Talk:Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coat of Arms[edit]

The CoA is too big... rather unsightly. Anyone know of a way to reduce its size? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

historical image[edit]

Territories of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia controlled by Serb forces 1992-1995. The War Crimes Tribual accused Milošević and other Serb leaders of "attempting to create a Greater Serbia, a Serbian state encompassing the Serb-populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia, and achieved by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of crimes.[1]

I noticed that some contributors remove images with referenced description without prior discussion on talk page. This dangerous and illegitimate practice leads us to edit warring and should not be used on Wikipedia. I repeat, please use talk page if you are disputing something. Edit summary is simply not enough for dispute resolution.

So, if someone thinks that this image is not appropriate, let's discuss it here.--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained to you numerous times already. This is so POV that it is almost vandalism. And of course that we will not discuss this picture usage on all articles where you put it. This is problem with picture , not article. --Tadija (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002; Reasons for the Decision on Prosecution Interlocutory Appeal from Refusal to Order Joinder; Paragraph 8

Redirect[edit]

I have created a redirect to the Bosnia and Herzegovina article. Per the quote IP 85.228.240.231 has brought up: "The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the official name of which shall henceforth be "Bosnia and Herzegovina," shall continue its legal existence under international law as a state, with its internal structure modified as provided herein and with its present internationally recognized borders. It shall remain a Member State of the United Nations and may as Bosnia and Herzegovina maintain or apply for membership in organizations within the United Nations system and other international organizations. " [1] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not understanding of Dayton and Constitution[edit]

RBiH stoped to exist with formation of Washington Agreement in 1994, and Federation and Repbulika Srpska agreed on Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995. FBiH and RS signed Dayton and Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina where it's stated "RBiH is fron now on BiH". How is possible that RBiH existed all the way to '98? Flag was changed in 1998 alright, but it was different state with same flag and anthem and all. --Wustenfuchs 15:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the RBiH signed Dayton, not its subdivision the FBiH. I'm not sure whether the unrecognized RS signed anything or whether Milosevich, who was empowered as their representative, signed it for them. And its not just the flag, Dayton was not actually implemented (not even de jure) until years later, in 1998. -- Director (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some things were signed by Izetbegović, Tuđman and Milošević, some things were signed by entities. Add source that states when the Accords were implented and we are fine. --Wustenfuchs 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ustav je najviši pravni akt, garancija demokratije. Ustav BiH je potpisan, nije usvojen, on je dio Općeg okvirnog sporazuma za mir u BiH koji sadrţi 11 anexa (Dayton-ski sporazum). Anex IV ovog Sporazuma je ustav BiH. Ustav BiH je parafiran 21.11.1995 u Daytonu, SAD, a potpisan u Parizu, 14.12. 1995. godine. On predstavlja decentarlizirani model načina na koji bi se trebala organizirati drţava. Zasniva se na principu podjele vlasti."

From "Ustavni sistem i organizacija pravosuđa" (Senjak, Kata; Mutapčić, Džemaludin) Dayton was in force after signing. --Wustenfuchs 18:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake... I know when it was written. It was not, and could not, be implemented immediately. -- Director (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Constitution was on force in 1995. Where is the problem in changing name? The whole Dayton was implementing for years not the Constitution. --Wustenfuchs 18:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was clear enough. Do not operate under the misconception that you have any sort of backing for your new edits by sourcing things like when the Dayton Accords were signed. That is not what we are talking about.
Kindly stop your disruptive revert-warring or you will find yourself finally reported for your many edit wars. Frankly its a wonder you've not been sanctioned after that show on the Bosnia and Herzegovina article. Did you count how many times you reverted to restore your new, opposed edits? Edit-warring with "nice" and friendly comments like "Ok now"? "Problem solved?" "Is ok?" is still edit-warring. And now the Yugoslavs article? Please consider this a friendly warning. -- Director (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Do you have a source that states when Constitution was implemented? I have one saying it wasn't but it was on force right after signing Dayton wich contained Constitution in Anex 4. --Wustenfuchs 09:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This Constitution shall enter into force upon signature of the General Framework Agreement as a constitutional act amending and superseding the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina." - It's from Article XII from the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. General Framework Agreement is Dayton Accords. --Wustenfuchs 15:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop edit-warring, respect WP:BRD - or you will be reported (again). -- Director (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add a source for your claim, or I'll report you. I added a source for my claim, while you constantly revert my edits threating me you will report me and at the same time, refusing to add a source. We can't discuss that way. --Wustenfuchs 16:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RBiH is the same country as BiH[edit]

"Republika Bosna i Hercegovina, čije je zvanično ime od sada "Bosna i Hercegovina", nastavlja svoje pravno postojanje po međunarodnom pravu kao država, sa unutrašnjom strukturom modificiranom ovim Ustavom, i sa postojećim međunarodno priznatim granicama. Ona ostaje država članica Ujedinjenih naroda i može kao Bosna i Hercegovina zadržati članstvo ili zatražiti prijem u organizacijama unutar sistema Ujedinjenih naroda, kao i u drugim međunarodnim organizacijama."

