Talk:Republika Srpska (1992–1995)

Moved

I moved here history of RS from the Republika Srpska article, but the article contain much of the Bosniak nationalist POV. It should be changed in accordance with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. PANONIAN 18:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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 [1] 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? 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)

EQUALLY GUILTY?. JUST LOOK INTO ICTY AND SEE THAT MOST OF THE CRIMINALS WERE THE SERBS UNDER THE COMMAND OF BUTCHERS ARKAN, MLADIC AND MILOSEVIC. SO SHUT UP, YOU IDIOT CHETNIK!

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)

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)

You two could really calm down about ICTY. We know everything you want to say. We also know that the way ICTY is formed is illegal, that ICTY is illegitimate, and that it is heavily biased against Serbs. ICTY is not a credible institution, and its decisions are not facts. Nikola 20:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

For those who still want to get into this discussion about ICTY let me point out. ICTY has established what is in the world today considered a legal history. Their findings cannot be overturned and those who deny it technically are breaking the law. The legitimacy of ICTY is confirmed by all countries, members of UN including Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The latter two have actively, publicly and legally expressed their support for ICTY. --Dado 22:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

ICTY is illegal itself and can not establish a legal history. Their findings are valueless, and there exists no law which could be broken if someone overturns them. Legitimacy is not something which is confirmed by a country. Nikola 17:21, 9 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)

This alone speaks tons about ICTY. Nikola 17:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Arrival of the Serbs

Emperor Heraklion did not invite Serbs to drive off Avars. He invited Croats. Serbs came decade later and asked for land, Byznatine prefect gave them Thessaly, Serbs didn't like it...etc. etc. That is a fact and a written documented history, dear gents. Quod non est in scripsi, non est in mundi. No emperor ever invited Serbs. Serbs came and asked for land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.66.62 (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The court decision

"When you give us here a court decision which prove the crimes I will let it stay"

Well, you give it already:

• 106 Serbs (72,6 %)
• 31 Croats (21,23%)
• 9 Bosniaks (6,16%)

9 Bosniaks are convicted for war crimes, right? So, it is clear that crimes against Serbs did happened. Insted of deleting this section, try to improve it. By the way look at this ethnic map of BIH before the war:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bih_ethnic07.jpg

No, they are not. They are accused, but Serbs have been convicted for genocide! Only Serbs Serb army in the history of mankind has been convicted for GENOCIDE. So be ashamed for your sick support to War Criminals, and War Crimes. Tipical Serbian way!

You can clearly see how many areas of the present day Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina had Serb ethnic majority before the war. Where are these Serbs now? PANONIAN 14:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

You have not presented any factual information (just a link to MUP website). Map proves nothing and it is false in itself. All you have is a dubious circuimstantial evidence, if even that. If by any chance you even prove your claims (which I don't see how) they have nothing to do with the teritory of RS and in turn on an article about History of RS. It will only be viewed as trying to mask crimes by RS by pointing out moral equivalencies. --Dado 19:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate to get in a debate about the (as Dado said) questionable moral equivalencies, but it needs to be pointed out that 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 20:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

We of course know that you are trolling, but just for the sake of foreigners who may not realise it,

• Here is a web page on the site of the Ministry of internal affairs of Republika Srpska, which documents a numbers of crimes commited over Serbs, detailing locations and time, having lists of victims, concentration camps etc.

The website which you have given above, claiming to have detailed information of serb victims in Sarajevo is a questionable list, because it shows the list of names, some have name of the father but that is it, No date of birth or their pps number(maticni broj); so to have this list as credible source is bit questionable to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BHCluster (talk • contribs) 22:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the web site of the Republic secretariate for relations with ICTY of and exploration of war crimes. A lot of interesting publications.
• Here is a web page on crimes on FreeSrpska, the site of a movement for liberation of Republika Srpska and union of all Serbian lands. There is some material in English too. I'd add that they gave me permission to use their material on Wikipedia, so if anyone encounters something interesting, tell me.
• Here is an interesting forum topic, which of course is not a source itself, but contains links to and excerpts from various sources, including a list of 126 concentration camps for Serbs in Sarajevo.
• [2], [3], [4], [5] are a just few articles about crimes from various Serbian media.
• Finally, here is an entire movie made of video clips of crimes committed over Serbs: Serbian RM, English RM, English WMV.

Nikola 14:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• And another one I found recently, a list of concentration camps for Serbs, on the website of The Association of Camp Inmates of Republic of Srpska. Nikola 18:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You didnt show us a courte decisions, to verify above propaganda. I have already showed here, how Ministry of internal affairs of Republika Srpska made up the list of "killed Serbs in Sarajevo". Emir Arven 15:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you stop parroting "court decision, court decision, court decision, court decision" and engage in some honest discussion? Nikola

Those are relevant information judged by UN courte. Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There, I ask nicely, you do it again. Nikola 18:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat as you are talking about "ethnic cleansing of Serbs"...Give us here any courte decision at all about ethnic cleansig. 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.

Lie. All people killed in Sarajevo by any side are attributed to Serbs. Nikola

According to Stanislav Galic's judgement (Serb War Criminal, and commander of Sarajevo siege). If you have something else to offer like other courte decisions to prove your saying, feel free?Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't read that judgement, but I doubt even ICTY would be that stupid. Nikola

I suggest you to read it, because obviously you dont do that before editing the articles in Wikipedia. I will post just a part:

FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDINGS of the judgement

On 2 May 1992, a major JNA (Serb army) attack on the centre of Sarajevo occurred while President Izetbegovic was in Lisbon for negotiations. That day, Tarik Kupusovic, a member of the town council, witnessed tanks approaching from Lukavica, a neighbourhood in the southern part of Sarajevo, and opening fire on the Presidency building. Fire was returned from those buildings. Forces loyal to the BiH Presidency prevented the JNA from storming the Presidency, but only barely. “After that the town was exposed to very heavy shelling. A couple of days later the Bascarsija, the centre of old Sarajevo, was set alight, the national and university libraries, the railway station, the post office and many key buildings in town were heavily shelled and destroyed. […] This started already on the 2nd or 3rd of May and went on for several weeks, with interruptions, went [on] every day or every other day we experienced shocks. Zetra was destroyed, the Olympic Sports Hall, […] the railway station had gone, […] many apartments buildings had burned or several floors of those buildings and several apartments. […] The buildings that I mentioned are scattered all over town, so one could not identify a particular part of town being targeted, except for the buildings themselves, that were symbols of the town and were essential for its functioning, like the post office, the railway stations, the Zetra sports hall, and similar such facilities.”

After the JNA partially withdrew, the parliament of Republika Srpska on 12 May 1992 ordered the formation of the Serb Army (“VRS”), designating General Ratko Mladic Chief of its General Staff. On 22 May 1992 BiH was admitted as a member state of the United Nations. The Security Council called for the withdrawal of foreign forces, including the JNA, from BiH territory. That same day, General Mladic ordered the formation of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps (“ SRK”),one of the five constituent Corps of the VRS. It was to be located in the greater Sarajevo area, the former zone of responsibility of the 4th JNA Corps.JNA elements joined local Territorial Defence forces and participated in organizing and staffing the SRK.The SRK comprised overall about 18,000 soldiers divided into ten to thirteen brigades, ranging from a few dozen troops to several thousands, themselves divided into battalions and companies. The main SRK forces were positioned around what was colloquially called the inner ring of Sarajevo, in particular in the area of Ilidza, Nedarici and Grbavica.Until the end of 1992, seven SRK brigades were positioned in that part of confrontation lines constituting the “inner ring”, whose length was some 55 kilometres. Auxiliary forces of the Corps were positioned on the so-called exterior ring of the Sarajevo front, which length was some 180 kilometres.

The city of Sarajevo came under extensive gunfire and was heavily shelled during the Indictment Period. This is documented by UN reports, and other UN sources, which offer general assessments of the death or injury of Sarajevo civilians in the course of such attacks.John Hamill, a military observer who served with UNPROFOR from May 1993 to July 1994, explained that “Very, very few [shelling] incidents actually stand out” in his mind because there were “a whole series of attacks that went on killing civilians in the city of Sarajevo” during his stay there. Francis Thomas, a Canadian officer who oversaw UNMOs in Sarajevo from October 1993 to July 1994,testified that upon his arrival the bulk of the shelling was directed at the city of Sarajevo and he could detail cases in which UN representatives observed “artillery fire on the ground, hitting civilians”. A 1993 UNPROFOR report indicated that shelling had resulted in a “High level of civilian casualties relative to recent months”.

