Closed as not the best forum for the dispute. After much discussion, it is clear to the moderator that the dispute is about the use of various sources, and that sourcing disputes should be resolved at the reliable source noticeboard. I am closing this dispute at DRN because the sources should instead be discussed at the reliable source noticeboard. In response to the complaint that getting a definitive ruling from RSN is really hard and rare, I will comment that getting a definitive ruling from this noticeboard is also hard when there is disagreement over the acceptability of sources. Getting a ruling via RFC, which should be definitive, requires more than 30 days. Submit questions to RSN concerning all of the sources that are in dispute. After the sources have been assessed, if there are still content issues, a new case can be filed here. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Disagreement over whether or not the flag and coat of arms(referred to as the symbols) of the canton are official and whether or not they should be included in the infobox. The parts of the canton’s constitution that used to define these symbols were deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court in 1998. The canton then amended the constitution to address the ruling in 2000, and defined the symbols in local law in 2003. There is dispute over whether the 2003 law is legal or not i.e. whether or not the 1998 ruling annuls the 2003 law. The 2003 law can be found at the canton's official website. The 1998 ruling has been linked below.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Now, we have editors who want to include them into Infobox as representative illustration where the official symbols should stand. They say that after the Constitutional court rules symbols unconstitutional, local ethno-nationalists in local governing bodies can just walk away back to their local institutions and enact "new" law with the exact same substance by playing tricks with protocol numbers and dates, and thus bypass the Constitutional court ruling, as if the court is not highest interpreter of law and constitution.
What they actually say is that locals can simply fool full the highest court in the land by walking them in circles - court rules the symbols unconstitutional, local change few letters and hyphenations put the new protocol number and date and voila, Constitutional court has to rule again.
The most worrying aspect of this dispute is that editor(s) insists on symbols which were obviously deemed unconstitutional, and on the basis of discrimination of other two constituent peoples at that. Forced usage makes two things evident: that ethno-nationalist bickering at the local level, where one majority discriminate against other two, is nothing short of breaking the law and disrespect for both the Constitution and Constitutional court (ruling); the other is that the country is sometimes unable to enforce the rule of law, or most of the time. The symbols are used only by these two cantons, wherever and whenever they can, but as we can see from links, not without outcry of various concerned parties and players, and no other instance of government is recognizing them in other official instances (institutions, documents, etc.).
Summary of dispute by Governor Sheng
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I claim that Željko Heimer and the valid cantonal law are sufficient sources for the cantonal flag to be considered official. The dispute arose after User Santasa99 asserted that the Constitutional Court made a decision on the Constitution of the Canton in 1998 and declared the constitutional provisions on the flag invalid. However, the law we are discussing was adopted in 2003 and is not covered by the decision of the Constitutional Court from 1998, which exclusively discussed the cantonal constitution, but not the cantonal law.
At first, Santasa99 rejected Heimer as a reliable source, then he claimed that the canton fraudulently passed the law out of nationalistic impulses. And he claims - although without a source - that the decision of the Constitutional Court from 1998, which discussed one matter, suddenly refers to another matter voted in 2003. I consider such a stance to be original research, and us such, not allowed at Wikipedia.
User Aaron Liu provided a third opinion, stating that the flag should be included in the infobox and considers it to be official. Their third opinion wasn't taken into account by Santasa99. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
West Herzegovina Canton discussion
Hi everyone ! I am the DRN volunteer that is here to bring a conslusion on the matter. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to post them on this discussion or on my talk page Craffael.09 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors on West Herzegovina Canton
The canton then amended the constitution and defined the symbols in local law in 2003. The symbols stayed the same, the amended law did not change anything of concern to that Constitutional court ruling; whatever they changed did not amend concerns from the Constitutional court provision. Not to mention that we have no information on why the local canton's law is amended in the first place, maybe they had no intention to amend concerns from the provision at all. There is dispute over whether the 2003 law is legal or not. No, dispute is about the Constitutional court 1997/98 ruling and is it relevant regarding the symbols abused by two cantons, which obviously is relevant (I quoted provision that specifically tackle what, and how, and why are symbols problematic and unconstitutional in TP discussion). As if the court is really a bunch of inapt lawyers, who while writing their ruling could not foresee any future manipulations and trickery, who could not understand what the real concern is in the first place - the symbols which discriminate against other constituent peoples, and are thus against the country's constitution.--౪ Santa ౪99°20:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
No, dispute is about the Constitutional court 1997/98 ruling and is it relevant Isn't that exactly the same as whether or not the 2003 law is legal? Your argument is that the 1997/98 ruling annuls the 2003 law, if I recall correctly Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, they obviously didn't bother to amend what Cc found in violation of the Constitution, did they. The unconstitutional symbols stayed the same, or you think locals can play the Cc for fools. ౪ Santa ౪99°21:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
By the way, what you are talking about is not the law, there is no new law, those are some amandmants on the same constitution of that canton. And they left out symbols, which they didn't bother to amend per ruling of the Cc ౪ Santa ౪99°21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It is a law, it's literally called "Law on the use of the coat of arms and flag of the County of West Herzegovina" (Zakon o uporabi grba i zastave Županije Zapadnohercegovačke) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
All right, it's a law, the links earlier provided in TP directed to the constitution of the canton. But, that's not important, what's important is does that law tackle what Constitutional court found in violation with a state constitution, or is it simply (re)written in complete disregard for that Cc 1997/98 ruling, just with a new protocol number and date. (Ruling is clear and can't be disputed here on wikipedia as a source, nor is it disputed in that country as evident from those links above.) ౪ Santa ౪99°21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
You got the secondary sources, as an interpretation by various actors and reported by state media - I intentionally used state media with a base in all three peoples' majority areas (Serb, Croat and Bosniak), although Federal RTV is run by both Croats and Bosniaks and current director is appointee of Croatian HDZ party, the same political party which is responsible for misuse of symbols in those cantons. ౪ Santa ౪99°00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
How? By reusing the same discriminatory symbols? Symbols which are created to reflect only one peoples tradition and discriminate against other two constituent peoples, which is exactly what 97/98 ruling is all about and what makes them against the state constitution. ౪ Santa ౪99°21:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Santasa99 (talk·contribs) did not at all demonstrate that the flag of the Canton 10 is unconstitutional, nor could they. You will notice that the secondary sources they used to talk about the issues Canton 10 is having. Thus, his point is complete the target. Canton 10 is a separate canton, and there were two separate rulings by the Constitutional Court. Canton 10 failed to adapt its constitution, while the West Herzegovina Canton followed the court's decision and made amendments. Santasa99 is misrepresenting sources in this case. Santasa99, can you find any source stating that the flag of the West Herzegovina Canton is unconstitutional, or you can provide only the sources talking about a completely different canton? --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
And you fail to argue how the law we're discussing is not in force? The provisions of the cantonal constitutions were *deleted* by the court. This is not the case regarding the 2003 law we're discussing. It's valid. Governor Sheng (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
First consensus and vote
After reading the arguments and visiting the concerned pages, I have come to a first consensus. We shall vote on it, and if everyone agrees, then I will close this ase as resolved.
The consensus is as follows : Taking in the different facts, I think we must not add the symbols iin the infobox but mention the lawsuit and different info on the subject in the article.
You are asked to vote Agree or Disagree followed by the reason of your choice.
Partly Disagree. I think everyone can agree that the lawsuit and different info should be included in the article, but me and Governor Sheng still think that the symbols should be added in the infobox. The argument that the local government defined the symbols in a law and no new constitutional rulings have discussed it is not an interpretation but the argument that the previous court ruling applies to the current law is an interpretation.Aaron Liu (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I can guess. There isn't any new stuff other than the sources you brought up and unless it is extremely indisputable they won't change their opinion. The source isn't indisputable as it talks about Canton 10 which displayed an incredibly similar flag. They are different flags though. You can see that the chains here are white. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Neither did the West Herzegovina canton amend the concerns raised by the Constitutional court rulings - discriminatory symbols remained. The rest I explained several times - the Constitutional court has ruled on symbols as they are designed in certain way which is against the state constitution, and it does not need to come up with a new ruling every time someone change the date on the local law. ౪ Santa ౪99°03:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
What I mean is West amended their constitution to move the flag to a law while canton 10 didn't. While I agree that this is trickery, that's my original research interpretation, and to put that interpretation into the article requires secondary sources. Also, the flags are slightly different. Canton 10's flag has a white chain while the symbols have a gold chain. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. The symbols are official. The fact is that the constitutional court didn't even discuss the law we're talking about and we cannot know the position of the court as it stands to know, we can only guess. However, this would constitute original research. The law itself is completely valid and in force by every criterion. Also, the fact that Santasa99 was unable to find secondary sources to prove his point – all the secondary sources he mentioned talk about different Canton with separate issues – is evidence good enough that the flags are actually official and constitutional. Everything else is indeed just their original research. For example, the same criteria Santasa99 is using here could be used at Posavina Canton. The flag of Posavina doesn't represent the Serbs, and thus one could say it's discriminatory and just remove it and explain their edit with the 1998 decision of the constitutional court. But, that would be hardly imaginable as it would be and is - original research. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't need to provide more then I provided by linking Cc decisions, I used media just to direct neutral and uninvolved editors to the factual situation on the ground. It is usually your burden to provide reliable secondary sources when you want to include something into the article - rest of your post is misdirection. ౪ Santa ౪99°01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
And I have. I have presented reliable secondary sources. And yes, the secondary sources you provided do not discuss the same issue as we do, and they are misleading. You failed to find a single article mentioning the flag of the West Herzegovina Canton being unconstitutional, but you found a bunch for another canton that failed to amend its constitution. Why is that I wonder? Governor Sheng (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Now that the vote is done, I have a clear idea about where we're heading. Now, let's take it down a notch and try to make everyone agree. I want ONE user from each side of the conflict write a SHORT paragraph where they will try to prove why they're right by adding reliable sources, link to WP policies,etc... Craffael.09 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Here is a nice compilation of the constitution and amendments translated into English from the OHR, an official BH office. It states that the constitutional ruling declared articles 8~10, which define the symbols, to be unconstitutional. However, article 7, which states that the canton has symbols, has not been declared unconstitutional. The canton amended their constitution in 2000 to address the ruling, and removed articles 8~10, while changing article 7 to say the symbols will be defined in the law of the canton. Three years later they published a law that defined the symbols. Both the amendment and the law haven't been challenged by the Const. Court, so I believe the symbols are constitutional and official. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Highest interpreter of law(s) and constitutionality in every normal country is Constitutional court. In 1997 Constitutional court has ruled that symbols are unconstitutional, not law or some article (primary source(s)) that talks about them or some later amendment(s), but specificity of these symbols design as they are conceived and described to represent only one constituent people. The Constitutional court clearly described them as discriminatory on that ground, discriminating against other constituent peoples, which brings them in conflict whit the state constitution, and regardless how many new versions of the local laws and amendments canton is willing to enact, as long as they continue to refuse to alleviate / respond to what was Constitutional court main concern, as worded in their ruling, these symbols remain unconstitutional and illegal. Original ruling and provisions are clear about thet: 1) ruling and provisions for the Canton 10 (Hercegbosanska županija); 2 ruling and provisions for the Canton West Herzegovina (Zapadnohercegovačka županija).
Constitutional court is not a bunch of inapt 2nd grade lawyers, who while writing their ruling could not foresee any future manipulations and trickery, who were unable to tackle exactly what the problem was/is. Like in ever normal country, Constitutional court ruling is very much clear and definite, and they do not need to come up with a new ruling every time someone gets a wild idea that facelifting of the problematic law/article, while refusing to tackle and change the essence of the problem, will somehow be enough to screw with the Constitutional court and higher levels of government and bypass its ruling with ease.
