Talk:Republika Srpska

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.
Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Need for edit and overhaul

Frankly, this entire page is a disastrous mess. The bulk of the entry is neither correct, nor neutral, nor objective. It is is constantly peppered with rank irrelevancies and attacks upon one side or the other as well as irrelevant characterizations of some of the historical figures. Even this discussion page contains this sort of clearly absurd and non-neutral commentary (see 67.95.81.62's comments below). To make matters worse, the page has been freely edited by people who have, at best, a secondary understanding of the English language, as demonstrated by prodigious errors in spelling, grammar and diction - particularly when an insult or POV about the history of Bosnia is being expressed. It is worth working on the page by one or two people who are prepared to objectively repair this page. Please leave a mesage at my page if you would like to work with me to fix this (and some related pages). As it stands, this page is basically useless for anyone seeking information on the political entities in question.

--Nicodemus75 09:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please don't "organize" work on some semi-random talk pages and instead work on it here and discuss it here. --Joy [shallot] 13:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If I wish to "organize" a discussion about something on my own talk page, that is my preorgative. This is a perfect example of a page that people may wish to have seperate conversation considering the amount of non-neutral POV nonsense that has infiltrated the main article as well as the talk page. --Nicodemus75 07:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Description of creation

The Republic was formed by the Serbs of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 after being disenfranchised by the joint Muslim-Croat political and later military alliance in Bosnia.

This is hardly an objective description of what happened, as I am sure you know. Adam 04:07, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's a little better.2toise 04:26, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the disenfranchised comment is neither neutral nor correct - if a 67% majority including many Serbs voted for independence in a multi-ethnic state how is that disenfranchising Bosnian Serbs?

Internet domain

Regarding the top-level domain (TLD) -- the web page www.rs.sr seems to talk about getting the .SR TLD for the Entity (I don't read Cyrillic too well), but that's not done and .RS.SR is a second-level domain. Given that there's also .RS.BA, that both seem to be commercial entities, and that the institutions of are not using either, I doubt that either really qualify for an official listing... --Shallot 17:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To expand a little bit about this, there seems to be a lack of consensus as to where the RS pages should be located. There's vladars.net and predsjednikrs.net for the government and the president, but the securities commission is at khov-rs.org, the constitutional court is at ustavnisud.org, the privatization direction is at rsprivatizacija.com, chamber of commerce at pkrs.inecco.net, the statistics institute is at rzs.rs.ba, and the customs administration is at rucrs.com. The city of Banja Luka is at banjaluka.rs.ba, the university is at urc.bl.ac.yu, and etfbl.net is the electrotechnics faculty. Overall, there's still way too much diversity to list any domain as official. --Shallot 20:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

It seems that SARNET, the academic network of RS, is the .rs.ba NIC, and that's usually a step in making a domain the official one. However, they're not actually consistent in using it, since google still finds them primarily at sarnet.bl.ac.yu, and there's no redirection from there to sarnet.rs.ba. --Joy [shallot]

I've also noticed that the Radio Television company of RS is at rtrs.tv or rtrs-bl.com. --Joy [shallot]

This page (http://www.banjalukaguide.com/grad_banjaluka/linkovi.htm) also has a few more, and also mostly .org and whatnot. --Joy [shallot] 22:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stamps

I returned older text as User:TOttenville8 says that he was unable to purchase these stamps in San Francisco. I found no mention online of this. Rmhermen 13:46, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Unable to purchase them, from whom, where, when, why? That's nonsense. You can buy the stamps on Ebay, unless of course TOttenville8 claims that Ebay is breaking the law as well?

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?query=srpska&ht=1&sosortproperty=1&from=R10&BasicSearch= Igor

Oh, I think that part is minor, he's merely trying to cover up the fact that there were scores of Bosnian Muslims living in Prijedor, Banja Luka and elsewhere in what is now RS and that they were mostly expulsed by the Bosnian Serbs during the war. That might undermine the whole point of this artificial political division, and we can't have that... :p --Shallot 16:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes but those Muslims never formed a majority in the region of Banjaluka as was written. Besides, the Sarajevo Serbs suffered much more ethnic cleansing (both numerically and percentage-wise) than the Bosnian Muslims Banja Luka. -- Igor

Just for the record, I found a related and very explicit quote at an ICTY indictment (http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/zup-ai991216.htm):

According to a census in 1991 the total population of the Bosanska Krajina region was 1,191,709 of whom 567,293 were Serbs, 439,935 were Bosnian Muslims and 103,111 Croats. There were, however, only a majority of Muslims and Croats, in Sanski Most, Prijedor, Kotor Varos and Bosanska Krupa municipalities.