All residents of ABiH-held areas of Sarajevo who appeared before this Trial Chamber testified to the effect that no civilian activity and no areas of Sarajevo held by the ABiH seemed to be safe from sniping or shelling attacks from SRK-held territory. The Majority heard reliable evidence that civilians were targeted during funerals, in ambulances, in hospitals, on trams, on buses, when driving or cycling, at home, while tending gardens or fires or clearing rubbish in the city. Sniping incidents 22 in Dobrinja and 24 in Novo Sarajevo examined above are examples of how civilians were targeted while using public transport vehicles running during cease-fires. In sniping incident 20, the witness Akif Mukanovic recounted in detail how his wife was killed by a bullet while at home in Hrasno. In sniping incident 18, the victim recounted how she was targeted while cycling back from the hospital in Dobrinja; in sniping incident 15, the victim told the Trial Chamber how he was targeted while collecting rubbish in the area of Hrasno under the escort of the UNPROFOR. Witnesses G and K both testified about how they were repeatedly and deliberately targeted in Kobilja Glava. Other witnesses testified about civilians being targeted while crossing intersections in Novo Sarajevo, in Hrasno, in Dobrinja, in Novi Grad, in Alipasino Polje, or in Stari Grad. The scheduled sniping incidents 23 (Momjilo ) and 25 (Alipasino Polje) are representative of such targeting from SRK-controlled territory. Residents of urban or rural areas of Sarajevo testified about the targeting of civilians fetching water and detailed evidence to prove examples of such targeting was adduced, such as sniping incident 6 in Dobrinja IV, shelling incident 2 in Dobrinja C5, sniping incidents 16 and 17 in Novi Grad, sniping incident 9 in Kobilja Glava. Civilians were targeted while shopping (shelling incident 5 in Stari Grad), while gathered in square (shelling incident 4 in Alipasino Polje) or during sportive festivities organised on a public day (shelling 1 in Dobrinja). Even children were targeted in schools, or while playing outside, riding a bicycle, near their home, or in the street. Sniping incidents 2 (Sikoraca), 8 (Sedrenik) and 27 (Hrasno) and shelling incident 3 (Alipasino Polje) examined above are representative of such targeting. The most populated areas of Sarajevo seemed to be particularly subject to indiscriminate or random shelling attacks. Hadzic testified about every single part of Dobrinja, a very populated neighbourhood, exposed to severe shelling originating from SRK -controlled territory. A resident of Alipasino Polje, Diho, testified about entire façades of houses on Ante Babica street “pock-marked” with shell pieces and grenades of all calibres and other apartment blocks targeted by SRK forces. Photographs adduced into evidence show the extensive destruction of civilian inhabitations in Sarajevo during the Indictment Period...--Emir Arven 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Just as I said, ICTY is not that stupid, and this does not show that all people killed in Sarajevo were killed by Serbian forces. Nikola 20:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Among those killed people by Serb bombs and snipers were around 1000 Serb civilians which stayed in Sarajevo.

Lie. Again, all killed Serb civilians are attributed to Serb forces, all cases of bombing and sniping in Sarajevo are again attributed to Serb forces. Nikola

Give us something relevant to prove your saying? Otherwise you sound just like a vandal.Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't see anything relevant in what I said I could hardly make it any clearer. Nikola

If you dont understand that the Serb propaganda never proved by anyone is irrelevant then that is your problem. Emir Arven 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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.Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Official website of Ministry of Internal Affairs of RS or of Republic secretariate for relations with ICTY of and exploration of war crimes of RS is not my opinion. Nikola

Ministry of Internal Affairs of RS used to protect War Criminals including most wanted: Radovan Karadzic as Governmet of Serbia did in the case od atko Mladic, until 2002. according to Serb ministar Vladan Batic. Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You do have some, eh, courte decisions to support what you are saying? Nikola

Read just above Stanislav Galic's judgement. If you want I can post other decisions including judgement about genocide commited by Serb army.Emir Arven 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen that the above text mentions the Ministry of Internal Affairs of RS. Nikola 20:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

? Read it again. It is about Serb army that surrounded Sarajevo. This is a sentence from the judgement: "Even children were targeted in schools, or while playing outside, riding a bicycle, near their home, or in the street." This is done by Serb army. Stanislav Galic as a commander of the siege was sentenced 20 years for war crimes against civilians in Sarajevo.Emir Arven 15:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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.Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You may qualify it any way you want, but the lists are the best we have. There are similar inaccuracies observed on other lists, such as missingkilled people in Srebrenica. Nikola

Bull shit. 6000 bodies of killed Bosnikas from Srebrenica have already been found. 20 mass graves are also found and the process of exhumation will start soon. The newest mass grave was found in Snagovo. On the other hand the list of "missing Serbs" was disputed by Serbs themselves. Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that every mass grave ever found is attributed to Srebrenica. That is nothing new. Nikola

There are relevant neutral international institutions that do their job in finding the facts, but Serb nationalists make fun of them, because they are awere of horrible crimes that Serb army commited in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo. Emir Arven 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Relevant neutral international institutions? Founded in and funded by the same countries which committed aggression on Serbs in RS, helped Croatia's ethnic cleansing of Serbs on its territory, committed aggression on Serbia during the Kosovo War and are now pushing heavily for unitarisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and independence of Kosovo? Nikola 20:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Redicilous. Serbia is a part of UN, ICTY was founded by UN. Serbia withdrew prosecution against "evil" NATO. Why? Because the prosecution would show that Serbia commited genocide against Albanians in Kosovo, and NATO decided to stop that. Emir Arven 15:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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 [6] But Serbs nationalists lied about this, and they wrote that he was killed by Bosnians. This is just one example.Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice, discounting lists of thousands of people because of a single bad entry. Nikola

That was just one example. How many Serbs have been found in mass graves??? Where are those mass graves of thousand Serbs? Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe search for Serbian mass graves don't get as much attention and financing as non-Serbian mass graves? Anyway, here is a couple [7], [8]. Nikola 18:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Still you didnt show us anything. First link is about Serb soldiers in Petrovac not in Sarajevo (a town miles away from Sarajevo), in the front line between Bosnian Army, Serb army and Croat amry. Emir Arven 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It's about Serbian POVs actually. However, we were not talking about Sarajevo, but about crimes in general. Nikola 20:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Second link is about a few people that are allegedly killed in Trnovo, not in Sarajevo. Who are they? Still nothing verified by any courte. Emir Arven 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No comment. Nikola 20:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There are 411 people that are not even from Sarajevo.Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And I suppose all people killed in Sarajevo were from Sarajevo? Nikola

No, those people were for instance Croats from Bosanska Krajina, Serbs that were fighting in Bosnian Army and still alive, some Serb soldiers killed near Bosanski Petrovac etc. Yes, that is enough to discount the list which was never verified by any serious court decision not even Serb courte decision. Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it isn't. Nikola

A strong argument, really :) Emir Arven 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So this is just your way to continue policy started by Slobodan Milosevic, and other Serb War Crminals that are now in the Hague. Serb medias are also lying because their stories have not been proven. Emir Arven 15:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is so much crap that I won't bother answering it. Nikola 12:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Still you didnt show us any relevant document. Emir Arven 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Even nothing is more than what you have shown. Nikola 18:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

For a Serb nationalist, yeah. Emir Arven 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Foreigners" beware. Let’s go over the sources presented above, shall we?

1. A web page of the Ministry of internal affairs of Republika Srpska. The same ministry of internal affairs which claimed that the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Sarajevo was greater than the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks in the Srebrenica massacre. The same ministry of internal affairs which repeatedly released shockingly implausible "victims lists" during times of political tension. The same ministry of internal affairs that had these "victims lists" debunked by a wide variety of independent media and proven to contain numerous errors (For instance, about half of the victims on the first page of the killed Serbs in Sarajevo list, released during heated police redistricting debates in Travnik, were proven to be either living, falsely portrayed, or entirely made up). The same ministry of internal affairs that is known to help hide numerous war criminals wanted by the Hague.