Last but not least - how Aaron and Sheng intend to present secondary sources against the definite ruling of the highest court in the land? Which secondary source could exert such power and influence to invalidate one country's Constitutional court ruling, so that we as a project should have every right to dismiss it? Until this point, these two editors have only primary source(s) in form of official local websites/documents. ౪ Santa ౪99°03:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Again, you cannot use sources for canton 10, which hasn't amended its constitution to remove articles 8~10 which were deemed unconstitutional, to say that the flag of West .. Canton is unconstitutional. Only interpretations of laws and rulings. (e.g. the claim that even after the law and amendments the flag isn't const.) I'm also pretty sure we were tasked to write ashort paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Constitutional court never ruled on law and its article(s) as such, it ruled on the laws(s) content, a content regarding specific way symbols were supposed to reflect state constitution. As long as the canton's symbols are defined in discriminatory way, thus against the state constitution, they will always be deemed discriminatory and as such in breach of state constitution and the way explicitly defined by the state constitution, so, not a million of law amendments will have any relevance, unless they amended what Constitutional court regarded as unconstitutional - this is clear even to laymen. In simply words, symbols are and will be unconstitutional as long as they stay discriminatory in such a way so that do not reflect other constituent people's tradition(s), and regardless of how many additional amendments are enacted without amending Constitutional court requirements they will stay unconstitutional; simply put it, as long as those local amendments did not resolve/amend what was deemed discriminatory, i.e. unconstitutional, by the ruling of the Constitutional court, amendments have no relevance. Not to mention that we have no idea what the reason or motive for these amendments was, who says that they were meant to amend anything regarding Constitutional court ruling if they choose not to alleviate any of the Constitutional court concerns.
Aaron Liu brought before us re-print of the cantonal constitution form 1994, which passed through several iterations over the years with several amendments (only amendments from 2011 is left-out). Aaron Liu is right only as far as his claim that canton, at one point actually recognized that the symbols are unconstitutional, and we can corroborate that by noting that articles 8, 9 and 10 are all deleted
(footnote on p.2: By ruling of Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. U - 7/98 from 07. VII 1998. (Federation Official Gazette No. 34/98) was fixed that Article 8.9. 10. and 30. of the Constitutional is not in accordance with Constitution of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.; this is official translation). However, Arron misinterpreted article 7, which states that, indeed, cantonal symbols will be used but not any symbols, instead, until canton decade on appropriate symbols they will use symbols of the Federation. Article 7.(see footnote 3) The Canton has a coat of arms, flag and seal. The looks of the coat of arms, flag and seal of the Canton their use and protection shall he regulated by the of the Canton. The Canton may also have other symbols on which the Cantonal Assembly decides.Article 8. (deleted) Article 9. (deleted) Now, footnote 3 says following: Article 7 was amended. Article 7. The Canton has a coat of arms, flag and seal, as well as other insignia, which the Canton Assembly shall decide upon. The insignia of the Canton from Paragraph I of this Article shall be used with the Federation insignia in accordance with the laws of the Federation and Canton.౪ Santa ౪99°02:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Both of your interpretations need a reliable source. Also, the footnotes denote the parts BEFORE amendment. You can read the amendments themselves to prove it. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
First, this is your source, you brought it up as a source to validate your point. Second, it's all clear, they removed articles which describe symbols' designs (8, 9, 10 and 30), leavening only Article 7, which states obvious, that canton has symbols, and in footnote 3 they explain that symbols from Paragraph I of the Article "shall be used with the Federation insignia in accordance with the laws of the Federation and Canton". ౪ Santa ౪99°04:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
That part is AFTER the amendment, as evidenced by the amendment itself here. Plus, I don't need a secondary source for this since I am not interpreting it. I'm merely stating what it says. However, your claim that the constitutional court ruling still applies to the current symbols IS an interpretation, so you need a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What exactly are amendments all about if they did not amend symbols - what is the point of such amendments, what is the point you are trying to make with explaining that they made some amendments? Whatever that they did, they never amended symbols, and that is whole point of the Constitutional court ruling: unconstitutional names for the cantons, and unconstitutional symbols, and the rulings elaborate in detail "the how and the why". If cantonal leaders tried to play some trickery with some misinterpretations and legislative games, I do not understand why are you following them in their footsteps.
But, to cut to the chase, maybe Ombudsmen of BiH carry lot more weight, and their report is, in this context, as fresh as the morning's dew (Oktober 2018) - page 123. ౪ Santa ౪99°03:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't get what you are trying to say with that report. From what I see and put into Google Translate it recognizes the symbols? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
What about the Ombudsman's report? I don't see nothing but a quote of the law itself. This is actually another proof of how wrong you are. The ombudsman of BiH actually recognises it as an official flag. (p. 63). The page your're reffering to (p. 123) actually discusses the same thing as both Aaron Liu and I are talking. The cantonal consituttion. The ombudsman doesn't discuss the law itself, and at the same time holds that the flag proscribed by the law is official. It says that the cantonal consitutiton is not in accordance with the constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina for a completely different issue. It does not mention the flag as being problematic at all! Governor Sheng (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I need to intervene here. Santasa is plainly wrong. The constitutional court deemed certain provisions of the cantonal constitution as unconstitutional, not symbols themselves – ("It is established that the arts 8, 9, 10 and 30 of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton are not in the accordance with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Utvrđuje se da čl. 8, 9, 10. i 30. Ustava Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona ("Narodne novine Županije Zapadnohercegovačke", broj 1/96), nisu u skladu s Ustavom Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine.). Otherwise, the flag itself would be banned which is not the case at all!
Second, although the Constitutional Court is the interpreter of the law, the constitutional court never discussed the law we're discussing here, therefore the constitutional court didn't have a say in this matter.
Third, the explanation of the court's decision is what it is, but it was limited exclusively to the cantonal constitution. If we're gonna play lawyers here no court is allowed to discuss beyond the limit of the claim itself - this is the principle of every legal system, and so is of the Bosnian one (Art. 2 Law on Civil Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina). But, since we're not gonna play lawyers we're bound only by the rules of Wikipedia. And the most relevant here is WP:OR. In short - you need to prove that the court's decision that was limited to the cantonal constitution encompasses all future laws. Not only that, but such rule doesn't exist in ANY legal system in the world.
Fourth, the decisions of the courts may be as they are, but God knows that the court mustn't make the same decision in every similar case (for example the issue of slavery in the United States). Santasa here uses original research for the second time claiming that the court would make the same decision over and over again, which is also against WP:CRYSTALBALL.
The Constitutional Court isn't a bunch of second-class lawyers, but the Constitutional Court is not obliged to make the same decision over and over again, especially so because they're actually appointed by politicians. Not that I'm judging their credibility in general, but they're not so fine and dandy.
And last but not least - you don't actually have the decision of the constitutional court as your source - because such decision wasn't made - it does not exist. And Željko Heimer, whom I mentioned on the relevant talk page is a very good secondary source actually. Santsa is actually claiming that a credible and reliable source - Željko Heimer is wrong and that the existing law is not in force – all of this without any backup whatsoever, except their own interpretation of things, which is a school example of original research. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
This probably took some time to write, but you somehow left out parts that do not fit this narrative of yours. I have quoted in Talk Page the provision of this ruling which in plain language elaborate on reason ruling is the way it is in the first place - you can go there and read it if you wish. ౪ Santa ౪99°02:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it's also very important to which Santansa referred - the Ombudsman's "Report on the appearance, use and protection of state and official symbols in Bosnia and Herzegovina" (p. 65) - which clearly demonstrates that the flag is official. [1]. The ombudsman's role is the protection of human rights though. Not that it is important in the matter, but it's worth metioning. Governor Sheng (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment - You can play this game till kingdom come, but it won't change the fact that you have only partisan source, which is document(s) from cantonal government, which is invalidated by the Constitutional court ruling - its provision is clear: Starting from the definition of the Constitution of the FBiH highlighted in Amendment III (1), which ensures the constitutionality of Bosniaks and Croats in the territory of the FBiH, which consists of federal units (cantons) with equal rights and responsibilities, this court finds that the fundamental idea of the equality of these two peoples must be maintained at the cantonal level as well, that is, at all levels of the Federation. This idea must also be expressed in the symbols of the canton (coat of arms and flags). The insignia of the canton must not represent the traditions of only one constituent people, because this is against the fundamental idea of the Constitution of the FBiH. Therefore, the coat of arms and the flag must express the affiliation to the Federation and the canton. This means that they also must contain the regional geographical characteristics of the canton (Article I.2.). Given that the coat of arms and the flag in Art. 8 and 9 of the Constitution of West Herzegovina Canton, are conceived in such a way that they highlight the traditions of only one constituent people (Croats), they are in contradiction with the Constitution of the FBiH.. I have provided you with both Constitutional court decision and the secondary sources (media (even that Željko Heimer explains that they are unconstitutional) and Ombudsmen report, not that I had to do that, because burden is on you to provide exceptional sources for the exceptional claim, especially in controversial issues). Now, this attempt to misdirect what Ombudsmen report actually saying is a bit too much - Chapter IX. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS OF THE OMBUDSMAN OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA is what matters, all that precedes this chapter is just copy/paste listing of local constitutions, not their approval. Under that final chapter ombudsmen concluding statement on page 123. is as follows: By the decision of the Constitutional Court of the FBiH, case number: U-7/98 of July 7, 1998, it was determined that Art. 8, 9, 10 and 30 of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton (Official Gazette of the West Herzegovina Canton, number 1/96), are not in accordance with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. At some point (per canton constitution which is linked by Aaron) canton decided to delete articles 8, 9, 10, 30, leaving only article 7 which simply state that canton has a flag and coat of arms (without any further description), but in footnote they explain that federal symbols will be used. I have nothing more to add to this discussion.--౪ Santa ౪99°19:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
You can play this game until queendom comes, but it won't change the facts that you don't have any sources that say that west..canton's symbols are unconstitutonal! The footnote is pre-amendment! That is evidenced by the amendment itself here! "Ombudsman concluding final statement" is still copy and paste from constitution! Aaron Liu (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I have only half a dozen of state media links, beside Constitutional court link and Ombudsmen concluding statement? Do you have sources that say otherwise, I mean beside the Amendment that says nothing about the flag's and coat of arms' design? No, footnote is on already amended constitution, because that document which you provided earlier is constitution in its entirety, complete with amended articles 7, 8, 9, 10, and 30; this link above is just amendment in a separate document - but this is irrelevant because both say exactly the same thing. And that last sentence claim is utterly dishonest, which can attest any uninvolved editor around this project. ౪ Santa ౪99°20:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Alright, now that I reread your long paragraph that probably took some time to write but somehow left out parts that do not fit this narritive of yours, I retract my last sentence. However, the rest I says remains true. The half a dozen state media links are all about canton 10 which is a different story since canton 10 didn't amend its constitution to remove articles 8~10 which directly goes against the ruling. The footnote says 3 In Bold-Underline - According to Amendments XV-XVI to the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton ("Official Gazette of the West Herzegovina Canton", 14/00), Article 7 was amended. followed by the pre-amendment parts of the constitution. While it is not very clear whether Article 7 was pre or post amendment, a look at amendments XV-XVI themselves, which I've linked to, can clear this up. Amendment XV says Article 7 of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton shall be amended to read: “The Canton has a coat of arms, flag and seal. The looks of the coat of arms, flag and seal of the Canton their use and protection shall be regulated by the law of the Canton. The Canton may also have other symbols on which the Cantonal Assembly decides.” It should be clear by now that the article 7 inside the footnote is pre-amendment, as with all the other footnotes. The amendment removed The insignia of the Canton from Paragraph I of this Article shall be used with the Federation insignia in accordance with the laws of the Federation and Canton.Aaron Liu (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
There's nothing exceptional about this. You, Sanatasa, saying so doesn't make it so. Heimer doesn't say the flag is unconstitutional, but the cantonal constitution's provisions were deemed unconstitutional, not the new 2003 law. The burden on proof is actually on you since you're the only one claiming that the decision of 1997 has repercussions on the 2003 law. Says who? Governor Sheng (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Now, let's all take it down a notch. Remember to stay civil and do not forget that all this is about a flag and some symbols. Never forget to comment on content, not contributors. Craffael.09 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by alternate moderator (West Herzegovina)
This discussion seems to have stalled, and I will try to restart it. Please read the rules. Please answer two questions concisely. First, are the editors still interested in moderated discussion? Second, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is or issues are?
