities of BIH will also exist long after you die, so what is your point? If you really believe that Serb politicians from RS will decide to abolish RS, then you are on some hard drug, druže. Anyway, the entities of BIH exist and they have their history, no matter how much of that history is shared, but shared history of various states and regions is not unusual feature at all. I really do not see one single difference between Catalonia and Republika Srpska here (Catalonia also share part of its history with Spain, but that does not mean that it is not also a history of Catalonia). Regarding Alija, he was no president of the people of Republika Srpska, thus he does not belong into that category. I also do not think that Chetniks are part of the history of Federation. PANONIAN (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)