The ministry is a legal and legitimate ministry of RS and should therefore be taken as credible - it's certinly more credible than ICTY which is neither legal nor legitimate. Ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Sarajevo of course was greater than the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks in Srebrenica and no one disputes that. The victims lists show some problems, but there are same problems on equivalent lists, notably on lists of those killed in Srebrenica. I don't know where have you pulled from this about hiding war criminals. Nikola

Similar federation institutions are also legal and legitimate and contest the very same information. As for "ethnically cleansed Sarajevo", this myth has been debunked numerous times throughout wikipedia. Those propagating it have yet to reply to any of the numerous holes found in the rather sketchy hypothesis. Live Forever 19:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well fine but documents by these institutions are not offered as sources here. That Sarajevo Serbs were ethnically cleansed is a fact, and I haven't noticed any debunkings - where are they? Just please, don't point me to apologetics of style "they didn't like living in the Federation so they packed up and went". Nikola

2. A web site of the Republic secretariat for relations with ICTY and explorations of war crimes. A short scroll down reveals all that needs to be known about its credibility. There, starting at you from the center of the page are two eyes behind a traditional Islamic hijjab, on a falsified cover of Alija Izetbegovic's "Islamic declaration" showing Islamic calligraphy juxtaposition with the modern flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In case you don't understand, the Islamic Declaration was a philosophical work published by Izetbegovic during communist times that, a.) had nothing to do with Bosnia and never even mentioned it in the text, b.) nothing to do with Izetbegovic's policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was an idealistic tract that dealt with the problems of the Muslim world as a whole, yet this web site tries to, once again, force feed the idea that Republika Srpska was fighting "Islamic fundamentalism" (this claim has gained much popularity in the years following the September 11th terrorist attacks, in a vein attempt to gain Western sympathy).

That does not pretend to be a cover of the Islamic Declaration. That is the cover of their book "Islamic Terrorists in Bosnia and Herzegovina". Of course, it is well known that Izetbegovic wrote his declaration in a moment of temporary insanity and that his magnum opus had no influence on his later politics whatsoever. Nikola

Nonetheless, its cover is obviously misleading and creates a false impression of Izetbegovic's views. The Islamic declaration was not meant to apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina because Bosnia and Herzegovina was not an Islamic country, although Izetbegovic viewed Bosniaks to be part of the Islamic world. Live Forever 19:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So say you and the Declaration says otherwise. "There can be no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic societies and political institutions". This applies to Bosnia as much as it does to Bagdad or Amsterdam. But it is irrelevant - having a thumbnail some may mistake for something else somewhere on the webpage does not discredit the organisation. Nikola

3. The web site "FreeSrpska" is such a ridiculous example of propaganda that even a Westerner only moderately familiar with the subject should be able to recognize this. For proof, one needs to go no further than their laughable section on "Bosniak history"

One can hardly write something more laughable than Bosniaks#History. Nikola

Feel free to try and prove any portion of it wrong. Live Forever 19:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And to become engaged in constant revert wars with you as I am here? No, thanks. Cornerstoned on a quote by Noel Malcolm, no mention of DAI, no mention of Bosnian rulers' intitulation, frequent application of term "Bosniaks" to mean "Bosnians" and vice versa make it the laughing stock of Wikipedia. Nikola

4. An internet forum. Does any more need to be said?

An internet troll. Trying to discredit me in futile hope that no one will read what I have written: here is an interesting forum topic, which of course is not a source itself, but contains links to and excerpts from various sources. Nikola

An internet troll who writes on a variety of topics on wikipedia and has written articles of high enough quality to be featured on the front page. Asides from the personal insults and provocations you have lately taken up, I wont even bother spending time explaining why a radical Serb internet forum is not the best place to go looking for information in any way. Live Forever 19:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

5. The linked sources include two dealing with war crimes against Serbs brought up to the ICTY (Apparently, in the eyes of Nikola, the institution has become temporarily valid while discussing war crimes against Serbs), one link to unsubstantiated allegations, and another to an opinionated interview article. Live Forever 20:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

These are the first four I found without much research, surely there are dozens if not hundreds out there. Interesting, you don't comment the movie? Nikola 12:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Could the movie perhaps be the one of the executions of Serb P.O.V.'s whose prior actions I am personally familiar with? If not, I might actually take time to view it on my already crammed computer. Live Forever 19:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No, though may include it. Did you wanted to say that execution of POVs sometimes may be a good thing? Nikola 20:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Compromise?

I saw this on the administrators intervention against vandalism page and looking this over I can see that it's getting pretty heated and flirting with the WP:3RR policy. I removed it because in the strictest sense it's not vandalism, but it's getting to the point that useful editing is giving away to reverting each other. Is there a middle ground everyone can agree in?

There's a block of text at issue describing crimes against the Serbs by Bosniak and Croat. It seems clear that some Serbs were killed during this period, including in and around Sarajevo. so let me ask a question. Is that a fact that everyone can agree on? If so, then maybe we can find a compromise in the way it's written about. I inserted this text into the page as a replacement for the text that's been reverted back and forth:

On the territories controled by the Bosniak and Croat authorities during the war, numerous ethnic Serb civilians were killed, including Serbs living in Sarajevo at the time. During and after the war (when Dayton Agreement was signed), almost all Serbs were driven out of Sarajevo

I have to correct you. There was just one legal Bosnian government recognized by UN in Sarajevo. Most of them were Bosniaks, but not all. "Croat authorities" had their illegal government which was never recognized by anyone. The same thing for Serbs. So Croatia (their president Franjo Tudjman) and Serbia and Montenegro (their president Slobodan Milosevic) negotiated in the name of Serbs and Croats in Bosnia (Deyton agreement was signed by Franjo Tudjman-Croatia, Slobodan Milosevic-Serbia and Alija Izetbegovic-Bosnia). Emir Arven 15:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Rx StrangeLove 21:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that was not true. That "one legal Bosnian government recognised by UN" wasn't recognised by half of people it was supposed to be governing. RS government wasn't recognised as souvereign, but was negotiated with by international negotiators. Nikola 08:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It was recognized by UN. Slobodan Milosevic (president of Serbia) negotiated in the name of RS because RS was illegal, and never recognized by UN. All former presidents of RS are either war criminals or removed by international community because they were extreme nationalists. (Radovan Karadžić, Biljana Plavšić, Momčilo Krajišnik, Nikola Poplašen etc.) Emir Arven 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The court that convicted them is illegal and illegitimate and they were removed after political pressure by a group of countries, not the international community. Nikola 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

And who are you to say that? Emir Arven 18:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I am someone who has analysed a relatively large sample of material about the topic and came to conclusion that people who have such views are right. Nikola 19:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You have analysed materials?! And ICTY didnt analyse materials? What a joker! Emir Arven 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

ICTY does analyse materials, with the purpose of presenting Serbs as primary culprits and hushing up any crimes committed against Serbs. The results are as could be expected. Nikola 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Serbs that lived in Sarajevo during the siege were killed mostly by Serb bombs and snipers just as other 12.000 civilians because sniper cannot identify who was a Serb and who was a Bosniak. A thousand Serbs in Sarajevo were killed by Serb army. Read the judgement that I posted above. A Serb general Stanislav Galic, that was a commander of the Sarajevo siege was convicted for war crimes against civilians in Sarajevo. During the siege some murders had happened (just as murders happen in peace), not against Serbs, but all citizens of Sarajevo, no matter of ethnicity, because there were gangs in the city that controlled black market in Sarajevo, because people were hungry so some of them were ready to do anything to get profit or to get food.