Robert McClenon (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
1. I can't speak for everyone here but I am still interested.
2. The issue is whether or not the 1998 ruling on a constitution applies to a 2003 law which reintroduced the flag in the constitution deemed unconstitutional. Santasa believes that it does apply in his own interpretation, which would require a source per WP:PSTSAny interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Santasa presented sources that said a different canton's (canton 10) flag was unconstitutional. However, that canton is a different situation as canton 10 didn't reintroduce the flag in a law.
3. Me and Sheng's viewpoint that canton 8 has a flag doesn't need a secondary source as the law that reintroduced the flag exists. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
a) Attempted inclusion by two editors of an unofficial symbol(s) into Infobx (navigational templates, etc.), as a representation of what should be an official symbol(s) instead;
b) All stated and demanded under 2. should now be applied by two editors in their attempt to include unofficial symbol(s) as a content where the official should be used;
c) Heard of WP:BURDON ?
Additional comment - if we disregard the fact that we are debating in circles, and that this issue exhibits nationalistic connotations, which is noticeable from the article's TP, along with the fact that the problem is recurring despite symbol(s) repeated rejection accompanied by stronger arguments in all discussions since 2007. For example, in the first "3O" back in 2009, the volunteer User:Anachronist expressed a very strong opinion and took an equally strong position that the symbol(s) should not be included in the project in any official capacity - it should be emphasized that unlike Aaron Liu who became fully involved in this dispute, Anachronist limited himself solely to providing explanations in the capacity of "3O" volunteers. Also note, however, that we have an article(s) in which the symbol(s) in question are described and/or used as civic symbols of Bosnian Croats, its usage during the war by the Croatian nationalist militia and dissolved para-state of Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna notwithstanding. Even first volunteer mediator here, User:Craffael.09, came up with a following suggestion: Taking in the different facts, I think we must not add the symbols iin the infobox but mention the lawsuit and different info on the subject in the article. The issue is very simple - either we as a project respect the highest interpreter of law and constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional court, or not.--౪ Santa ౪99°13:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I’ve heard of burden, I’ve even heard of the teapot floating in space theory. However, we don’t need a secondary source as we aren’t interpreting the law or ruling. The canton passed an official law that defined their flag, and that law has not been overturned. You, however, need to provide secondary sources to justify your interpretation that the law has been overturned by the ruling, and the canton 10 sources won’t do. Plus, I’m pretty sure the ombudsman report which recognizes the flag is a secondary source. I also didn’t find any comment by Anachronist, could you link me to their comment?
Finally, Comment on content, not contributors. And I’m not a nationalist either I’m not even European or of European heritage. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
You are using my secondary source, namely Ombudsmen's report, as your own now, while openly misinterpreting it no less? (By the way, please be careful what words you choose to put in my mouth - who commented or said that you are nationalist?) ౪ Santa ౪99°15:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Page 123 merely restated the constitutional ruling in a different way and still only mentioned that it disproved the aforementioned parts of the constitution and says nothing about the law. In fact, it even recognizes the symbols as defined by the law on page 65. 5.8. West Herzegovina Canton The official characteristics of the West Herzegovina Canton are defined by the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton, by the Law on the Coat of Arms and Flag of the West Herzegovina Canton and By the Law on the Use of the Coat of Arms and the Flag of the West Herzegovina Canton. Also, sorry for misinterpreting your talk about nationalistic connotations, I thought that was directed towards me and Sheng.
Unfortunately the first 3rd opinion discussion has been cluttered by Aradic-es's exceptional uncivil stupid circling of invalid arguments, which made it hard to read, so here's my take which may have some misinterpretations: The 2003 law, which made the symbols official again, wasn't brought up at all in that discussion, so that Ardic-es's argument's key point is different from my argument's key point, and you cannot use hat argument to disprove the 2003 law. My current argument does not involve WP:SYNthesis at all as my sources explicitly say the symbols are official. Therefore, a lot of that discussion isn't very relevant to the current discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe one day Herceg.Bosna will rise again, and the little local nationalists' heaven will again be able to freely pass chauvinist, discriminatory laws, without trickery and disrespect for the rule of law, that will then become the prime laws of the land which nobody will be able to contest and interfere with. But until that happens, I will stick with the Constitutional Court as the ultimate interpreter of the law and the constitution in the country, whose two rulings (U-11/97 and U-7/98) with its Judicial reasoning can't be clearer about the how and the why. ౪ Santa ౪99°17:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, const court is highest interpreter of law but they still haven’t interpreted the flag law. Maybe one day court will rise again, and the little chauvinist, discriminatory law will be overturned, but until that happens, the symbols are still official. Even if they are, in theory, unconstitutional, they still remain as the official symbols and should be included in the infobox. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Third statement by alternate moderator (West Herzegovina)
Please read the rules. Again. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, except in a space that I provide for you (where it can be ignored). We already know that back-and-forth discussion has not resolved the issue, so try addressing your comments only to the moderator. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Because of the back-and-forth, your answers may not have been clear. So we will start again. First, in one sentence, are you still interested in moderated discussion? Second, in one paragraph, please state what you wish to change in the article , or what you want to leave alone that someone else wants to change. If you have any questions about the rules, you may also ask questions about the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
Sorry about the back and forth, I didn’t read the rules clearly. I’d prefer having back and forth allowed, but as it is going around in circles I accept these rules.
I'd like the symbols to be added to the infobox. From what I can tell both sides agree on adding info about the ruling and amendments and the flag law to the article.Aaron Liu (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm also in support of adding the symbols - the flag and the coat of arms - in the infobox, as per all the above said. The explanation of the court's rulling can be added to the body of the artice. --Governor Sheng (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I concur with Aaron - information about the whole issue can be added into the article, appropriately illustrated. We even already have subtitle Flag and coat of arms, however, underdeveloped and lacking all the background info.--౪ Santa ౪99°14:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
It appears that three editors have said that the symbols should be added to the infobox, and that no one has said that they do not want the symbols added to the infobox. If no one disagrees, I will close this dispute stating that there is a rough consensus to add the symbols to the infobox. If there is disagreement, please state it concisely.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I said that issue of symbols should be explained within existing article subsection, not in the Infobox. All of the editors except one who ever discussed this issue agree on compromise solution to include a description and background info about this issue within one of the article's (sub)sections, which I linked as Flag and coat of arms subsection in my previous post. As far as I can tell, in reality there are more of those who ever participated, more or less extensively, and said that symbols are unofficial and should not be added into Infobox - in this DRN, first volunteering mediator, then Anachronistic, and myself, making three editors, which is more than those two who would like to do that despite the fact that the symbols are unconstitutional, thus unofficial (but we are not counting votes, but stronger arguments, as far as I understand this process). ౪ Santa ౪99°00:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
Fifth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
Okay. It appears that I misunderstood. It appears that there is a consensus to include a discussion of the symbols and the controversy about the symbols in the body of the article. Is that correct? It appears that there is disagreement about the infobox.
So, I will ask again, both about the infobox and about the text of the article. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they either want changed in the infobox and in the article, or what they want left the same that other editors want to change.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I don't even support a compromise to include - scratch this anything - a vague OR/SYNTH explanation of development subsequent to the Constitutional court rulings into the article section, unless reliable, impartial/non-partisan secondary sources are provided which explain and attest that local laws outside the local constitution can somehow supersede Constitutional Court rulings, while passing the law which adopt (in any time) the exactly the same symbols' design rejected as explained in the Judicial reasoning of two separate Constitutional Court rulings.--౪ Santa ౪99° 07:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC) However, I do support inclusion into the article's section that symbols are used contrary to the Judicial reasoning, in local government website(s), or elsewhere if supported by reliable impartial secondary sources.--౪ Santa ౪99°07:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
It appears that some editors want the symbols added to the infobox, and some do not. I am asking each editor to please provide a one-paragraph statement supporting or opposing the inclusion of the symbols in the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
It also appears that there is disagreement about the discussion of the symbols and the controversy in the body of the article. I am asking each editor to state specifically what they think should be said in the article about the symbols and the controversy. It would be especially helpful to provide a draft paragraph, rather than just a comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
Again, here is the constitution of canton 8 with its amendments. The constitutional court objected to articles 8~10 which were moved to the aforementioned flag law which has no objections from the court. The ruling only applies to the constitution according to the text in the ruling itself. Even the ombudsman report, which should qualify as a secondary source, recognizes the symbols as official for canton 8 (but not 10). No amount of OR or SYNTH is involved on this side. However, Santasa's argument is basically SYNTHesizing the ruling and reports that canton 10(which hasn’t reintroduced symbols through "trickery")'s use of the symbols are unconstitutional to interpret that the flag law is unconstitutional, which is something no sources say. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the infobox. The flag and the coat of arms are official symbols, enacted by the 2003 law which is by every criteria fully in force, and these symbols should be added to the infobox. Regarding the paragraph that would explain the whole situation, I propose this draft:
The flag and coat of arms of the West Herzegovina Canton were originally regulated by the cantonal constitution. However, by the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the constitutional provisions on cantonal symbols were marked as unconstitutional. Acting on the court's decision, the Cantonal Assembly amended the disputed constitutional provisions in 2000. A new law on the flag and coat of arms was adopted in 2003.
Constitutional court ruled out symbols and in its judicial reasoning explained that their ruling is based on the fact that the symbols design discriminate on ethnic basis and is thus unconstitutional. Cantonal (local) constitution removed description of the design from the articles in constitution, but local, and only local institutions continue to use same discriminatory symbols. "Special Report on the appearance, use and protection of state and official symbols in Bosnia and Herzegovina" date 2018 (fairly recently) by the Ombudsmen included in their report Conclusion that the symbols are unconstitutional. It is very important to emphasize that Aaron misinterpreting Ombudsmen report by claiming that report somehow recognizes the symbols as official which is not true - their report is clearly divided into sections, where we find their observation of the situation not its endorsement in the first sections, and then at the end we have section clearly labeled as Ombudsmen commentary and conclusions in which they conclude that symbols are unconstitutional as of 2018.--౪ Santa ౪99°23:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
The language in the body of the article should be supported by secondary sources. The constitution is a primary source. The court decisions are primary sources. We should report what reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers, have reported. For instance, we should not explain the court's reasoning, but should report what legal analysts have explained about the court's reasoning.
Please make a one-paragraph statement as to what should be or not be in the infobox. If you have not already offered draft language for the body of the article, relying on secondary sources, please also provide draft language for the article body.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
The secondary source and a reliable one is the site led by Željko Heimer. (Per WP:RS/SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"). Heimer is a reliable secondary source since he is a notable Croatian vexillologist (article on him at the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia ([2]), at the Jewish Biographical Lexicon edited by Ivo Goldstein[3]). Both the flag and the coat of arms should be included in the infobox. The draft I previously offered is based on Heimer. (P.S. note the difference with the status of the flag of the Canton 10 at Heimer's site [4]). --Governor Sheng (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
First of all I don't think our side needs a reliable source to say that the ruling applied to the constitution since PRIMARY clearly states that stuff found in plain text of a primary source can be used. Secondly, I think the previously referenced ombudsman report page 63 should count as a reliable source that recognizes the flag. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Ombudsmen October 2018 "Special Report on the appearance, use and protection of state and official symbols in Bosnia and Herzegovina", Chapter IX. ZAKLJUČNI STAVOVI OMBUDSMENA BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE [transl. IX. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS OF THE OMBUDSMAN OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA], entire chepter gives a broad context, but more specifically page 123.--౪ Santa ౪99°09:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment - It is very important to emphasize again, that Aaron misinterpreting Ombudsmen report by claiming that report somehow recognizes the symbols as official in page 63, which is not only untrue, but now becomes disruptive (this is because after several warnings about this meddling with the report's format and context, I have come to believe it's utterly dishonest and deliberate on Aaron's part) - Ombudsmen report is clearly divided into chapters and sections, where we can find their observation of the situation, not its endorsement, in the first sections (including their observation on page 63), and then at the end of the document we have a section clearly labeled as IX. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS OF THE OMBUDSMAN OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, in which they conclude that symbols are ruled unconstitutional.