So, it's true that the phrase "Serbs ... constituted a minority of the population in and around Banja Luka before the fighting" was incorrect (perhaps plurality in places, but not minority), but everything else and the overall meaning wasn't incorrect. --Joy [shallot]

.SR top domaine...

...doesn't it stand for Suriname, not Serbia? Just a cyberfreak out here...

Greetings, Muhamed

That's right. Serbia doesn't have a TLD - see the list at http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm . It still comes under .YU. -- ChrisO 12:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

67.95.81.62's comments

Republic of Serbs needs to be taken from all the maps and documents, since it is a fashist state, created by war criminals, and by force against a civil population of Bosnia (Croats and Bosnian Muslims), it was created as a part of dictatorship idea of creation of greater Serbia. If Serbs are not happy to live with other nationalities in Bosnia they should move to Serbia. Milosevic is a war criminal as well as his communist JNA (Yugoslav People's Army) did this with help of the nationalist Bosnian serbs. John

Dear John, Serbs and Croats have been living there since 6th century when their tribes came to Balcan. So called Muslims or Bosniaks are actually(mostly) those Serbs and Croats that were islamised during Othoman empire and been living with turkish masters for 500 years of occupation. Please go read history of Balcan(books before war recomended). Officially Muslims have been invented in 1968 and Bosniaks in 1993. Think why they called themself muslims with big M? I call this crisis of identity.

Btw Croats also had their state called Herceg-Bosna that is suposed to became part of Great Croatia, Croats also fighted with Muslims and Muslims also fighted Muslims especially in around Cazin and Bihac. And it's even more complicated, but it's too much to write...

Well said John. This so called Republic of Serbs is a product of ethnical cleansing and should be dismantled. It is a byproduct of Dayton Peace Accord and de facto it is award for the crimes that Serbian forces committed against Bosnian non-Serb population. Existence of this un-natural state, which turned segregation into the law of the land, is a major cause of instability in a region.

Official language(s)?

According to the webpage of the Republika Srpska government (http://www.vladars.net/lt/zakoni/amandmani_f.html), the Constitutional amendment LXXI provides that "the official languages are the Serbian language, Croatian language and Bosnian language, refered to by the Constitution as Bosniak language", replacing paragraph 1. of article 7. of the RS Constitution. Would someone please correct the article and the adjoining table? Thx, Muhamedmesic 16:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- ChrisO 17:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO, I'm beginning to admire you. - Muhamedmesic 19:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Names of towns

It's not really relevant, but here it comes: according to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (http://www.ustavnisud.ba) and this (http://www.rtrs-bl.com/vijesti/200403/040326.htm) Republika Srpska source of news, the names of several renamed towns and municipalities in Republika Srpska, including Srbinje (previously Foca), Srpsko Sarajevo (previously Lukavica), Srpski Drvar (previously Drvar), Srpski Sanski Most (previously Sanski Most), Srpski Mostar (previously part of Mostar Municipality), Srpski Kljuc (previously Kljuc), Srpska Kostajnica (previously Bosanska Kostajnica), Srpski Brod (previously Bosanski Brod), and a couple others (to spare you of the list) are unconstitutional and must be accordingly changed in the appropriate RS law. Until that is done, the court has reversed their names to their 1992 ones.

We watch TV. I doubt that local population will use new/old names however. Nikola 14:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The names are changed again. Should we follow the new names (and how, literally or translated) or just leave the articles as they are? This whole naming issue might deserve an article... Nikola 09:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Official clarification page

Republika Srpska government has a page that shows the present status of municipality names. Follow this link to track the changes (http://www.vladars.net/en/srpska/opstine.html)

Map should be fixed

Its good that there is now a map on this article. However the map is faulty in that shows the Brcko district as part of Republika Srpska. Whatsmore it isnt of the best quality. If someone has the time Id suggest editing one of the maps I made on the Bosnia and Herzegovina page on Bosnian wiki [1] (http://bs.wikipedia.org/Bosna_i_Hercegovina). Asim Led 04:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The map is ok