This remains unproven and unprovable. Nikola 08:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This was proven, I am sorry that you still live in illusions about Great Serbia. Emir Arven 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that you live in illusions that things you write actually make some sense. Nikola 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

For nationalist like you, they dont make sense, I am aware of that.Emir Arven 18:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"During and after the war (when Dayton Agreement was signed), almost all Serbs were driven out of Sarajevo" This is completely incorrect. Some Serbs left some parts of the city after their former president Momcilo Krajisnik made an invitation to Serbs to leave the city because he didnt want that Serbs live together with Bosniaks and Croats. Now he is accused for genocide and awaiting a trial in ICTY. Emir Arven 15:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Some Serbs = 150000 Serbs. Some parts = All parts. invitation = "run for your lives" Nikola 08:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is redicilous. Can you tell us here what parts of Sarajevo, because I am from Sarajevo, and as you are from Serbia, I am really curious about your knowledge about Sarajevo? Emir Arven 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Serbian-inhabited parts of Sarajevo. Nikola 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There were no Serb-inhabited parts of Sarajevo, because people in Sarajevo were totally mixed, and they lived together in every part of Sarajevo (Serbs/Bosniaks/Croats/Jews/Gypsies/Slovaks etc.) And where do you live, in Serbia? Emir Arven 18:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, they weren't. There were quarters that were predominantly Serbian/Croatian/Muslim (of course, there were mixed ones too) Nikola 19:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

So name those quarters! I suppose that you, from Serbia, know better than me living in Sarajevo. Emir Arven 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, of course you know much better than me, but you lie and don't want to say what you know. Nikola 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You have just affirmed that you dont have enough information to talk about it. So your edits are just Serb nationalistic behaviour. Emir Arven 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if the premise would be correct, this is completely non sequitur. Nikola 15:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Lets talk about how this can be changed to a version everyone can live with. Why doesn't everyone with an interest in this give your thoughts about this. Rx StrangeLove 05:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I gave my contribution based on international documents not propaganda. Emir Arven 15:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

An international document can't be propaganda? Nikola 08:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rx StrangeLove, I thank you for taking time to finally consider this issue. It has been a long and frustrating discussion so far and we will all (I am sure) appreciate your patience.

It is truth that Serbs were killed in Sarajevo. What is also truth is that they were mostly killed by the Serbian mortar and sniper fire along with the rest of the Sarajevans totaling 12000 killed (see Siege of Sarajevo).

Just one question - how do you know that Sarajevo Serbs were mostly killed by Serbian mortar and sniper fire? Nikola 08:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I live in Sarajevo, btw my autn is a Serb. Her name is Duška, she has a doughter called Olja. And we are all aware of Serb nationalism and terror. I am really sorry for you. You are from Serbia, as Serb army that surrounded Sarajevo was, and now you are talking about life during the siege in Sarajevo? That is sick, and pathetic. Emir Arven 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Serb army that surrounded Sarajevo was from Serbia? You are getting more nonsensical as time passes.

Let's say that I believe you about the aunt. How does she know that Sarajevo Serbs were mostly killed by Serbian mortar and sniper fire? Nikola 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Because her husbend was shot. How does she know? What the heck is wrong with you?! The orthodox churh in Sarajevo was hit by Serb artillery as every other part of the city. There is recorded speach of Ratko Mladić, when he gives an order to bomb Velesici and Pofalici. Then his officer asks him, what about Serbs that live there. Ratko Mladic's answer was exectly as yours: There are not many Serbs there, so just shoot. The same nationalistic logic. Emir Arven 18:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

First, stop lying about me. I never said anything even the most remotely like "There are not many Serbs there, so just shoot".

Second, yes, how does she know who shot her husband? Did she saw who did it? Nikola 19:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

First your nationalistic logic is the same, and you have proven that again in the very second sentence. How Jews in Auschwitz did know that they were killed by Nazis? Still if you dont know how, read the judgement that I posted above about Stanislav Galic and Serb amry that surrounded Sarajevo and systematically killed 12.000 civilians with snipers and bombs in 1300 days.Emir Arven 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

First you're talking nonsense, and second, I invoke Godwin's Law: I win the argument.

Had I not invoked Godwin's Law, however, I would have told you that the Jews knew that they were killed by Nazis, among other things, because people who were killing them wore Nazi uniforms. Further, I would have told you that, if your uncle was shot from a sniper, your aunt couldn't see uniform of the person who shoot him, and so can't know who killed him. Nikola 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You invoked Vojislav Šešelj's law. Pathetic. Emir Arven 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this sentence. Nikola 15:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What the disputed section is trying to do is to incorrectly pin the blame on Sarajevans (primarily Bosniaks and Croats) who were in the same mess as the Serbs in Sarajevo. It almost parallels the analogy as claiming that "500 Irish were killed in the World Trade Center attack and that those others who were killed or who got out alive are somehow responsible for it".

That is the most false analogy I have ever seen. Nikola 08:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a sad and insulting claim on either end. There were particular crimes comited in Sarajevo during the siege as Emir pointed out but hardly systematic as is presented in the disputed piece.

Ethnic cleansing of Sarajevo is a ridiculous claim. While controlled by Bosnian governemnt and being in the zone of an intense conflict for extended period of time, it is logical that a wide scale evacuation of population (all population regardless of ethnicity) would take place. For same reasons it is highly unlikely that a systematic ethnic cleansing could be organized in the city being under constant fire.

Comparatively, in the city of Banja Luka, the second largest city in Bosnia controlled by Republika Srpska, which was never in the zone of conflict, nearly 70,000 Banjalukans (mostly Bosniak and Croats) were systematically relocated (ethnically cleansed). This claim is actually supported by an observable systematic process which is well documented and reported by independent sources such as Human Rights Watch and ICTY. This is just an example that was repeated at almost all cities in Bosnia where Republika Srpska was in control and where non-Serb population represented a significant number. There is no such proof (other than dubious propaganda) for alleged ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Sarajevo or any other city in Bosnia.

What the user who is pushing the disputed text is trying to do is a part of the wider strategy that some users have resorted to when talking about Bosnian War and related topics and which includes using inaccurate, dubious, discredited or heavily biased sources and information in order to deny the level of atrocities committed in Bosnia, rewrite the history, marginalize the truth or in the best case, even out the blame among all parties involved. It is a sneaky vandalism that is difficult to spot but it afflicts enormous damage to the credibility and accuracy of Wikipedia. --Dado 15:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• How does the new version look to everyone? It seems more neutral than the last, are there any problems with it? Rx StrangeLove 21:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The section could be edited some more although I don’t see much purpose for it on this article as it actually talks about the territory of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and looks like it is an excuse for other crimes listed above. But, I don’t mind if it stays here just to end this dispute.

I would however eliminate both subtitles “War crimes against Bosniaks” and “Serb casualties” as it will most certainly arouse more edit wars by other users.

There are several sections that are missing from the article as it was moved from its original article Republika Srpske which is also disputed and which is in much worse shape than this one. I would ask to move to resolve issues on RS article first and we can return to this one again later.

I will try to summarize what has been generally agreed to so far and what issues still remain.--Dado 22:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Who and when agreed to anything? I have somehow missed this. Nikola 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. I agree about the subheadings. Would it be better to fold them into a section talking about all casualties? Are the missing sections really needed? I wasn't able to locate them. Thanks, Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. Emir Arven 16:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with (as long as they're neutral) or without them. Nikola 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rx, thanks for trying to fix this, but I can't fully agree with your version. First, you changed section title from "War crimes against Serbs" to "Serb casualties". This implies that there were no war crimes against Serbs, especially coupled with previous section title. Either previous title should be "Bosniak casaulties", or this should be "War crimes against Serbs". You have also removed phrase "war crimes" from the section and most mentions of all specific instances of crimes. That is no middle ground; you have toned down section about war crimes against Serbs, while section about war crimes against Bosniaks remained the same. Of course, Arven's further edits are a joke. Nikola 08:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I wanted to changes things one at a time. I'd like either for them both just to use the word casualties or to be folded into one section. I have a question about the term "war crimes". Have there been legal judgements that have found war crimes to have been commited against both of the groups? I don't want to use the term just because someone thinks that they were, I'd prefer to use it only when there have been legal findings that they have been commited. Fair enough? What I'd really like is there to be one section that describes war crimes that were committed during this time and not two sections that talk about each group separately. I think it'd be less inflammatory. Rx StrangeLove 20:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"...I'd prefer to use it only when there have been legal findings that they have been commited. Fair enough?" I completely agree. That was actually my proposal. But Nikola obviously thinks that ICTY is a joke. I constanly tried to put just those information that are verified by the courte. There are just legal findings (ICTY) about War Crimes commited by Serb army (ethnic cleansing, genocide in Srebrenica, Sarajevo siege, concetrational camps for Bosniaks etc). You can see all cases, and judgements here. Emir Arven 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The entire article will need to be heavily edited as it omits many important information. Some of them are formulated in the summary on Talk:Republika Srpska. The section on Bosnian War is just poorly written and also needs to be edited. I will remove subtitles as they serve no purpose other than provoke both sides.--Dado 16:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Here's a compilation of documents about crimes committed by Muslims to Serbs in Sarajevo. It specifically mentions names of victims, of criminals, courte decisions, vitness statements etc. Nikola 20:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have some legal judgement about "ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Sarajevo", present us here. I have already said that some murders had happened during the siege, but not systematically as Serb army did killing Bosniaks, Croats and Albanians, in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo. If you dont respect ICTY judgements, how do u expect that we respect newspaper articles that actually dont support your saying about "ethnic cleansing of Serbs" because these events were incidents in the city with half a million of hungry people that lived under the snipers and bombs for 1300 days. Emir Arven 23:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Their corpses were driven away to a place called "Kazani", above the Bistrik settlement in the Stari Grad municipality. In these "Kazani"s they were thrown in layers and, as they explained, first they'd throw 30-40 corpses, then cover them with and quicklima, and after quicklime a layer of earth and so on. According to them, there were ten layers..."