Wow, you are fast in reading quite an extensive and elaborate body of legal commentary. Now revert yourself and remove my reply along with it - this is not the place for your responses on my statements. ౪ Santa ౪99°10:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
It appears that one editor has provided a one-paragraph statement for what should be in the infobox. The other editors appear to be presenting arguments, either to me, or to each other, or to the community. The purpose of this proceeding is to improve the article. If you don't say what should be in the article, then all the other discussion is for nothing.
Again, please make a one-paragraph statement as to what should be or not be in the infobox. Again, if you have not already offered draft language for the body of the article, relying on secondary sources, please also provide draft language for the article body.
Once again, do not reply to the statements made by other editors, except in the space for back-and-forth discussion. The back-and-forth is not being productive, and is diverting attention from stating the issues clearly in terms of improving the article. If I don't get useful answers, I will have to fail the discussion. I think and hope that there is at least the potential for an RFC, but there only is that if I can get concise statements of exactly what you want in the article.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Eighth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
I state again. I support including both the flag and the coat of arms in the infobox. I also support to, at the same time, include a short explanation about the symbols in the body of the article. I oppose adding only the explanation without adding the symbols in the infobox. Regarding the paragraph that would be in the body of the article, I stand by my previously offered draft supported by Heimer as a reliable secondary source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Symbols ruled unconstitutional and without secondary reliable sources can't go into Infobox to illustrate it in "official" capacity, that's out of the question. Whoever want to describe this situation in the article body (like in the similar case in article Federation of BiH, where the unconstitutional symbols were moved out of the infobox to the appropriate section of the article) should do that in reliance to reliable secondary sources.--౪ Santa ౪99°12:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Ninth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
One editor has proposed draft language for the body of the article. The other editors have not proposed draft language, and are making other points that are not directly responsive to my question about what the article should say. If there are no other suggestions, I will set up an RFC on the infobox, and will conclude that there is a rough consensus to adopt the draft paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I really doubt that another RFC will generate (any) response. We already had one failed RFC a few weeks ago, one 3O successful before that, then second with Aaron as a volunteer, and now this DRN. It's not just obscure subject, wrapped in legal matters that repels editors, it's also under Balkan scope with nationalism looming. This already taking a toll and too much time, so maybe to try a direct approach to neutral peer(s) with extensive experience, or maybe administrative help or even WP:EXHELP could resolve Infobox issue. ౪ Santa ౪99°20:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Ninth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
An RFC would be alright, although I doubt the amount of participation it'll see based on how the previous one received zero attention (I was responding to 3OR). I propose the following ammendment to the draft:
−
The flag and coat of arms of the West Herzegovina Canton were originally regulated by the cantonal constitution. However, by the decision of the ConstitutionalCourtoftheFederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the constitutional provisions on cantonal symbols were marked as unconstitutional. Acting on the court's decision, the Cantonal Assembly amended the disputedconstitutional provisions in 2000. A new law on the flag and coat of armswasadopted in 2003.
+
The flag and coat of arms of the West Herzegovina Canton are the former flag of the [[Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia]] and were originally regulated by the cantonal constitution. However, by a decision of the [[Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina|Constitutional Court]], the constitutional provisions on cantonal symbols were marked as unconstitutional in 1998. Acting on the court's decision, the Cantonal Assembly removed the disputed provisions in 2000 and adopted a new law on the flag and coat of arms in 2003.
I didn't intend to contribute content, but we know that description in the article body should rely on secondary sources, so I will go along with all that can be validated by secondaries. I have provided a list of secondary sources in previous post, and here's few more: Interview with an "expert in the field of constitutional law" and "former judge of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia and president of the Constitutional Court of FBiH" (Avaz, June 2018), and Osporene zastave i grbovi i nakon deset godina (Oslobođenje, February 2007). And if I must, here's my version, which is not that different from Aaron's: "The flag and coat of arms of the West Herzegovina Canton are the former flag of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia and were originally adopted through the cantonal constitution, and its usage regulated by cantonal law. However, by 1998 decision of the Constitutional Court these cantonal symbols were ruled unconstitutional. Local authorities still haven't implemented this Constitutional court ruling." This much is possible to ref in secondary sources anything beyond this is Synth and OR.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC) I had to amend my version by adding "usage" in part of the sentence, "and its usage regulated by cantonal law." (All symbols are based on constitutional article where its design is adopted, and laws where its usage is regulated.)--౪ Santa ౪99°20:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think just Heimer would be enough. I propose using the OHS constitution and the ombudsman report. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, why does the noticeboard currently seem to always try to transfer the thing to RFC when preliminary "hearings" fail? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Tenth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
It appears that two editors are now in agreement as to draft language. Do any other editors have other suggestions, or do other editors want nothing on the subject in the article? If the other editors agree with the draft language, then the only remaining issue is the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I have drafted an RFC that is not live yet, at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton/Draft RFC. It is a work in progress because I concluded that there is only one proposal for language for the body of the article. You may edit it to insert alternate proposed language. (If you think that the RFC, in its current state, is hibernating, maybe I want it to hibernate until I wake it up. Don't wake any hibernating bears unless you have left food for them, or they might decide that you are food.)
The noticeboard tries "to transfer the thing to RFC" "when preliminary 'hearings' fail" because the moderator is not a judge or arbitrator, and does not make a final decision. I know that some editors would prefer that the other editors agree with them. As a neutral moderator, I would also prefer that one group of editors agree with another, but that often does not happen. If you, editor B, don't like RFCs, consider agreeing with editor A. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I have not agreed on inclusion of "new law" into the article body, because we have no secondary sources explaining anything about it. We can only agree per primary, at that, that cantonal constitution removed articles on symbols and that symbols' usage is regulated through cantonal laws - I accept that much without secondaries. Difference is that cantonal constitution adopts design, and laws are used only to regulate how they are used. But most of all, the "new law" is not a new at all, it is the same law which existed before and after the ruling on symbols' unconstitutionality. So, any mention of supposed "new law" will mislead reader and most importantly commenters into believing that somehow some new law makes symbols again official, despite being ruled unconstitutional before.--౪ Santa ౪99°18:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
−
The flag and coat of arms of the West Herzegovina Canton are the former flag of the [[Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia]] and were originally regulatedby the cantonal constitution. However, by a decision of the [[Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina|Constitutional Court]],theconstitutionalprovisionson cantonal symbols were markedasunconstitutionalin1998. Actingonthecourt'sdecision,theCantonalAssemblyremovedthedisputedprovisionsin2000andadoptedanewlawthatreintroducedtheflagandcoatofarmsin2003.
+
The flag and coat of arms of the West Herzegovina Canton are the former flag of the [[Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia]] and were originally adopted through the cantonal constitution, and its usage regulated by cantonal law. However, by 1998 decision of the [[Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina|Constitutional Court]] these cantonal symbols were ruled unconstitutional. Local authorities still haven't implemented this Constitutional court ruling.
Eleventh statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
I have revised the draft RFC to include the alternate language offered by another editor. Please look over the two versions, and see whether your version reflects what you want the article say, and also whether the other version either is acceptable, or whether you would accept it with tweaking. If you don't want an RFC, offer a compromise.
The draft RFC is not live yet, at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton/Draft RFC. It is still a work in progress. If you vote in it, your vote will be removed, so don't vote in it yet. It will be more colorful when it is live. I will make it go live in 24 to 48 hours unless either there is agreement, or a compromise is proposed, or a new issue is identified. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Eleventh statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
Santasa's draft contains factual errors: 1. The symbols didn't appear at all in local law before the 2003 flag law. 2. I still don't see a source that says that canton 8 didn't implement the ruling after stating the 1998 ruling. Since only certain provisions unrelated to the symbols weren't amended following the ruling, we need a source per SYNTH.Aaron Liu (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, Santasa's sentencing is very problematic. The flag was never regulated outside the cantonal constitution prior to 2003, and the last part of the draft - "Local authorities still haven't implemented this Constitutional court ruling" clearly contradicts the secondary sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Twelfth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
Now that there are two versions of the draft language for the article, I would like each editor to write a one-paragraph or two-paragraph criticism of the version of the draft with which they disagree. Maybe after comparing the criticisms of the versions, we may be able to come to a compromise without the need for an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
These two have no secondary sources at all - they use "mine" Ombudsmen report which they are misinterpreting, and vexillologist blog who puts in his posts whatever he is able to find online. So, where this all going, it takes time which I have little these incoming days. I am asking this because I had no intention to add any content in the first place, yet I was the only one with the secondary sources invalidating most of their claims. ౪ Santa ౪99°18:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Twelfth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
I'm okay with Aaron Liu's proposal completely. Regarding the draft proposal by Santasa99, I have an issue with the following sentences:
...were originally adopted through the cantonal constitution, and its usage regulated by cantonal law...
This is an arbitrary, completely unfounded claim. Bearing in mind the good-faith policy, I can't shake the impression that the insertion was made with the aim of using the sources that Santasa99 offered, which discuss only the pre-1998 situation, and are completely useless for the issue we're discussing here (2003 law).
Local authorities still haven't implemented this Constitutional court ruling.
The secondary sources - namely Željko Heimer - is pretty much clear the West Herzegovina Canton complied with the said ruling of the court. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Thirteenth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
An editor has raised questions about the sources for one of the draft versions of the RFC. Before the Request for Comments is started, we should review any questions about the validity of sources. I am asking each editor to list any sources about which there are questions or controversy. Please let each such source, and provide a concise discussion of what you see as the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Thirteenth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
Santasa has not provided any sources that verify that any law on the usage of the symbols appeared before 2003. Of all the modern sources provided, only Tacno claims that the symbols are unconstitutional in canton 8. However, that Tacno article appears to be an opinion piece and the writer of it, Nerin Dizdar, doesn't appear to be an expert on vexillography or law.
Sources that are only about canton 10 include Livno-Online, Central News, RTRS, Federalna RTV, SrpskaInfo, and Heinrich Böll Stiftung. These aren't very relevant because canton 10 did not pass a law on their flag and coat of arms after the const court ruling.
The page of the ombudsman (p. 123) that Santasa linked to and Intelektualno don't prove that the symbols are still unconst. as these pages only says that the const. court ruled the symbols unconstitutional in 1998. The latter two do say something about the constitution still using "county" instead of "canton" and "bošnjački" instead of "bosanski" but that still isn't about the symbols(ignoring that according to the OHR, the cantonal constitution already uses canton in place of county).
Oslobođenje isn't accessible without subscribing. Dnevni Avaz (the interview with a law expert) isn't concise enough about which cantons haven't implemented the rulings and still have unconst. symbols. The only concise example given in that interview is canton 10. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm gonna make the links for the sources I have objections with. I'm not sure if I'm including all of them.
[5] - Fails to discuss the issues we have disputes over. Too vague, and impossible to use without employing original research.
[6] - Cannot be verified, and we cannot see the article. Content is not available.
Fourteenth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
Maybe I wasn't clear about questions about sources. I see that there was a typo in my instructions about questions about sources. Please list each source that another editor wants to use that you think is questionable, and explain in one paragraph why the source should not be used. Also list each source that you want to use that you are aware another editor does not want used, and explain in one paragraph why the source should be used. We will try either to get the source questions resolved before going to RFC, or will at least identify the sourcing issues so that they can be addressed by the community in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Do we use one paragraph for each source or one paragraph for all questionable sources and one paragraph for all sources I want to use? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Aaron Liu - It would have been one paragraph for each source, but, because of the large number of sources being disputed, this case is beyond the scope of this noticeboard and should go to RSN as described below. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Both editors have problem with (mis)interpreting project's policies and guidelines on RS and VERIFY. Reference-links which I listed in my previous posts are regular media outlets with some expert analysis and interviews, all with good reputation, and at least two official reports, one of which is being used by these two editors while misinterpreting its content (Ombudsmen report). But I had no intention of adding any content in the first place, so my question is how they intend to validate their points/edits. If they like to go through RSN that's their prerogative, but they will need to explain/prove that more than a dozen of mainstream media outlets is somehow unusable, all the while they have no RS of their own at all, except this misused Ombudsmen report and one vexillologist self-published blog which they think is enough to validate their legality issue points. ౪ Santa ౪99°17:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Fourteenth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
I'm gonna make the links for the sources I have objections with. I'm not sure if I'm including all of them.