To make a summary, Bosnia and Herzegovina is the same country as the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We made a big mistake by creating a separate article. The reason for this is because Bosnia and Herzegovina remained member of the UN without any new procedure after 1995. The only change was removal of the "Republic" from its name. I propose we merge this article and would like to see other oppinions. --Wüstenfuchs 13:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki'ing "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" redirects to this page. Where is this separate article you're talking about? 159.1.15.34 (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Wüstenfuchs, yes, in the same way that the Republic of Croatia is the same state as the Socialist Republic of Croatia. Or that this state is the same state as the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Opposed. Please, do not delete content and redirect without an explicit consensus in favor. -- Director (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of merge (dropped, but issues need to be discussed)[edit]

I am proposing to merge this article into Bosnia and Herzegovina. Will anyone be opposing and why? Personally I dont understand this article, is this article suposed to indicate that Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is some different country than Bosnia and Herzegovina? If so, corrections at Bosnia and Herzegovina should be made, or otherwise this article has no reason to exist as separate, cause from what I see Bosnia and Herzegovina is the article that refers to the country that exists since 1992 and includes the entire period from 1992 till nowadays. One particular editor is replacing Bosnia and Herzegovina by this article as country of birth at infoboxes, I asked him to express his reasons here. FkpCascais (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, I am Bosnian and will try to bring you this topic a little more close. Let's start. It should not be merged for more than just one reason. First of all, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina legally existed from 1992 until 1997, which its Constitution shows. It is a bit different country to what we today have, because after the implementation of Dayton agreement, existance of Republika Srpska within the borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina became "legal". No one before this agreement was accepting this entity, which is nowadays legal because of aforementioned agreement. So the whole country of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was different to todays country. Next, Republic had different anthem, and flag, which in law is a sign of independence and it is a state symol. Republic's Constitution was made by Parlamentary Assembly of RBiH, while the new one was imposed by Dayton. So the new Constitution wasn't voted for in Parlamentary Assembly, it just came to force. There is no way that we should merge these pages, because of all mentioned reasons, there's just no overlapping. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC) HankMoodyTZ (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also against the merge. Obviously Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina existed legally until co-signing the Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement. RBiH is the direct legal predecessor to the modern-day state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Technically all persons born between 1992 and the Dayton signing should be under Republic category, however Bosnian Serbs would not acknowledge this as they proclaimed Republika Srpska on 9 January 1992 and celebrate this day even today. However UN did not fly RS flag in New York in front of its building, it flew RBiH flag as RBiH was the only recognized country worldwide at the time as RS was only an illegal entity formed by ethnic cleansing within RBiH borders. Those are well known facts, nothing more nothing less. BiHVolim (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont mix up things, no one here is talking about ethnic cleansing, dont turn this out of scope. FkpCascais (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is exactly the problem, the two articles are overlapping and that is why I proposed the merge. You have to recognise they are indeed overlapping because the article Bosnia and Herzegovina claims it includes the country content since 1992 (not 1997) till nowadays. You are claiming that the political changes created by the Dayton Agreement make Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be one country (deserving its separate article) and pos-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina another. There are indeed substantial changes Dayton Agreements made so the entire country changed in many, can even say all, aspects afterwords, so I am partially in agreement with you. However, the issue here is not the events that happend back then and its consequences, but the issue here is the scope of the two articles and the Wikipedia rules and principles. We established to use at infoboxes as birthplace: city and country of birth at time of birth. For the country we use the parent article of the country, which ,as it stands now, is Bosnia and Herzegovina since the article claims to include the period 1992-nowadays in its scope, while Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is then a subarticle since it has in its scope only the 1992-1997 period. So, for you to make it right, before edit-warring and unlaterally changing that, you should:
1) go to Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina and challenge the fact that the article includes the period of 1992-1997 and ask the proper changes to be made so that article removes from its scope that period.
2) if you obtein consensus for this, then Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will become the main article of the country called BiH that existed between 1992 and 1997 and it can start being used as country of birth at infoboxes for people born in that period.
3) however, it can only be included as country of birth at parts of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that were under its control, while the other places will have the other political entities that had control over the territory, namely, Republika Srpska, Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia and Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia. (maybe now you have an ideia why everyone accepted article Bosnia and Herzegovina to be used since 1992 onwords, because it is the main article and avoids usng all these entities which existed back in early 1990s). The problem that you seem to be ignoring is that you cant say as birthplace, exemple Banja Luka, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, if the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina never had control over Banja Luka troughout its existance!
4) you can claim that Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was internationally recognised, while the other entities were self-proclaimed entities which only had partial or any international recognition, however, it is practice troughout en.wikipedia to add as country the entity that had the control at the moment. For instance, for people born during World War II you stop seing the internationally recognised Yugoslavia as country of birth but you actually see Independent State of Croatia, Nedić Serbia, or the neighbouring countries that had occupied portions of Yugoslavia.