No, that is not systematic at all.

I don't respect ICTY judgements personally, but I have no problems leaving them in the article, if they are properly attributed. I don't expect that you respect anything that counters your agenda. Nikola 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You forget to mention that, earlier in the article, the unit responsible for all of this was labeled "outside the system" (i.e. outside the control of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina) by various bosnian government and military officials of various ethnicities. Live Forever 01:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So? Nikola 15:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

We've already mentioned this. In 1993 Mustafa "Caco" Topalovic was responsible for the bulk of the crimes listed in that article. Within a year, the Bosnian government executed him. The rest resulted in the conditions Emir described above, and took place before law and order were properly set up in the besieged city during the latter half of 1992. The rampage of a renegaede commander and isolated killings committed during the chatoic initial months of siege simply can't be compared to the organized and systematic genocide waged against the Bosniak and Croat populations in Serb-held territories. The great confusion, debate, and tension within the Bosnian government described in the article you provided are a testament to this. Live Forever 00:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In this paragraph, every sentence is completely false. Nikola 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've read and re-read the entire article. Everything stands. Live Forever 01:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't read that link, is there any English language site that reports war crimes conducted on Serbs by the Bosnian government? I found charges filed against "six leading Bosnian Croat officials" for war crimes and crimes against humanity conducted on Bosnian Muslims. I may have missed it but is there a source for this:

The ethnic cleansing of ethnic Serbs was also performed on the territories controlled by Bosniak and Croat authorities, and many of these Serbs escaped to Republika Srpska.

Rx StrangeLove 00:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

For example, the already mentioned Republic secretariate for relations with ICTY of and exploration of war crimes has English version of its page at http://rs-icty.org/engleski/ulaz_eng.htm Nikola 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That secretatiate should prove its accusations, becasue Carla Del Ponte and Louis Arbour (chief prosecutors) discarded those accusations, and said that was just propaganda. ICTY is a seriuos institution. Is is not based on propaganda. Emir Arven 09:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I said, ICTY is very biased. That they have discarded the accusations is expected. Nikola 15:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This not an arguement. We are stating the source that is generally acceptable. Your POV on it makes no difference.--Dado 15:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that source is not generally acceptable. But that is not the point. The point is that you are removing any mention of war crimes committed against Serbs, which are proven from sources which are generally acceptable. I consider ICTY unacceptable, but I haven't removed section based on it as a source. You did the opposite. And in last edits you have POVed the article further and inserted completely irrelevant stuff into it (any attempt to characterize the history of a territory as fundamentally Serb would inevitably neglect a significant Bosniak and/or Croat presence in the said area's culture and history - WTF?) Nikola 06:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Some evacuation and arguably ethnic cleansing of Serbs on the territory of Croatia did take place during the Croat military Operation Storm in 1995. Also during and after the war (when Dayton Agreement was signed), some Serbs left Sarajevo and other parts of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina entity particularly after the territorial provisions were enforced to comply with the Dayton agreement. Also many Serbs left Sarajevo after Momčilo Krajišnik, a former president of RS, invited Serbs to live in Republika Srpska entity.

However, these cases and other isolated incidents, as viewed by majority of independent international organizations and state agencies, are a rather inadequate parallel to such cases of aggressive, systematic and well organized ethnic cleansing campaigns as took place in Bosanska Krajina and Drina river valley regions.

Man, are you normal? Nikola 06:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

On the article Operation Storm there is not even mentioned that there was any ethnic cleansing. Even stating it here is a streach as it has hardly anything to do with BiH. I personally don't care if you want to eliminate the word "arguably" but only once the "etnic cleansing" appears on Operation Storm article. Your insinuations to my "normalcy" have been noted as a potential personal attack. --Dado 19:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

Could the person who added POV tag state what is POV about the article or the tag will be removed. Thank You--Dado 02:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This article contains highly disputed content as well as the article is the field for low level edit war. And I think that you are not so blind to see the same. So, continue to talk with others (who want to talk about this matter) and don't behave like a vandal. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a low level edit war to some extent. There were some pretty major changes done on the war crimes section that probably should have been talked about more. Are those changes ok with everyone? Rx StrangeLove 06:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Nikola 06:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you not happy with? Please, let's try and use this page for discussion of these types of changes, everyone will be happier. Rx StrangeLove 06:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There's hardly anything in new edits that I am happy with. First, there was this revert which goes along the lines of what we have already discussed, and then there was this rewrite, which is practically completely fictional. Just from the first paragraph:

The borders of Republika Srpska are, with a few negotiated modifications, based on the front lines and situation on the ground at the time of the Dayton peace accords.

Why is this important for the history article? Even if it is, it should be at the appropriate time point, not at the first place in the article.

• It is the truth. It talks about how and when Republika Srpska that we have today was created Dado 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it should be at appropriate time point. Nikola 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As such, the entity is primarily a result of the Bosnian war without any direct historical precedent.

Well, it doesn't have any direct historical precedent, but it is hardly the result of Bosnian war (formed before it) and even if that would be true, that doesn't have anything to do with the previous sentence ("as such").

• It is the truth and relevant Dado 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. Nikola 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Its territory encompasses a number of Bosnia and Herzegovina's numerous historical geographic regions, but (due to the above-mentioned nature of the inter-entity boundary line) it contains very few of them in entirety.

This should go to geography section of the main article, if it isn't there already.

• It is particularly interesting to note it because previous version was trying to refer this region as a continuation of some abstract Serb state that Serbs always wanted as their manifest destiny but were prevented to achieve it because of whatever reasons. Obviously there is either confusion about the issue or a particular agenda is being pushed. Dado 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what are you talking about. Nikola 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, various political units existed on Republika Srpska's territory in the past, but very few of them existed entirely within it.

I'm not aware of any high-level political units which existed within it. Don't see why is this important at all. I'm not aware of any country in the region which didn't have various political units on their territory yet the fact is not mentioned in the first paragraph of their history article. Nikola 10:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• High Level or Low level makes no difference. RS is also characterized as a low level political unit so a parallel to such unit in a historical sense is noted. It is stated for the same reasons noted above.Dado 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So, to cut to the point, which units are that? Nikola 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, none of them shared the mono-ethnic nature or nationalistic ideology on which the entity was originally conceived.

It is not clear to what "none of them" refers to; if to units that existed on RS's territory, it is highly irrelevant; they were multi-ethnic empires and Bosnia, and Bosnia existed before nationalism is invented. The sentence wants to say "RS is mono-ethnic and nationalist, other aren't" in bad sense of the words, while

“None of them” refers to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosanska Krajina, Vrbaska Banovina, and other historical regions in BiH that RS currently controls Dado 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Well then the paragraph is highly misleading: indeed, none of them does, but by their nature none of them could have. Nikola 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

From the second paragraph:

As an ethnic group, Serbs have a long history on the territory of Republika Srpska (as they do on the territory of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Slightly POV, Serbs have a long history on entire territorry of Bosnia, and not relevant.

but, due to Bosnia's traditionally multiethnic demographics, any attempt to characterize the history of a territory as fundamentally Serb would inevitably neglect a significant Bosniak and/or Croat presence in the said area's culture and history.