[11] - Fails to discuss the issues we have disputes over. Too vague, and impossible to use without employing original research.
[12] - Cannot be verified, and we cannot see the article. Content is not available.
[22] - The report from the Office of Ombudsman. Mentions the symbols used by the West Herzegovina Canton, including the 2003 law. Also mentions the court ruling of 1998.
Fifteenth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)
After discussion and analysis, it appears that this dispute is mostly about whether multiple sources are acceptable secondary sources or excluded primary sources. These questions can be better addressed at the reliable source noticeboard. I will be closing this dispute shortly with the recommendation to take each of the questioned sources to RSN. I have one last question, and that is whether you want to submit an RFC on the matter of whether to include the flag and coat of arms in the infobox. That can be decided by RFC if you want it decided by RFC. What to say in the body of the article apparently depends on issues about sources, and is better decided at RSN.
So please answer whether you want an RFC on the infobox. You may also ask any other questions, that I might or might not be able to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Fifteenth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)
Since getting an answer from the RSN is really, really hard and rare, I think we should proceed with the RfC on the issue of the infobox. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The important point here is that I had no intention of adding any content in the first place, and that I listed nearly a dozen of sources simply as evidence that editors have no ground on which they can base their attempt to include symbols into infobox, and to serve as a guide for any content inclusion into article subsection. If they wish to go through RSN that's their prerogative, but they will need to explain/prove that more than a dozen of mainstream media outlets which nobody tries to include into the article is somehow unusable - that would be strangest RSN ever. The only real problem with reliable secondary sources is that two other editors have non. I am not interested in another RfC, because we have been through that and through 3O-twice, and simply people get disinterested with persistent issue which carries an aura of nationalism.--౪ Santa ౪99°17:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Additional comment on RfC for Infobox - even if put aside all the previous failed 3O and RfC, I am simply unable to see the reason for it at this point. How can we expect reasonably neutral and informed comment on inclusion of something into article Infobox, if that something has no sources to begin with. ౪ Santa ౪99°20:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I just realized that I have a small question: Do we agree that constitutionality determine whether the symbols can be included in the infobox?Aaron Liu (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Body: After discussion at the DRN, the discussion at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton § Flag concerning West Herzegovina Canton's coat of arms and flag (referred to as "the symbols" below) has been moved here. The arguments for and against the sources below are presented on the aforementioned pages. In summary, there were provisions in the canton's constitution defining the symbols that were deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court in 1998. After that, the canton amended the constitution to remove said provisions in 2000 and passed laws that define and regulate the usage of the symbols in 2003. The questions are as follows:
Frankly I don't think that the fact that the first moderator asked if there was consensus is a valid point. Just like how Rob asked if there was consensus, the discussion seemed to imply there was and the moderator would have to ask. I can't claim that Rob thought my view was consensus therefore Rob agrees with me. In fact the volunteer's opinion shouldn't matter as that would make them a biased moderator, which leads to them being switched.
The symbols haven't been ruled unconstitutional again yet. The 1998 ruling was on the constitution, not all future laws as stated in the ruling itself, unless you have a source that proves that the ruling made the law unconstitutional. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this. Also, Sanasa99's statement that there are "more of those who ever participated, more or less extensively, and said that symbols are unofficial and should not be added into Infobox" is plainly wrong, as it was visible from the article's talk page that Anachronist (talk·contribs) (in the discussion signed as Amatulić) [25] would agree to add the symbols to the infobox if users in the previous discussions would provide the law made after the decision of the court. The users were ignorant of the law, and the issue was never actually discussed. Governor Sheng (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
You mean tricks played by local political nationalist elite which adopted the exactly the same symbols' design rejected as chauvinistic in two separate Constitutional Court rulings and as explained in the rulings' Judicial reasoning? ౪ Santa ౪99°08:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah... Your request for the explanation that "local laws outside the local constitution can somehow supersede Constitutional Court rulings" is really absurd. The court's decision was limited to the cantonal constitution. Such "rule" wasn't even established by the court itself. Making up things, and trying to get an explanation for them. Nobody superseded the court's ruling here. It was actually fulfilled. Do you have a source stating the ruling was somehow avoided? Or is this your own conclusion? Governor Sheng (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It was not limited to anything unless you can provide reliable, impartial secondary sources that support your claim. Besides that, the thing is, Constitutional court rulings' have Judicial reasoning, and there court says what is the rulings' concern(s) in detail. ౪ Santa ౪99°08:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Provide sources for what? I already told you Heimer and the positive laws are the sources. You claim that the decision applies to all future laws is absurd and an outstanding claim without any reliable source whatsoever. You make a claim and ask sources for it later. This is not how things work here. Governor Sheng (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, to all future laws that reject, bypass or in any other way disrespect Constitutional court ruling(s), unless you can provide reliable, impartial secondary sources that explain how these specific rulings do not "applies to all future laws". ౪ Santa ౪99°08:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
And this is your own conclusion? Do you have a source it implies to all future laws and not only the cantonal constitution? This would be even against the Bosnian law – Art. 2 Law on Civil Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the court's decision is limited only to the claim). This is why it's an outstanding claim and I beg you to tell me what sources do you have for it? Governor Sheng (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I have judicial reasoning that explain why such-and-such symbol design is unacceptable, which means that the ruling is not on article numbers and dates but on substance. ౪ Santa ౪99°09:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
To make it as simple as possible: it is applied to a substance, which is discriminatory design, and for that it is eternal or at least as long as West Herzegovina is part of Bosnia's institutional system. ౪ Santa ౪99°09:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, as far as we're concerned, the decision applies only to the cantonal constitution, which is explicitly stated by the decision itself. Claiming otherwise really needs to be properly sourced, otherwise it is just your own conclusion (OR). Governor Sheng (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Decision applies to discriminatory symbols, and you are persistently discussing this in circles: three paragraphs above it was "this is your own conclusion?", then "that maybe so", now again "it is just your conclusion", and around we go - no, it's not my conclusion it is court's, it is written in several languages and available online. I have no intention repeating this anymore, really. ౪ Santa ౪99°10:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
But it IS your conclusion that the ruling applies to the law beyond the claim. The ruling wasn't applied to a substance, it's applied to the claim(const.) according to aforementioned article 2. The substance is the reasoning, not what the ruling was applied to. You need to find a source that says it applies to the substance.
@Aaron Liu, beside the fact that I noted and warned you how your ironic repetition of my words and phrases won't help neither your argument or discussion as a whole, and beside being self-explanatory, I will respond to your Maybe one day court will rise again, and the little chauvinist, discriminatory law will be overturned, but until that happens, the symbols are still official. Even if they are, in theory, unconstitutional, they still remain as the official symbols and should be included in the infobox. statement. Respond on first sentence: court has risen once on the issue, and no amount of political trickery and law-breaking in local chauvinistic hotbeds will warrant another; and on second: if they are unconstitutional, in theory and in reality, they certainly can't be official, not even if one supporting relying on this logic is a lot more than just disrespectful to Bosnia as a state and its institutional system(s). ౪ Santa ౪99°08:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
How about you calm down and stop labeling everything as nationalistic and chauvinistic, maybe other editos will be less offensive as well. Governor Sheng (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Why shouldn't I use those arguments when they are employed by the court itself in its judicial reasoning - discrimination on ethnic basis is called chauvinism. ౪ Santa ౪99°08:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, maybe you are right, maybe it would sound even better if we say an excessive desire by the top brass of Croat nationalist party of HDZ on local level to adopt symbols which discriminate people on ethnic basis, but it is really long. ౪ Santa ౪99°09:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Where did the ombudsman say that the symbols are unconstitutional? I only found it saying that the court ruled articles 8~10 unconstitutional.Aaron Liu (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
On the subject of the ombudsman: I've said this again and again, but in case it wasn't clear enough, page 123 in Chapter IX merely restates the court's ruling that articles 8~10 were unconstitutional and that the Canton hasn't fully complied with this decision. However, it is unclear which part of the decision it is referring to, and the previous sentence implies that it is talking about the aforementioned discriminating "provision". It doesn't say ANYTHING about the law on that page. Plus, the media sources repeat the ombudsman's point that Croatians are being discriminated against (or "criminalized" as the first one states) and sometimes go against the const court rulings, but never outright states that the flag law is unconstitutional. Source number 1 does say that the symbols are "forbidden" though, I'll give you that, but it looks like a column instead of proper legal commentary. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the source No. 1 (Tacno.net), beside the column wasn't written by an expert (but some local politician), the simple truth is that the flag actually is not forbidden and is widely used. Actually, the editor-in-chief of the said source Štefica Galić even reported the usage of the flag to the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton Prosecutor's Office, only to get the reply that the usage of the said flag is not a criminal act. ([26]). So the column of the source No 1 (Tacno.net) is unreliable. The other source I linked you to clearly refutes the claims of Tacno.net. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Misinterpretation of sources falls under Conduct guideline and is a breach per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, 2) point, and it's starting to bother me. Also, this is not the place for discussion on sources. If you have problem with the sources, I have prepared a response for that and for its misinterpretation, and I am ready to reply in proper forum. ౪ Santa ౪99°18:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
However, direct response on source thesis and particular argument should be appropriate. Dnevnik.ba is Croatian nationalistic right-wing media outlet under Croatian nationalistic HDZ party thumb, whose above cited short text (brief news-report) is the best example of its problematic modus operandi: in the text you cited they manipulated entire exchange between Galić and local prosecutor office into alleged claim that the flag is not illegal, but their own text actually shows that exchange never mentioned any conclusions on legality or illegality, instead prosecutor office replied that "criminal liability (krivično djelo) is not prescribed by law for displaying other flags on the territory of BiH, and the Law on the Flag of BiH does not prescribe criminal liability for displaying another flag either", instead prosecutor "established that the unauthorized installation of flags is sanctioned through a misdemeanor procedure (prekšajni postupak). However, there is even more problematic aspect in citing Dnevnik.ba news-article - you are trying to present it as if it's about symbols/flags we are discussing - it is not about the Western Herzegovina symbols. This whole matter reported in Dnevnik.ba was about some holiday celebrated in Croatian part of the city of Mostar in another canton, where the streets were decorated by the civil Croatian flag in civil capacity (it is of course basically a same flag of banned Herceg-Bosna para-state used both as a Croatian civil flag and is attempted to be used as official flag of two cantons before it was ruled out by the Constitutional court). ౪ Santa ౪99°19:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The thing you fail to realise is that Tacno.net writes how the flag *is* illegal, while the prosecutor states it ain't. Tacno.net also fails to discuss the 2003 law, which makes this whole column rather useless. Now, you do know that the cantons don't have jurisdiction over criminal law, the Federation does. So if something is illegal in Canton 10, it's illegal the same way in all of the cantons. The point is - the flag isn't illegal. You know this yourself very well, as the constitutional court cannot proclaim something as illegal, it can deem certain things as either constitutional or unconstitutional (it's not a regular court). Also, you won't label your way to convince others that you're correct here. Your whole comment is just OR, libelous, full of your POV and what not ("everyone I don't like are nazis and nationalists"). Governor Sheng (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Again, not true - Tačno.net says this: Zastava Herceg-Bosne je proglašena nezakonitom i presudama Vrhovnog suda FBiH iz 1997. i 1998. godine, te skorijim presudama Ustavnog suda FBiH o neustavnosti grba i zastave Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona i Kantona 10, te naziva Kantona 10 (Hercegbosanski kanton). [transl. The flag of Herceg-Bosna was declared illegal by the judgments of the Supreme Court of FBiH from 1997 and 1998, and by the more recent judgments of the Constitutional Court of FBiH on the unconstitutionality of the coat of arms and flag of the West Herzegovina Canton and Canton 10, and the name of Canton 10 (Herzegovina Canton).]౪ Santa ౪99°19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
What verdicts? The author is non-expert. And again, if something is illegal in the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, it's illegl in the entire Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Prosecutor said - it's not illegal. So one of them is wrong. Also, the most important thing here - the author is not an expert. He's not an establishet expert in this field, so either way, the column is useless as the source. And again, it doesn't discuss the 2003 law. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it was declared illegal in 1998, but that part still doesn't say how the flag law is illegal. It just reaffirms that the court made a decision in 1998 that the symbols were unconst. That does not help the argument. Our argument is that a newer flag law in 2003 reintroduced the flags, and since the court's decision only applies to the const (evidenced by the text of the decision) the 2003 law still stands and the symbols are official and not unconst. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