See the pandora box you are opening with the insistence of making Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina country of birth as if it is a main article for the country and also that you are wrong in adding it as country of birth for places it had never had control over? FkpCascais (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina page has a short history specific to its period only and does not include any events in greater detail post RBIH on this page. Bosnia and Herzegovina has an extended history section to include 'pre' and 'post' periods. Does this mean we should delete all pages such as Medieval Bosnia or Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia(relating to SRBiH) since they are considered as Bosnia and Herzegovina? I think not. Should RBiH page be deleted, you don't just damage your personal credibility, but that of Wikipedia itself. Besides a lot of pages are linked to RBiH and ARBiH and merging these into BiH would confuse a lot of people and would mean VRS fought against 'itself' during the 90's as VRS was integrated into army of OSBiH since 2003. Keep them as separate pages. BiHVolim (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article Bosnia and Herzegovina claims to include the scope from 1992 till nowadays (see infobox), not Medieval period nor any other before. FkpCascais (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BiHVolim OK, but what I am saying is that HankMoodyTZ is replacing Bosnia and Herzegovina with Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as country of birth in infoboxes of many footballers born in BiH between 1992 and 1997. What do you think about that? FkpCascais (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise him not to change it around until this move has been approved globally on wikipedia; and this involves a lot of work and references to pass (just like your idea to delete this page, requires further discussions). I think he needs to read your feedback as to how to approach this matter as you have given him some solid info on that subject. He is new, he will get his head around the processes. I have seen people do far worse to pages changing RS to be country and not an entity for Bosnian towns, etc. Perhaps we should concentrate our energy in finding these culprits. BiHVolim (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate very much your efforts to point him out the issues here. My main intention here is just to discuss and establish consensus. From what I see my proposal of merge now seems to be wrong so I am dropping her, however, we do have issues here that need to be discussed and worked-out. With an increasing number of articles about people born in the period of 1992 to 1997 within Bosnia, I knew sooner or later this could become an issue, and probably many of us adopted Bosnia and Herzegovina as CoB because it seemed a solution that looked acceptable for most and a way to avoid this discussion. But the moment has come and here we are, so we need to establish a consensus now for the use of which article to be linked as CoB for what period and what territory. FkpCascais (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I propose for anyone that considers Bosnia and Herzegovina their country should be listed as person originating from RBiH (from 1992 to 1997). For anyone else (who has boycotted SRBiH referendum for independence from Yugoslavia), RS, BiH perhaps? We should look for clues at people from Transnistria, Catalonia or Northern Cyprus etc. We should ask Milorad Dodik and Bakir Izetbegović how they would do it. Someone send them an email. :) BiHVolim (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt answered to you here because at that time the discussion was basically between us two and it was leading us nowehere. I am not even sure if your last proposal is actually a real proposal or just an irony, but anyway, it doesnt seem acceptable because same way as you are distinguishing between Republic of BiH and replacing BiH with it, we cannot say that anyone considering BiH their country would consider also Republic of BiH their country. Anyway, that it too vague and too much speculative to become consensus for wiki norms. I raised this question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Republic_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina and I hope others participate and express their own view onhow to solve this. Anyway, thank you BiHVolim. FkpCascais (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The map in the infobox should not depict entire Bosnia and Herzegovina since Republika Srpska was never part of the "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina". Its territory should be excluded (not sure if Herceg-Bosnia as well). FkpCascais (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was internationally recognized as the government of the whole territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We usually depict the whole internationally recognized territory in the infobox, and the break-away teritorry usually in the lighter shade (like Azarbaijan, Georgia (country) or Serbia). So, maybe Republika Srpska should be in light green? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, that would be perfectly fine. The thing is that for the most time RBiH never exercised any control or authority for most of RS, and RS had its finances, currency, customs, army, etc. totally separated from RBiH. FkpCascais (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this does not change the fact that the RBiH was internationally recognised, while the Republika Srpska was viewed as an de facto breakaway state. I do not see a problem with adding a map that displays the teritory actually held by RBiH within it's recognised borders. Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of you must design the map of RBiH like this:
Light green, de jure territory
Dark green, de facto territory
The independent Bosnia and Herzegovina was split in three territories (four, including Western Bosnia)
Also you can just design the map of RB&H of its greatest extent during the war.
RB&H was represented only by Bosniaks with a few Croat rebels.

188.172.108.205 (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legislature[edit]

Does RBiH have a Legislative body? because if it's a parliamentary republic, it should have a legislature, so the parliament can exercise the government. Mhatopzz (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of substantially change[edit]

Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a same state as Bosnia and Herzegovina with modified name and internal structure. Annex 4, Article 1 of the Dayton Peace Agreement states that Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina continues its legal existance under a new name. Change in name or constitution does not negate the statehood. If that were the case each time any country that changes a flag or had an amendment to a consititution it would cancel its previous statehood and would be considered a new state. It is bizzare to see a similar attempt made here, but not surprising as it falls under a seen political doctrine of negating RBiH statehood DadoNYC (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DadoNYC: You are correct, and that is exactly what is stated in the second sentence of this article: It is the direct legal predecessor to the modern-day state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&oldid=1204878249"