• Relevant. An attempt is continually made to claim that division of ethnic groups in BiH was historically geographical in a sense that to Serbs belongs RS while to Bosniaks and Croats belongs Federation of BiH which is a fascist lie. There is either confusion about this issue or a particular agenda is being pushed.Dado 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't understand what did you want to say by this. Nikola 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is written to create impression that the history of RS is characterized as fundamentally Serb (whatever that means), which is not true.

• RS was absolutely characterized as fundamentally Serb from the very beginning where all other ethnic groups were either treated as second class citizens, ethnically cleansed or in worse case killed (Srebrenica massacre). In fact one of the strategic objectives of RS leadership was to “establish border between Serbs and other ethnic groups”. Only after the war they began to change under the heavy direction from OHR.Dado 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I didn't wrote RS, I wrote History of RS. It creates impression that this very article characterises it as fundamentally Serb while it doesn't. Nikola 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In the third paragraph:

For an overview of the trends and events in the region's history prior to the establishment of the Republika Srpska, see: History of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This is OK, was there before, don't like "trends and events" part personally.

But in the rewrite links to Vrbaska banovina and Bosanska Krajina, which could be considered as some form of precursors to RS were deleted. Why?

• We could add these back. I have no problem with itDado 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

For a more detailed description of the circumstances that led to Republika Srpska's creation, see: Yugoslav wars.

OK

For an analysis of the nationalist ideology commonly affiliated with Republika Srpska, see: Greater Serbia.

That article is the worst I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Advertising it in such a way is horrendous.

In the fourth paragraph, phrase "Bosnian Muslims (now called Bosniaks)" is changed to "Bosniaks". That is serious anachronism; Bosnian Muslims were not called Bosniaks at the time. Also, "standpoints" is changed to "wishes", apparently in an attempt to make Serbian claims sound weaker. Serbs had valid reasons for their claims, it's not something one would just wish to happen.

Other edits are much, MUCH worse, but that's for start. Nikola 10:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• There were 4 sources and 11 reports, linked in this article, that were used to create it. I believe that your only objection is that it clashes with your POV and the agenda that you are pushing (that is evident on you personal page)Dado 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• • These sources and reports are biased against RS and shouldn't be used, especially not unilaterally. Nikola 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, have you browsed around the Secretariat's page, and what are your impressions? Nikola 10:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Millosh, please do not hide behind radical fringe (ie Nikola Smolenski) and let him fight your fights for you. If you have any issues regarding this article please discuss it yourself. Nikola has shown himself to be completely unreasonable with his agenda, and his claims and ill fate attempts have been discredited on many articles and by several users. I don't think there is any text that would satisfy him other than short of Vojislav Seselj or Radovan Karadzic rethoric and vocabulary. Your branding of articles as POV, which you probably haven't even read and considered, is not helping. I will leave the POV tag for now but until YOU present YOUR case I see no point in leaving it. --Dado 22:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please leave it on for now. Rx StrangeLove 05:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Panonian thinks that this page is disputed, too. And he is a relevant editor (at least for me). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Millosh the question is not how many people are disputing it but why are they disputing it. You still have not presented your case. --Dado 16:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not talking about facts here (I am sure that all of you are better introduced in the history of RS), but about one of the most important rule on English Wikipedia: concensus. If you still think that you reached concensus or that it is not important here, do what do you want. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

reference?

I see this sentence, part of the text that's being reverted back and forth:

The ethnic cleansing of ethnic Serbs was also performed on the territories controlled by Bosniak and Croat authorities, and many of these Serbs escaped to Republika Srpska

That's a pretty blunt statement, I think if it's going to be included there had better be some references to legal judgements. I think whenever a term like ethnic cleansing is used there should be some backup. There's lots more that's being fussed over but let's start with that. Where are the independant sources for this? Thanks, Rx StrangeLove 05:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see that you are siding with Dado and Emir now. Why does it matter if there are any legal judgements about it? Are legal judgements the only accepted source for Wikipedia? You know, a hundred thousand people won't just abandon their homes without something forcing them to do so. Anyway, here are several articles which mention it: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] (just search for "ethnic cleansing of Serbs"). Nikola 13:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

To me, these look like editorial content and opinion pieces. Do you have anything from official sources? Rx StrangeLove 16:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you didnt get the point. Newspaper articles are not relevant sources, because even Radovan Karadzic, the most wanted war criminal, wrote some articles during his life. Most of the articles (discarded by ICTY) are written by the Serb lobby. So we need an international courte which will be neutral and which will be able to decide what is propaganda and what is not. ICTY is such institution. It is not Bosniak/Serb/Croat courte, it is an international courte founded by UN. --Emir Arven 13:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is you who is not getting the point. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your political propaganda. Newspaper articles are relevant sources, and they are used in a plethora of articles. I agree that it would be nice if we would have an international court which would be neutral and which would be able to decide what is propaganda and what is not. ICTY is the opposite of such institution. Nikola 14:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Denial of Srebrenica, repeated attempts to link Bosniaks with nazis and Islamic fundementalism, same old story about ethnically cleansed Sarajevo, relativization of war crimes.. right. Rx StrangeLove, in case you are unable to identify each link posted by user Smolenski above as utter rubbish by yourself I'd be glad to help you. Live Forever 14:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What you wrote has no basis in reality. Nikola 14:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary. The articles you posted; a.) do everything I say, and b.) are, consequently, utter rubbish. Live Forever 14:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking anyones side, I just want all this reverting and edit warring to stop. My point is that if you're going to use the term ethnic cleansing then there should be some legal backup to the claim. I can find a newspaper that says just about anything, if there are no offical sources for the claim then the best we can do is to report that some groups claim that ethnic cleansing occured and show both sides to the debate, and not state it as fact. Have there been any convictions based in the ethnic cleansing claim? Rx StrangeLove 15:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell me what do you consider an official source, and I will try to find something. Nikola 21:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, here is something anyway. From the book Хронологија 1990-1995, published by aforementioned RS Secretariate, which is a chronology of event related to former Yugoslavia in 1990-1995:

• 1992-08-26: British Prime Minister John Major [...] offered to all [emphasis mine] participants of Yugoslav crisis "tenets and standpoints" [which are] giving up of ethnic cleansing [...]
• 1992-10-21: President of the International Red Cross Cornelius Samaruga stated that all three warring sides in B&H - Muslims, Serbs and Croats, are practising ethnic cleansing.
• 1993-01-22: Muslim forces have on the previous day broke in [Serbian village of Cadzice in Visegrad municipality] and burned all Serbian houses in it, continuing in the most brutal way politics of ethnic cleansing [...]
• 1993-02-26: Over Serbs in eastern Bosnia have committed massive crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide [...] said commander of Drina Corps of VRS colonel Milenko Zivkovic.
• 1994-05-29: Process of ethnic cleansing in former B&H started over Serbs [...] is proven in Memorandum which the committee of the Federal Government for gathering of data about committed crimes against humanity and international law from Belgrade has send to the United Nations [...]
• 1994-08-10: Special rapporteur of the Committee of the UN for human rights Tadeusz Mazovyetsky in his eighth report stated that on the area of the newly created Federation of B&H is "continued soft ethnic cleansing".
• 1994-09-12: In an appeal signed by the president of the Red Cross dr Ljiljana Karadzic and commissioner Ljubisa Vladusic it is pointed out that [...] Muslim government is for two years ethnically cleansing these areas [...]

So, this is from a book published by an official organ which contains relevant quotes of other official organs. I think that this is as official as it gets. There are also several references about ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia or of Croats in Bosnia by Muslim forces, but they are not relevant for this article. Nikola 22:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

ICTY has already judged simillar books, and other POVs (and numbers of other different attestations) and made a clear decisions.

Well, it shouldn't have. Nikola

You still didnt show us any courte decisions (not even from the Serb courtes) about "ethnic cleansing of Serbs". --Emir Arven 00:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't, I don't need to and I won't. Nikola 11:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The last red cross quote is from the wife of Radovan Karadzic, former president of Republika Srpska and ICTY fugitive.