No, Aaron, it is exactly the same flag, identical to previous one - in general, it is a "variation" of Herceg-Bosna flag, but this claim is dubious too when the HB flag was never standardized by proper design - it never moved through proper channels to be adopted to represent Croats of Bosnia, it was not designed by designers chosen for the job by any official body. The flag was chosen by few people and adopted by few people, and that's why it appeared throughout the short history in many iterations: with silver, bronze, golden, white, and even a black triple wattle ornament in chief. ౪ Santa ౪99°20:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, if I missed the paragraph. To tell you the truth, I'm starting to get a migraine, so I'll probably call it a day. ౪ Santa ౪99°20:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Santasa on the notion that the source talks about that just using the flag isn't criminal. It just says that you can use this flag. It doesn't say anything about whether it's unconst or not. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that. The thing is, however, that the author here implies that the flag is illegal for use as well (obviously not understanding what illegal means): "Let me remind you that the statement about the parasystem is made by a man speaking from a cabinet with an unconstitutional name, in which the provisions of the Law on the Coat of Arms and the Law on the Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina are directly violated..." (Da podsjetim, izjavu o parasistemu daje čovjek koji se obraća iz kabineta koji nosi neustavan naziv, u kojem se neposredno krše odredbe Zakona o grbu i Zakona o zastavi BiH...). These provisions aren't violated, as the Prosecutor said clearly. The author has no idea what he is talking about and is not an expert here. That was the purpose of the whole article. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Further: Tacno.net also fails to discuss the 2003 law, which makes this whole column rather useless, "useless" part is your opinion, and Tačno.net is not the only source that does not mention "law of 2003" - nobody mentions "law of 2003", not Ombudsmen, not Arnautović, not Galić, not Tačno.net, etc, which says everything we need to know about the "law". ౪ Santa ౪99°19:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to cause you any further migrenes (:P). However, I don't think it's the same situation there, the FBiH didn't enact any new laws afterward. P.S. It's a civilised discussion, we're all on the same side here; it shouldn't be an emotional burden for anyone. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Per VERIFY, we need to find something in a reliable source that actually says that the flag is unconst. Tacno kinda says that but according to RS opinion pieces can't be used for factual things. Intelektualno just repeats the 1998 ruling without any commentary (content farm?). Henrich fails to discuss it at all. Alijazeera only says that the const court rulings often discuss the flags and doesn't discuss the legality of the symbols. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. On the other hand, both Heimer and Ombudsman mention the 2003 law. For Heimer it's official (I made liks to compare his take on Canton 10 and WH Canton flags). Ombudsman discusses the uncocnstitutional part of the cantonal constitution. However, after mentioning 2003 law, the Ombudsman doesn't mention it in his remarks as problematic in any way. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
"How lucky that this is the only verdict that has not been implemented. Dozens of them have not been carried out precisely by cantons with a Croat majority. The Constitutional Court of the Federation annulled the flag of "Herceg-Bosna", the coat of arms of "Herceg-Bosna", the name of the Livno Canton, so the international community called it Canton 10 because of that verdict. The name of the counties in the Croatian cantons was annulled. And that flag that hangs on the fortress in Stolac and Bosniaks take it down, so they are prosecuted, it is the flag of the illegitimate creation of "Herceg-Bosna". Instead of the police taking down those flags, they hang on the road from Mostar to the end of BiH," (Kamo sreće da je to jedina presuda koja nije provedena. Nije ih provedeno na desetine upravo od kantona s hrvatskom većinom. Ustavni sud Federacije je poništio zastavu „Herceg-Bosne“, grb „Herceg–Bosne“, naziv Livanjskog kantona, pa je međunarodna zajednica zbog te presude nazvala ga Kanton 10. Poništen je naziv županija u hrvatskim kantonima. I ona zastava koja visi na tvrđavi u Stocu pa je skidaju Bošnjaci, pa budu procesuirani, to je zastava nelegitimne tvorevine „Herceg-Bosne”. Umjesto da policija skida te zastave, one vise na putu od Mostara do kraja BiH.)
Literally, the West Herzegovina Canton wasn't mentioned once in the article. One gets an impression you're googling terms and link random articles. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty vague, don't you think? One could say that a person has to use his imagination to figure out which cantons the guy is talking about. But that would be OR, now wouldn't it? Governor Sheng (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I only see "the cantons with the Croat majority that Serbs in the constitutions of these cantons did not recognize their national capacity" a couple times, "The name of the counties in Croatian cantons was cancelled" and rulings on Croatian cantons were "not implemented precisely". The "precisely" thing is vague, I think that's what Sheng's saying. I don't see it saying that Croatian cantons adopting the Herceg-Bosna flag are always unconstitutional, and to an extent it doesn't say that Canton 8 with their flag law escapage has unconstitutional symbols. Everything else is indeed clear and understandable. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Since we have all the rulings, since we have many different secondary source talking about the same thing, we know exactly what he's talking about even if does not mention canton(s) by name - to avoid any unnecessary eventual discussion, read carefully and in its entirety WP:SYNTH. ౪ Santa ౪99°04:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Particular concern of yours expressed as and rulings on Croatian cantons were "not implemented precisely". The "precisely" thing is vague, is bad translation and context lost in completely jumbled syntax. This word "precisely" does not mean anything in this context - any professional translator would maybe use "the very cantons" with Croat majority or probably would simply use "the", which would in turn give a clearer version: "Dozens of them have not been implemented by the/the very cantons with a Croat majority.". He says exactly what you implied in I don't see it saying that Croatian cantons adopting the Herceg-Bosna flag are always unconstitutional - he says that these cantons still using Herceg-Bosna symbols despite being ruled unconstitutional, by refusing to implement Constitutional court order. And then he even doubles down by providing further context. ౪ Santa ౪99°04:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry for moving the goalposts here and kinda splitting hairs, but that sentence still says "dozens" of rulings instead of saying which ones, cantons still using symbols despite unconst without specifying which cantons, so the thing is still a bit vague.
I'll also say this again: I HAVE read SYNTH, we are NOT SYNTHing. Our argument is that the flag law reintroduced the symbols, and that's what Heimer and the Ombudsmen both say, not synthesis of multiple sources. We still need to find a reliable source that says that the const court ruling extends to the flag law or a reliable source that just says that the symbols are currently unconst after all rulings an dlaws and blah blah blah to claim that the symbols are unconst, else that is OR. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Heimer and Ombudsmen - neither say anything about the "new law", especially Ombudsmen have not said one thing about it. ౪ Santa ౪99°19:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Heimer is electro-engineer whose hobby is vexillology, not constitutional law or any kind of law. He just put on his blog what he can find online. ౪ Santa ౪99°19:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
We have nothing but the secondary source which confirm that symbols are still unconstitutional (not that someone can somehow bypass Constitutional court ruling but we have found all we need.) ౪ Santa ౪99°19:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Which source are you referring to? Also, the 2003 law was first introduced 2003, no law regulating the symbols existed before that (only the cantonal constitution used to have it and that is not a law). I agree to remove the word “new” though, nothing else. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The official symbols of the West Herzegovina Canton are defined by the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton, the Law on the Coat of Arms and the Flag of the West Herzegovina Canton and the Law on the Use of the Coat of Arms and the Flag of the West Herzegovina Canton. — Ombudsman
The Constitutional Court of the Federation ruled them unconstitutional in 1998, but the symbols remained in use. In 2000 the Constitution was amended and the description of the symbols were removed from it, to be further defined by the law, eventually adopted in 2003, prescribing the same symbols. — Heimer
Secondary sources confirm the law is in force and official. Both the Office of Ombudsman and Željko Heimer (an established expert in the field of vexillology [28]; Philip J. Cohen is a dermatologist, but an established expert in the filed of history and is used as a reliable source) confirm this. None of the sources you Santasa99 provided prove your point. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
We do not use P.J Cohen ever, never-ever, on this project that I know of, without at least one other more reliable source, or, at least, unless context is already cleared by other reliable source(s). But P.J. Cohen is not relevant in this discussion in the first place, so even if someone using him it is irrelevant still. Željko Heimer can't be used in this case, because he is electro-engineer whose hobby is vexillology, which means he is self-published vexillologist, and can't be used in issues involving constitutionality, law and whatever legal matters we are discussing in article. Maybe he could be used to prove something about flag and coa appearance (design), or something that innocuous, but only when editors decide to agree. ౪ Santa ౪99°18:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
There are a ton of search results on wikipeida that use his publishments as sources. You still haven't provided anything to prove that he isn't an expert, and most of the scholar results in external link [28] are NOT self published. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I said I won't explain this for the third time, but here's it again: that's not Ombudsmen statement, that part is from their survey of what has been legal frame in chapters 1 through 7 - it's literally copy/paste of official documents - in chapter 8. they similarly survey all the Constitutional court rulings - again they copy/paste official court documents. And then, and only then, they include chapter 9. which they literally titled Ombudsmen concluding statement, and only here they speak in their voice. This means that only Chapter 9. can be used as a secondary source, because it is their statement for the first time in the whole document. ౪ Santa ౪99°18:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
While not all of chapter 9 is copy-paste, the part that touches canton 8 is also just copy/paste of official documents. I don't know if there is any policy against copy/paste in secondary sources, but lets say there aren't, and chapter 9 still only proves that the couert declared the 1998 CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS unconstitutional. And you still haven't responded to our latest arguments against your dozen media sources. Plus, nowhere else have I seen Službena obilježja Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona definisana su Ustavom Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona, Zakonom o grbu i zastavi Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona i Zakonom o upotrebi grba i zastave Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona. appear in a document. So it's not just copy and paste. Plus, WP:PRIMARY states in PLAIN text A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. so there is no policy against us using the 2003 law and the constitution with amendments and the court ruling to say The official symbols of the West Herzegovina Canton are defined by the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton, the Law on the Coat of Arms and the Flag of the West Herzegovina Canton and the Law on the Use of the Coat of Arms and the Flag of the West Herzegovina Canton. Alas, where this discussion is heading, that'll be up to the folks at RSN to judge. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't need to respond to your queries on sources I provided because I have no intention to contribute any content, but I kinda have, just below somewhere, including my response to your reding of Primary. You are questioning something that is clear and understandable to any neutral reader. This more-less my last reply on endless circular discussion. ౪ Santa ౪99°20:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
the order was before the law AND both ombudsman and the order itself say that the ruling just applies to the constitution! it says nothing about laws Aaron Liu (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Certain things can be added with primary sources, see PRIMARY.
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. — WP:PRIMARY
Also, the fact that @Santasa99: found the ombudsman doesn’t prevent us from using it as a source, provided no one misinterpreted it. Santasa haven’t explained at all how we are misinterpreting. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
As for your view on Primary, well that's blatant cherry-picking. Literally every other of those 6 points (including next sentence in one you are quoting), actually explain that you can use it "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them", that any "interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", and this exactly what you are doing with the "2003 law". You can't use it as Primary to somehow validate your claim that the same law (which exists since January 1996) falls out of the Constitutional court order, because you have found online document dated in 2003. Meanwhile, your reading of dozens of sources which I provided in good faith is not just "splitting hairs", it is outright unjustified refusal of its content. ౪ Santa ౪99°20:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
AGAIN, the reason I "cherry-picked" also says basically the same things about interpretations, just in-reverse! everything other than "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" are interpretations, and that is not what i am doing with them at ALL. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
@Governor Sheng: I disagree that getting a response is really hard and rare. All of the entries posted today have received a response (mine was responded in the original talk page)Aaron Liu (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I asked for an opinion on Heimer on 13 November. I asked an opinion on other sources as well previously, and either didn't get any feedback or got one comment if I was lucky. Governor Sheng (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Governor General's Award for English-language non-fiction
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This dispute started very recently. I have an ongoing edit dispute about a wikilink. I don't want to get blocked due to edit warring so I want DRN.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I tried to convince Chipmunkdavis to let myself remove the wikilink but they continued edit warring. see the page history:
[[29]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I can't think of a way.
Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis
Summary of dispute by Bonadea
Governor General's Award for English-language non-fiction discussion
NOT YET STARTED
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of Nazi monuments in Canada
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Closed as wrong forum. A secondary problem with this filing is that the other editors have not been notified. That can be resolved by notifying them, but this would still probably be the wrong forum. The issue appears to be whether this article should exist, and what its name should be. The way to determine whether an article should exist is Articles for Deletion, which decides whether to delete the article, and can also be closed with Alternatives to Deletion including moving/renaming. (In Wikipedia, moving an article is the way that it can be renamed. Moving and renaming are synonymous.) The usual forum for deciding what the name of an article should be is Requested Moves. So, start either a Requested Move discussion to move/rename the article, or an Articles for Deletion discussion to delete the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is my first time using this, so I am not certain. But we've reached a stalemate whereby the main sticking point appears to be if these memorials can fairly be called Nazi memorials.
Summary of dispute by My_very_best_wishes
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GizzyCatBella
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mellk
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Slava_Ukraini_Heroyam_Slava_123
The current title of the article is pushing a POV, as explained by this source linked by Tristario. The memorial in St. Michael's Cemetery was put up to honour the people who fought against both the Soviet army and the Nazis for the independence of Ukraine during the Second World War. Not Nazis. One way to fix this would be to use Special:MovePage to move this page to a list of WWII monuments in Canada, and include other WWII memorials as well. Maybe other users have other ideas, however calling them Nazis is unacceptable and is a POV. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦17:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
List of Nazi monuments in Canada discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zoophilia
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Using a Bloomsbury Publishing book, I made an edit of a substantial fact that a report by Alfred Kinsey found around 8 million Americans to be engaged in Zoophilia. Andythegrump reverted it saying that Kinsey's work has been questioned and pointed out to me that my edit was not in the most appropriate section. I offered to place the edit in the most appropriate article which already discusses Kinsey's work and it's criticism. He is reverting my edits now since he thinks I don't have competence simply because I forgot that the books chapters had the same authors as another source I offered to use.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Uphold a top publishing house fact in it's appropriate section
Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This isn't a content dispute, it is a behavioural issue. I have already had to warn Foorgood about including a link to a pdf download of the source in question in an edit summary (the download link is almost certainly to a breach of copyright) [30]. It then became apparent at Talk:History of zoophilia#Kinsey report that Foorgood hadn't read the source properly. I have no idea why Foorgood thinks it is so essential to cite this source (clearly less informative than the one already cited in the Zoophilia article), just to include a raw number which, as should be obvious, is disputed, and tells readers nothing of consequence. How many people know what the U.S. population was when Kinsey did his research? A percentage figure - even a disputed one - tells readers a lot more than a raw number. Frankly, I don't think Foorgood has the level of background knowledge to contribute usefully on this subject - at least, not if they are going to get into stubborn arguments about including sources they haven't read properly. Articles on complex, sensitive subjects need to be composed through better processes than Google-mining and facile WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Competence is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I was unaware of the restriction against pdf download sites and immediately said I wouldnt use it again. The Bloomsbury book says the report found 8 million but that the true amount is actually substantially higher than that. Andythegrump already allows percentages to be used because regardless of Kinsey's critics his report is still considered to be trustworthy. Foorgood (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The above (misplaced? I don't think we are supposed to be engaging in a threaded discussion here?) comment further reinforces my claim that Foorgood lacks necessary knowledge to be able to usefully contribute on this subject matter. Kinsey's report is considered 'trustworthy'? What a bizarrely definitive statement to make about controversial research... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Further to the above, I note that the instructions at the top of this noticeboard make it clear that this attempt at 'dispute resolution' here is premature. There has been no discussion on Talk:Zoophilia at all. No attempt to involve anyone else in the discussion. Nothing. Just a stubborn insistence that this particular source needs to be cited somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Zoophilia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FS Class_ETR_470
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Closed as stale, and as not discussed. There have neither been any edits of the article in two months nor any discussion on the article talk page. Either edit the article boldly, and then be ready to discuss, or discuss first and then edit. Discussion should be on the article talk page. That is what article talk pages are for, and DRN requires discussion on them as a precondition to moderated discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The speed limit of train ETR 470 on the article was set on 250km/h. But based on references that currently exist on the article and references from the train manufacturer website that I have added on the talk pages, it is clear that the speed limit of train ETR470 is 200km/h . These minor detail it may not seem important, but the ETR 470's false speed limit of 250km/h has been used for propaganda purposes in Greece as an argument of ETR 470 superiority against locomotives of the former greek national railways. But although the sources state the speed as 200km/h a certain IP user (79.131.108.2) keeps on editing the page with the false speed. The user does not respond in the talk pages.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The speed limit on FS_Class_ETR_470 should either be set on 200km/h and be protected from spam editing or proper original refernces of the train being capable of 250km/h should be provided.
Summary of dispute by 79.131.108.2
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
FS Class_ETR_470 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
If the problem is an IP's refusal to engage in talk page discussion, your only recourse may be to request page protection. In this case, however, there doesn't appear to have been any editing to the article since September (and the actual edit war is even older), so the issue seems stale. signed, Rosguilltalk04:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
National anthem of Hong Kong
Latest comment: 2 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion
Closed as possibly resolved. The editors have not replied within three days after being asked whether there is a continuing content dispute. If there still is a dispute, the editors can file a new request for moderated dispute resolution here. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This dispute has previously been the subject of an edit war. The key points in contention are the following:
1. What is the legal standing of the March of the Volunteers in relation to Hong Kong? In particular, there is debate over the wording and interpretation of the 1997 Basic Law (Annex III) and of the 2020 National Anthem Ordinance.
2. Should this disambiguation page exist in its present form (perhaps it should be turned into a redirect instead)?
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Help us to form a consensus that is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.
Summary of dispute by Bailmoney27
"March of the Volunteers" is the anthem of China. I believe that the Hong Kong Basic Law is unambiguous in its adoption of the national symbols of China, which include the national anthem, in Basic Law Annex III, effective 1 July 1997. I have provided my interpretation of the law on the Talk page in question, which was corroborated by a second editor and supported by the CIA World Factbook. This seems to be a dispute over the wording used in the dab page, which probably should be a redirect in the first place, as a dependent territory like Hong Kong cannot have its own national anthem by definition. Perhaps a redirect to "March of the Volunteers" would work better; the historic anthems and protest songs are likely not what a reader would be looking for when searching for this phrase.
Summary of dispute by 82.38.166.227
“March of the Volunteers” is not the national anthem of Hong Kong.
Although Basic Law Annex III confirmed the resolution that “March of the Volunteers” as the “National Anthem of People’s Republic of China”, it is a respect & acknowlege only. It will not auto applied to Hong Kong unless it is enforced by further legalization (e.g. Article 23), as Hong Kong is running under “one country, two system” as agreed by the Joint Declaration from 1997.
Even the latest “National Anthem Oridance”, the infamous legislation forcing people “respect” and criminalise abuse of the “national anthem of PRC” is also define that “March of the Volunteers” as the “National Anthem of PRC“, not Hong Kong.
A more accruate description is - national anthem of Hong Kong is not exist, “March of the Volunteers” is be used by governement or some individuals for represent of the region.
In the pasted 200 years, Hong Kong have different anthem be used, such as ”God save the King“ is de facto be used for almost 180 years. “Glory to Hong Kong” is used by the majority (please see result of 2019 district council) from the 2019, be regarded as the anthem of Hong Kong and frequently be used in international.
It is important that those songs, including the “March of the Volunteers” is being regonized by the readers how & why they are used as the anthem of Hong Kong and that‘s why the disambiguation page should be exist and record those above. My suggestion and resolution is convert the current disambiguation page into article and explain what happening behind.
Summary of dispute by Purin128AL
"March of the Volunteers" is China's national anthem, while Hong Kong uses it the represent the region after 1997. Whether the anthem is Hong Kong's anthem or China's anthem but Hong Kong is using it is not particularly stated in the law, so I believe there is room for debate there. However, I disagree with the proposal to completely redirect the page as it wipes out the fact that historical anthems were being used, and other songs that have been considered as the unofficial anthem locally and by international media such as CNN. It is incorrect that readers would not want to know widespread unofficial anthems and historical anthems of a country/region, especially when the time period Hong Kong used God Save the King/Queen is 6 times longer than March of the Volunteers (156 years vs 25 years).
One way to resolve this issue is the keep the page but simplify and reword the introduction, just as pages like National anthem of Norfolk Island.
Another way is to turn the disambiguation page into an article, which I think is the best way to resolve this issue. The use of China's national anthem in Hong Kong and its legal status in the Basic Law and National Anthem Ordinance can be explained. The complex identity crisis and local people's disagreement on the anthem should be addressed with sources in the article, as readers would want to know the reason behind the multiple incidents relating the Hong Kong's anthem, such as the recent controversy of the wrong national anthem being played in Korean rugby sevens and the "boo-ing" of the anthem in previous years. Content can be constructed and/or extracted from China–Hong Kong football rivalry, National Anthem Ordinance, Hong Kong national security law and Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict. Historical anthems during British rule and Japanese occupation should also be mentioned, as of the current date, the British rule of Hong Kong lasted for more than a hundred years, while Hong Kong has only been a SAR of China for 25 years.
National anthem of Hong Kong discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Styx & Stones' Personal Opinion. When I filled out the form to request the DRN, I wrote it as neutrally as possible. To be clear about my own personal stance, I agree with Bailmoney27. The laws are unambiguous when read in their entirety - the Basic Law of Hong Kong has adopted March of the Volunteers as being the applicable national anthem of Hong Kong (as part of the PRC). I also question the need for this disambiguation page at all - since Hong Kong is a SRA of the PRC, and there is very little precedent for similar pages for internal regions of China. Styx & Stones (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
He is keep re-edit the page back to his ”good version“ which interput the SEO on Google, with the CCP perfer result, now highly be attended under the current Rubgy 7s event.
Coverage of Dispute in Media. Just a heads up that the edit war has been reported in foreign media. [1] Let's make sure to keep this civil and show that we can all come to a rational consensus. Styx & Stones (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Statement- I am willing to moderate this discussion. I am aware this is a controversial topic and has received some media attention. As such- I want to make sure that everyone agrees to be respectful, comment on content not editors, and does want to find a compromise because I don't see either side ever agreeing completely to go with the other side's preferred version. Finally- I am aware there was a case on the edit war noticeboard regarding this page- it has been resolved at this time. If any further admin involvement is requested on any noticeboard- this DRN will be shut down immediately since we cannot mediate disputes that are under admin review. As long as everyone agrees to these rules / conditions- I'll get this discussion started. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Editor Response
No complaints from me. I absolutely want to find a consensus here, and a neutral third-party certainly seems necessary at this juncture. Bailmoney27talk04:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
volunteer comment If the IP user doesn't respond- I think you 3 are capable of solving this since you all are close to agreement already- what do you guys think? Nightenbelle (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, we're going to begin- if the IP decides to join before we are done, then they can.
So- summarizing from each of your statements above- it looks like we have 5 "opinions" such as it is.
The entire page should be deleted and made into a redirect
Hong Kong, as a dependent territory of China cannot have its own national anthem
March of the Volunteers is not the national anthem of Hong Kong- it doesn't actually have one-just a law demanding China's anthem be respected
Historical anthems should be recognized in the article
There have been numerous unofficial anthems that should be recognized on this page
Would it be possible to write a paragraph that addresses all of these except the deletion/redirect? If we could figure out what that looks like- would it be acceptable for you?Nightenbelle (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Editor's Statements 1
Hong Kong is not a nation. As one of China’s two special autonomous regions, Hong Kong is part of the PRC both in law and in reality; therefore, the question of whether or not it has a national anthem is redundant, for it is not a nation. March of the Volunteers is the national anthem of Hong Kong, just as it is of Wuhan, Fujian, Hubei, etc., precisely because it is part of the PRC, as are those other regions. There is the added complication of the Basic Law and the National Anthem Ordinance: I don’t think any of the other editors here would contest that the intent of those laws were to suppress ideas and practices that hint of a desire for independence and to assert Beijing's control. It’s not for us to judge if that’s right or wrong: it simply is (for the time being). Thus, while specific words might seem odd, such as “respect”, the overall effect of the law is to make it clear that the national anthem applicable within the Hong Kong SAR is the same as China’s. The reason why that particular stipulation exists, which is unusual, is precisely to quash any ideas of there being any other national anthem. As for the recognition of unofficial anthems, I suggest that a separate article be created called ‘Protest Songs of Hong Kong’ (or something similar). Styx & Stones (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Basically this to a T. "March of the Volunteers" applies just as much in Hong Kong as it does in any other Chinese province; just as Fujian isn't a country, neither is Hong Kong. Both are equally ineligible have their "own" national anthem.