The map is not false because it portrays the entity in its entirety - including the Republika Srpska territory within the Brcko District. Claim that the Brcko District is not part of either the Federation or Republika Srpska might de facto be true (that is how things are run on the ground), but de iure it is false. If the Brcko District was not part of either entity, this would imply that the District is in fact the third entity. This would be a major breach of the general framework of the Dayton peace agreement (and Bosnia-Herzegovina constitution), which states that the country is internally composed of only two entities. Also, the Brcko District as 'not part of either entity' would make the territorial formula agreed at Dayton (49% of Bosnia-Herzegovina as Republika Srpska, 51% as Federation) unworkable. OHR, Office of the High Representative (http://www.ohr.int), provided a clarification on the status of the Brcko District, stating that the District is in fact a condominium of both entities. This would mean that the territory of the District is shared by both entities, although the entities exercise no executive power there. In other words, the Brcko District territory is both Republika Srpska and the Federation. Technically, this would apply to the whole territory of the District - in that way, there is no third entity, and 49-51% formula is (somehow) preserved. That said, it should be pointed out that the Brcko District was proclaimed on the whole territory of the prewar Brcko municipality. According to the Dayton map, 42% of the prewar Brcko municipality (including the town of Brcko) ended up in the Republika Srpska (this is the District territory marked on the Republika Srpska map in the article), while 58% of the prewar Brcko municipality ended up in the Federation (this part of the District is not marked on the map). Although the Brcko District was proclaimed in 1999, IEBL (Inter Entity Boundary Line) within its territory was never officially abolished; IEBL plays no administrative function within the District, except to mark the line beyond which the Bosnian Serb Army (Vojska Republike Srpske) traveling through the District can not go. Thus, it remains unclear how the entities hold the condominium over the whole District if the IEBL still exists on the books, and the District was created out of uneven chunks of both entity's territory. Given the fact that the Republika Srpska never officially accepted the arbitration result (one of the reasons IEBL was never officially abolished), the only solution is to show the Republika Srpska territory within the Brcko District (42% of it) on the Republika Srpska entity map, but color it differently (as done on the article map). The same formula should be used vis-à-vis the Federation territory within the Brcko District (58% of it) on the Federation entity map. When you put all of this together, you have a map of Bosnia-Herzegovina showing only two entities but also acknowledging the existence of the Brcko District - the neutral position.

p.s.

The 'condominium' idea is demonstrated by the way in which people declare themselves within the District. Citizens of the District have a right to hold entity citizenship of either Republika Srpska or the Federation, and have the right to vote on their entity's elections, although they are banned from serving in either entity's army.

Major overhaul needed

I would completely agree that this page needs a major overhaul especially in light of the most recent events in BH and RS. There should be some system of relevance and priority of information. How do information about postage stamps find their place at the top of the historical facts of the article is beyond me. Other items need to be updated: RS's ministry of internal affairs (police) and ministry of defense (military) were abolished in mid Dec of 2004 and integrated with BH ministries, I also believe that the customs department was integrated with BH although I cannot confirm this. These items should be replaced and moveed if anywhere than in the "History" portion of the article. "On the Internet" part of the article is laughable and useless, and a case point of how POV's go awry. I can begin making some changes but want to have a concensus before any of the changes get reverted.--Dado 02:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The information about police and military ministries is partially up to date, and it's definitely not just "history", because it's a current political issue. I believe the customs department has long been part of the BH customs system, but each entity has preserved some jurisdiction over the customs in their territory... The stuff about Internet domains is most certainly not useless — if anything, as you say yourself, it shows how things are unsettled.

On a side note, what is this trend with suddenly discussing major changes here? If something needs to be done, just do it. If it doesn't, don't. Where's the problem? The anonymous vandals for one have had no problem with being bold in editing this page, I don't see what's stopping normal users :) --Joy [shallot] 07:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dado, thanks for some support in terms of the need to overhaul this article. It definitely needs to be a collaborative effort for a variety of reasons. With respect to internet domain names, please be serious - it is a footnote at best and the amount of space dedicated to it in this article is completely laughable - unsettled or not. The postage stamp issue is equally absurd when compared to virtually any other country or similar political zone with a page on wikipedia. In response to Joy's "side note", the reason why this 'trend' is cropping up, is because of the amount of work required on a page which has been so poorly written and subjected to POV and non-neutral contribution, is so incredibly massive, that even experienced contributors have grown tired of investing time and energy into pages which will be subjected to revert wars and vandalism, without a collaborative effort and some concensus. I actually think this would be obvious given some of the revert wars that have and continue to plague wikipedia. Collaboration and discussion prior to investing hours of time and effort on an article such as this one, are necessary to prevent wasted time and duplication of labor. --Nicodemus75 08:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Postage stamps and Internet domains wouldn't stand out so much if we had better organized history, politics, geography, ... sections. The page will either have "silly" sections or be "poor" in content, until someone writes the missing stuff. And the only way to write the missing stuff is to actually do it. Talk about it on the talk page may help if we have contentious issues to discuss, but right now we don't have that, either, because all this cool new text -- doesn't exist.

Also note that I've been active for months with reference to vandalism etc, so I really don't need to be lectured on how experienced contributors have grown tired of investing time and energy into this page. --Joy [shallot] 11:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Joy, thanks for taking time to make the changes. I wanted to have this discussion before this major change took place so that there is an evident trail of thought behind the revision. I will contribute to the article as needed from this point on.--Dado 18:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republika_Srpska&diff=5715592&oldid=5608595) 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]

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)

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[2] (http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosanski_Srbi). 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.

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Republika_Srpska"