So what? Nikola

Furthermore, your quote is misleading. She was not "president of the Red Cross", but "President of the Red Cross in Republika Srpska" - a position she was sacked from in 2002. Big difference.

I was going after a literal translation. The book says just "Red Cross". Nikola

Another reference uses data collected by the University in Belgrade. The same institution whose faculty of law openly claims that the Srebrenica genocide never occured.

So what? Nikola

Speaking of Srebrenica, another quote is from a certain "commander of Drina Corps of VRS colonel Milenko Zivkovic". Its notable that this exact division of the VRS was responsible for what happened in Srebrenica in 1995.

Hmm. That could mean that maybe what happened in eastern Bosnia and what happened in Srebrenica is somehow related. Just a thought. Nikola

And as for the quote dealing with alleged ethnic cleansing by Bosniaks in Višegrad dating from January 1993, it has no source.

The book is published by an official institution and so is an official source itself. Nikola

Furthermore, Serb forces took control of Višegrad in April 1992, and by July of the same year[15] international organizations reported that most all Bosniaks were ethnically cleansed from the area (prior to the war they made up 66% of the municipalities population).

I didn't say that that didn't happened, did I? Nikola

The city and municipality remained firmly in Serb territory for the rest of the war. The nearest land under the control of the Bosnian government was in Gorazde which, in early 1993, was also under attack by Serb forces. How Bosniaks could have ethnically cleansed this village on the outskirts of a town where they no longer lived and could not reach from the outside is beyond me.

Gorazde and Visegrad are some 30km away in the straight line. Even in a highly mountainous area, a group of people can traverse that in a day. Nikola

As for the remaining quotes, they are all pretty vague. For instance, Mazovyetsky offers a blanket statement that ethnic cleansing is being carried out on the territory of the FB&H, but does not mention where, when, by who, under what conditions, or even who the victims are (what is there, in that quote, to suggest that he is referring to ethnic cleansing of Serbs?). The "indictment" from John Major meanwhile, is, at best, indirect. Asim Led 06:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I translated all relevant quotes, regardless of their vagueness. Nikola 11:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I've found this article from Glas Javnosti, which begins with "In Bosnia and Herzegovina till now there are 11,000 prosecution cases submitted against persons suspected of war crimes. Of those almost 8,000 are from the Federation, and more than 3,000 from Republika Srpska." Nikola 12:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood what the article meant. It can be translated that "of 11000 cases 8000 cases were filed by the Federation of BiH and 3000 by RS". The article is as clear as mud as to actualy clarify if this means 11000 persons. Furthermore the distribution of the cases is quite dubious as most of the cases and details about them are still classified (as are the names of the participants in Srebrenica massacre). It is quite possibly a guess of the article's author. This is why we don't consider articles as valuable sources. Otherwise it is an interesting reading material.--Dado 21:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. First, the title says "10,000 people suspected", so at least that's clear. You're right that the paragraph is ambiguous, but even 3,000 cases is quite a lot. Nikola 12:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please try and limit the reverting going on here

Please try and work out your issues by using this talk page. Some editors here are flirting with WP:3RR which limits the number of times an editor can revert an article in a 24 hour period. An editor breaking this policy can be blocked for a temporary time. Why don't we start again, please describe the issues you are having, specific sections of this article. Thanks Rx StrangeLove 18:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are proofs of the Serbs terrorized and exiled in Croatia: [16], [17] and [18] There. HolyRomanEmperor 16:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

However, we're not dealing with Croatia here. Live Forever 20:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The Exodus

As I noted to the person that added the word The Exodus both in its gramatical as well as in historical meaning refers to the departure of Jews from Egypt. It is just not scientific to call it that way as it is ambigious and could be viewed as POV. Also Bosnians do not refer to their evacuation as exodus and 2 million of them fled their homes. Please try to control your emotions.--Dado 17:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I should point out that on the article Operation Storm the evacuation of Serbs from Krajina region was not refered to as ethnic cleansing. I will not remove the statement from this article as I don't have a clear opinion on the matter (especially since it has to do with Croatia not BiH) but some may percieve the use of the phrase differently.--Dado 20:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So now we have three options for what is quickly becoming a ridiculous issue:

• exodus
• ethnic cleansing
• evacuation

This issue will not go away and much less with arogant statements such as I suggest the past couple of editors stop editing until they learn English.. Leave your comments here.--Dado 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Exodus and evacuation are essentially synonyms, but the former has great POV connotations. The choice between the two is clear. As for ethnic cleansing, I don't see why we should describe it as such on this page if the page on Operation storm doesn't either. Asim Led 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd favor the term evacuation over exodus for the connotations Dado mentioned. I don't think ethnic cleansing is an option. Either way, please stop reverting each other over this. How about sidestepping the issue? How about:

As a result of Operation Storm, nearly 200,000 Serbs fled from Croatia

It actually makes more sense as a sentence anyway. Rx StrangeLove 00:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it highly offensive that launching a military operation which results in removing an entire nation from its homeland for you does not apparently count as ethnic cleansing, maybe because the victims are Serbs? Anyway, I'm prepared to accept the current wording. Dado, I know my statement could have seemed arrogant, but I'd just like to make clear an exodus is "a departure, usually of many people, an emigration", look it up ;) Also, in your message you referred to the Bosnians' "evacuation", a na engleskom to zvuči ko da su se sami podigli i otišli, to mi je smetalo. Engleski mi je maternji, znam o čemu pričam. ;) :) --estavisti 09:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on the term ethnic cleansing, I was suggesting a compromise in the evacuation/exodus debate. The only feeling I have in the term is that there should be an official unbiased source that you can cite that has reached a judgment. As you can see for yourself, the edit I performed did not include the term ethnic cleansing. Rx StrangeLove 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, however, there are far bigger problems with Dado's attempt of rewrite than that single word. Nikola 12:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

State your problem and quit reverting the article --Dado 17:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

See #POV. Nikola 07:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did the pre-war ethnic map go? HolyRomanEmperor 16:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably deleted, because it was under copyright. I have saved it, in case someone wants to redraw it. Nikola 20:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for edit

The article was changed as it neglected to point out following issues that are part of the History of Republika Srpska

• The ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population from the territory claimed by Republika Srpska [19],
• Creation and running of concentration/detention camps [20]
• 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 [21], [22].

--Dado 16:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Original version of the article ([23]) mentions these things:

• The army of and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused for the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population from the territory claimed by Republika Srpska
• In 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
• The army of and the political leadership of Republika Srpska have been accused for the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population from the territory claimed by Republika Srpska, the long military seige of Sarajevo, and the massacre of Bosniak men and boys following the fall of the United Nations-declared safe area of Srebrenica.
• Destruction of cultural monuments isn't mentioned, it should be.

Nikola 09:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So what is wrong with the current version and why are you sanctioning edits. --Dado 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of wrong with your attempt to rewrite the article. I outlined some of my objections on #POV. Nikola 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop please

Please stop reverting each other. Can you guys please outline your differences here. We can find a middle ground. If you could just thumbnail the issues between the versions...just a few sentences for now. Rx StrangeLove 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Asim Led, get over here and discuss. Izehar (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you came here to help User:HolyRomanEmperor destroying the articles and spreading incorrect information. For instance there is just Bosnian languge, not Bosniak language, see ISO-639 in English, but Serb nationalists keep spreading those incorect info, and you came here to show your friendship to those people. But, son you have to understand it is really pathetic. If you dont know enough about the subject, then dont edit the article. At least read previous discussions. These are the articles that you tried to destroy, and I ask admins to stop this pathetic behaviour:Demographic_history_of_Kosovo and Republika Srpska.--Emir Arven 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I came here to stop the reverting. Please bring your issues here. Reverting this page is not getting anywhere. Instead of the accusations please outline your issues with the 2 versions. Just sit down and write out 3-4 sentences. Thanks. Rx StrangeLove 19:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dado has voiced my concerns pretty well this whole time, and has been the most active on this page. I'll let him explain the situation on my behalf as well as his, and I'm sure Emir would agree. Asim Led 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Emir Arven 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add something about the usage of exodus: see Albanian exodus. HolyRomanEmperor 17:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

May I remind that this article was created because of the edit war on Republika Srpska article and because some users (Nikola and Panonian) did not want to see following issues described on that article:

• The ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population from the territory claimed by Republika Srpska [24],
• Creation and running of concentration/detention camps [25]
• 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 [26], [27].

Agreement was made that these issues should be pointed out on Republika Srpska article and comprehensively covered on this article. Instead they quickly created this article with their own agenda and are now claiming that it is an original version that we are somehow vandalizing. The comprehensive version of this article has been only disputed as far as the personal opinions of Nikola and what he is "happy" and "unhappy" with. Given that this is such a contoversial topic the only way to proceed is to use official documents on issues that need to be presented. We (Asim Led and I) have done our research on this topic and presented here valid sources. If others expect their comments to be taken seriously they need to present similar level of serious research.--Dado 19:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dado, copy/pasting in discussions is not helpful. As I explained above, practically all things which you mention have existed in previous version of the article as well. It is not true that "they" quickly created this article; the article was copy/pasted from Republika Srpska verbatim. Then you tried to rewrote it while there was ongoing discussion about controversial points of the article. The sources you presented are not as valid as you are portraying them, and the sources others have presented are being ignored.

PS. Stopping reverting while the discussion is ongoing. Nikola 09:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My copy/pasting is apparently necessary because you are ignoring it. True that the article was copied from RS article and it was done in a heat of discussion on that article and mostly without participation of all parties involved. We rewrote it because the version that was originally pasted here was disputed even before on the article about Republika Srpska which you and Panonian simply moved to this article without an attempt to make it better. Point out what is wrong with this verion or make changes on it as you think it should read. --Dado 15:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dado, mildly said, this is a pack of lies. When you have first brought that paragraph to the discussion, I have instantly responded to it, showing that of four points you claimed did not exist in the article, three did, and so, the rewrite was not necessary. Now you say that I am ignoring it, but it is in fact you who are ignoring my answers. It is true that the version on RS article was disputed, but so were both versions.

I will make changes on it as I think it should read. Nikola 09:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For the first, I think it should have a tag on the top of it, which shows that its factual accuracy and neutrality are disputed. Nikola 08:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have shown history of not presenting relevant reasons for disputing factual accuracies so for as long as you don't reasonably validate that there is a legitimate dispute regarding the article or the section the disputed tag is an ill faith attempt to imply that there is something wrong with the article. --Dado 13:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You have shown history of removing dispute tags despite several people presenting relevant reasons for them. Everything I said in #POV still applies. Nikola 02:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything that you said in #POV is either pure garbage, unjustified POV or something that can be easily fixed in the article if you had any sense to pursue a good faith approach to this article and other contributers in this article. --Dado 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Serbian Exodus

User:Emir Arven had reverted the edit stating "...no proofs...".

I stated the sources before, but appearently, I have to do it again:

The History of Croatia is a remarkable example of compromise, as it openly calls what happenned because of Operation Storm "a mass exodus". The BBC like can be seen on Evicted Serbs remember Storm deceisivly calls this The Krajina Exodus. Note, also that the BBC refers that the forces of the Operation Storm had purged the Serb population from Krajina.

This was of no debate, but if the usage of the word "exodus" was proper. Also, please see Albanian exodus to see that all sorts of subjects use this word. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

History

I have an idea:

Let's expand this article. I don't know whether this article should contain Serbian history before the Serb Republic (i. e. the Ceslav's realm, the Migrations); or should I put it directly into a new History of Bosnian Serbs? --HolyRomanEmperor 17:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

You should put the history of Bosnian Serbs before the Serb Republic into existing Bosnian Serbs article. No reason to open new one, since this one is almost empty. PANONIAN (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

---

History should be removed totally, because it has no history. Republika Srpska (in bosnia) was made to stop serbs from killing more innocent people in the bosnian war, this is a well known fact if you dont agree go find it out for yourself. The history that is written in this article is the history of BOSNA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino87 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

History section should be switched with the background to the creation of republika srpska. It is misleading to the reader that Republika Srpska existed for a very long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.166.26 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Naser Oric

The article refers to the ("alleged") ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Sarajevo and in western Bosnia. However, there is no mention in the article of events in and around Srebrenica in 1992-1193, where Naser Oric and troops under his command did indeed attack Serb villages. As this happened in territory which is now part of RS, shouldn't this be included in the article as well? Osli73 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the ethnic cleansing I think this section covers the issue rather well Siege_of_Sarajevo#Alleged_ethnic_cleansing

In terms of listing crimes of a particular person on an article that speaks about such a generic issue as a 49% of the teritory of BiH one must consider the order of relevance. I simply don't understand this persistant affliction to Naser Oric who is accused (by ICTY) of being responsible for killing of some 6-12 Serb captives in the region of Srebrenica. If we are going to list every criminal that falls under similar category than we have more than enough to present in order to maintain some NPOV such as Dražen Erdemović who himself admited of killling over 1000 people in Srebrenica massacre, Predrag Banović who killed several hundreds in Keraterm camp etc.

If any names are listed on this or any other article of such generic scope than it must only pertain to the highest positioned individuals in the government. Otherwise we will have an edit war and unusable article.--Dado 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I it was my impression that the ethnic cleansing of Serbs that took place was not really in Sarajevo (where it can be argued that those who left after Dayton left of their own accord) but in western and eastern Bosni. Naser Oric was a commander, Erdemovic and Banovic were, as far as I know, 'just' ordinary soldiers. Osli73 19:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

History

The "prior to the Bosnian war" section blatantly copies the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina and replaces Bosnia with Republika Srpska stop this nonsense. PRODUCER (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When history of an empire, state, province, district, region, etc. is explained, it almost never begins with the date of their official creation, but usually with the ancient past of the territory. For example, Northern Basque Country was officially proclaimed as a political entity in 1997, but its history is explained from the times of Caesar.

That section should be shortened, but this does NOT justify its complete deletion. Readers interested in Republika Srpska would probably like to know something about its territory from a more ancient past. VVVladimir (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That section blatantly copies the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina and replaces Bosnia with Republika Srpska. That section talks about Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole. There is no history mentioned in the section that is exclusive to the RS region in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Stop adding information that was stolen from history of Bosnia and Herzegovina page and relabeled to be misleading.

How is the book biased? even if it is psychology it is still related and brings up good points, the link leads to page 15 not the front cover. PRODUCER (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, wasn't Republika Srpska a part of Herzegovina and Bosnia throughout the history? So it's quite normal that the two history accounts coincide. Anyway, there is no reference in that text to any specific region of BH, so it can be applied generally to the whole territory, including Republika Srpska. As I said before, it might be good to make the section on this page more concise, because the main article is 'History of Bosnia and Herzegovina'. A reader specifically interested in Republika Srpska should not be deprived of that information and served only war crimes, as you would like. As for the "War crimes", that section should also be much shorter, because there is the main text in the "Bosnian War" article.

You lie that the link http://books.google.com/books?id=R0BDL2wwalcC&pg=PA15 leads to page 15 of the cited book, which is a ridiculous and infantile lie, because only one click is sufficient to see that you lie. Apart from that, for those serious accusations you should provide a much more relevant source. Not a psychologist who writes that "independent observers generally agree". Who are these "independent observers"? What are the sources of their observations? And that little story about "a highly classified report by the CIA that was leaked by the press", like in cheap detective fiction. This is a ridiculous source for such serious accusations. VVVladimir (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The history of RS is basically summed up in the lead section of the article, there is no need for one that begins talking about neolithic times. If the user wishes to learn about more about the history, he can go to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[28] leads to page 15, PA15 stands for page 15, just because your browser is at fault does not give you the right to slander others. As for the report, it isn't fiction just because you agree with it.[29][30]PRODUCER (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

historical image and its description

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.

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)

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) 16:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Capital City

Istočno Sarajevo (at the time Srpsko Sarajevo) was founded in 1992 and Pale is a municipality of that city, right? wouldn't that actually make Istočno /Srpsko-Sarajevo the former capital of Republika Srpska? DarkoRatic (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republika Srpska (1991–95). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318084354/http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/pressr/default.asp?content_id=44835 to http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/pressr/default.asp?content_id=44835

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)