The Basic Law Annex III, Instrument 1 does make it clear that it adopts the Chinese law defining the national anthem and applies it within Hong Kong effective as of the date of the handover. I would also agree that the National Anthem Ordinance does almost certainly exist to erode freedom of speech/expression, but we're not here to right great wrongs. And for the purposes of this discussion, it serves as a clarification that the Hong Kong SAR respects "March of the Volunteers" as its anthem, being a provincial-level division of the PRC. It doesn't "define" it explicitly, just as Ohio doesn't have a law stating that its national anthem is the Star-Spangled Banner.
I'm really not sure that the topic warrants a disambiguation page or an article. Historical anthems are typically defined on the page of the song itself, and I agree that "unofficial" anthems should be separated from the official anthem entirely, as the use of "anthem" in this case is extremely casual and holds no legal weight. A lot of the information regarding Basic Law and its interpretation could go on as a section on either the article for the Ordinance or the song. Bailmoney27talk23:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree that Hong Kong has the same status as states/provinces in China and other countries (like Fujian, Ohio, etc), but more like a dependent terriorty like Gibraltar, Christmas Island, or Guam. This is due to Hong Kong's status in various international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and Hong Kong having its own Olympic Committee. I do support the fact that "March of the Volunteers" is not the anthem of Hong Kong, but is used to represent Hong Kong as by law Hong Kong is a territory of China according to Basic Law Annex III mentioned above.
As the unofficial anthems are not recognised officially, it shouldn't be considered the official regional anthem of Hong Kong. But I do believe that its significance should be mentioned, especially since it is known internationally such as in the article here.
While having unofficial anthems in this specific article is not a must, I do believe historical anthems must be mentioned. Historical anthems are always included in anthem articles in wikipedia, which can be a standalone page like National anthem of Russia or mentioned in the article like Advance Australia Fair. It is definitely not suitable to mention God Save the Queen in the article of March of the Volunteers, this page should be kept to mention those past anthems, or develop it to a detailed article to acknowledge the current situation. Purin128AL (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Statement 2
Okay- lets not get lost in a debate that we will never answer to everyone's satisfaction. Hong Kong and its status is going to be up for debate for a very long time. So.... lets remove that debate from this discussion.
So- What if we had a paragraph that said something like
"The official national anthem of Hong Kong would be March of the Volunteers since they are part of the PRC. There are several unofficial anthems that are meaningful to the people of Hong Kong such as...... In the past, HK has used "God Save the King." and "I'm sorry I don't know any others off the top of my head" as official anthems when they were under other governments."
Now- I don't think that's a particularly well written paragraph- I'd LOVE for someone to make it better- but would you all be open to a paragraph that touches on some of the complexities- but still gives the technically correct answer of March of the Volunteers? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Editor's Statements 2
With respect, I contest the following statement: "Hong Kong and its status is going to be up for debate for a very long time. So.... lets remove that debate from this discussion." At least from my point-of-view, that is the main point of contention here. Styx & Stones (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
For an example, see Purin128AL's assertion that "I don't agree that Hong Kong has the same status as states/provinces in China and other countries (like Fujian, Ohio, etc), but more like a dependent terriorty like Gibraltar, Christmas Island, or Guam", and Bailmoney27's statement ""March of the Volunteers" applies just as much in Hong Kong as it does in any other Chinese province; just as Fujian isn't a country, neither is Hong Kong." Styx & Stones (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
That does seem to be the main sticking point here. That one issue of semantics basically could define the whole article. What is the consensus on that outside of the anthem debate, out of curiosity? Bailmoney27talk21:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer's Statement 3
Hong Kong's status is not something that can or should be decided in this article. And if that is what you all want to do- see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There are many sources- valid ones- on all sides, so any decision would be WP:SYNTH at best or WP:UNDUE at worst. So we need to move forward focusing on how to include all sides fairly while retaining WP:NPOV. Are you all interested in finding a way to do that- or will you insist on debating its status- if you choose to continue focusing on its status, I'm afraid I will have to close this as failed as there is no way to answer that question with certainty for all sides. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Editor's Statements 3
I'll start with saying that it looks like other editors have... jumped the gun, let's say, on editing the article without any existing consensus. I'll also note that the page for March of the Volunteers seems to have decided fairly certainly (and so far, uncontested?) that the song was adopted as the anthem of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997, as both me and Styx & Stones agree on. I'd say some language similar to what's used on the March of the Volunteers page should be adopted, and also similar to what Nightenbelle has suggested, rather than what's on the page now. I'll propose an article layout below:
I don't believe the other two "unofficial anthems" should be added, as they were neither written for the purpose, or as widely adopted. I realize it's a bit wordy for a disambiguation page (WP:DABNOT), but it seems to be warranted for this surprisingly controversial topic. Bailmoney27talk20:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello: I think that the page layout proposed by Styx & Stones is appropriate. It follows the precedent of National anthem of Macau. That page has adopted the same idea without controversy, so I think we should follow that. In my view, a "National Anthem of X" means an anthem adopted for independent nation X, and Hong Kong has never been an independent nation with its own national anthem--I see the term "National Anthem of Hong Kong" as a misnomer, a mistaken term, along with "National Anthem of New York". What one likely means to reference by that is the national anthem of the nation Hong Kong is under. That means that the March of the Volunteers, the British and Japanese anthems have all been appropriate interpretations of "National Anthem of Hong Kong" in modern history. So, I feel that listing the three anthems equally for the reader makes enough sense. That is basically what National anthem of Macau does (except it does not list them chronologically, which ought to be done here.)
I also believe the proposal contains much detail for a disambiguation page, as Bailmoney27 said. I think that it should contain only the basic details, as National anthem of Macau and most other disambig pages do. Leave details and semantics, such as info about specific laws and the controversy etc., in the main article where they belong. If it's alright, here I give my disambiguation layout proposal:
@Adam8410: Please do not jump in as a volunteer in this case. Lets not confuse the editors with more than one volunteer. When a DRN volunteer needs help, they will ask. Also, our volunteers are to remain neutral- which means not to have an opinion on the case- what you posted above is clearly an opinion. You are welcome to join the discussion as a participant- but not as the volunteer at this point since you are not neutral.
It looks like we have 2 possible suggestions here- one that explains the controversy and one that does not. Editors- please discuss your thoughts on the two- lets see if we can come to an agreement which one works. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Editor's Statements 4
It seems two of us are in agreement with the wording I proposed above. I'll note again that the article has undergone significant changes since then, would a drastic change in the format be warranted given the consensus here? I imagine it would be undone quite quickly. Bailmoney27talk16:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Alternate Volunteer Statement 5
User:Nightenbelle hasn't edited in a week and may be off the Internet for a little while. It appears that there are two drafts, one by User:Bailmoney27 and one by User:Adam8410. It appears that the difference is whether they state that Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, or whether the draft merely reflects that fact without stating it. Are all of the editors willing to agree on either draft? If not, will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement saying what they want changed in a draft for it to be acceptable? When User:Nightenbelle returns, she will resume acting as mediator if this case is still open. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Editors' Statements 5
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Next Singaporean general election and every Singaporean general election article dating back to the year 1948
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as probably futile. The filing party initiated an RFC on 23 November 2022, and then closed the RFC on 7 December 2022, saying that consensus was not found. The filer should not have closed the RFC for two reasons. First, the closer should not be a party to the dispute. Second, there was no need to close the RFC, which could have been left running for the rest of the 30 days. However, DRN does not discuss a dispute that has already been to an RFC. If the RFC reached a rough consensus, then the consensus should prevail and does not need moderated discussion. If the RFC was indecisive, we do not open a DRN case because DRN is also likely to be inconclusive. My recommendation to the filing editor is to restart the RFC, and let it run for thirty days. If it is indecisive, then it is simply a question that hasn't been decided. Restart the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
(1) Issue is whether singular or plural phrasing should be used in an article to refer to a single general election occasioned by a single dissolution of parliament in Singapore;
(2) The lead paragraphs of 13 out of 18 articles on the Singaporean general election across multiple years were unilaterally changed by the user known as Number 57 from version A: "The [insert year] Singaporean general election was held on ... " to version B: "General elections were held in Singapore on ... ";
(3) Version A is the one used across general election articles in the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand with procedures of government largely similar to Singapore's whereas version B is used across general election articles in India, Lesotho, Israel and other countries including some with procedures of government not so similar to Singapore's;
(4) Number 57 asserts that as a native English speaker and that due to common usage across media articles, it is not wrong to use both interchangeably, even if the wikipedia naming convention favours version A because the naming convention applies only to article names and not lead paragraphs;
(5) Whereas the user known as Bcmh asserts that the Singaporean Constitution refers to a general election as a singular event after every single dissolution of parliament and plural is only used to refer multiple general elections across multiple occasions of a dissolution of parliament; furthermore, the phrasing in the lead paragraph should follow the name of the article for consistency and that it is not interchangeable with plural.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Help us build consensus or in the alternative, make a declaration as to whether version A or B of the lead paragraph examples in the dispute overview section is the correct one to use for Singaporean general election articles. Thank you.
Summary of dispute by Number 57
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Next Singaporean general election and every Singaporean general election article dating back to the year 1948 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Christine Lagarde
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as improperly filed. Please feel free to refile with all editors involved in the discussion listed (and notified, which you didn't do for even just the one you did list), not just one. Failing to list all participants imposes too much work on a DRN volunteer in creating reply sections for all of them. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I think other users involved in the dispute are not engaging with my arguments in good faith. I still have no answer as to why they think "conviction" is accurate but "criminal conviction" is not.
Summary of dispute by jonQalg
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ActivelyDisinterested
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Christine Lagarde discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as premature. The filing editor has made a series of statements, to which there has been one reply. The filing editor has not identified or notified the editor who replied, and has not tried to respond to the reply. The purpose of article talk pages is to try to discuss the article, not just to make a statement and ask for intervention. Discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Bias/prejudice editors on Wiki overseeing Ghostery section = Simple updates such as current extension information are reversed by "others" to shape a negative opinion about this extension
- Denial of Edward Snowden's shout out to this extension
- Entire criticism section needs to be deleted as it no longer has any valid references but bias senior editors allowed it to remain.
- Misleading and erroneous opinions are contained in the criticism section - False accusations never proven remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newb787 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
In the Criticism section, one sentence reads: "GhostRank [...] sent that information back to advertisers so they could better formulate their ads to avoid being blocked.[20]" (Emphasis mine.)
The first part is as far as I know uncontested, the second has been contradicted by the makers many, many times, is not further qualified, explained or supported in any way in the referenced article and is basically unsubstantiated conjecture.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tellisavas
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is already a specific article for the Indonesian Joget and that is JOGED. Joget article is specifically for the Malay dance in Malacca.
Mek Mulung has nothing to do with Thailand's Nora dance, even neutral observer has said that the links that he gives has nothing to do with Mek Mulung at all.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Larry Vickers
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as wrong forum. There are several problems with this filing. It appears that the issue has to do with whether an image is free content, when the image was produced by blurring some of the faces in a public domain image. That is a copyright policy issue, and can be answered by an administrator who works copyright issues. Policy questions can be asked at the Help Desk or the Village Pump. This is not a content dispute in the usual sense. Also, the filing unregistered editor has also asked for a Third Opinion, which is probably also the wrong forum, but DRN does not consider a case that is pending in another forum. The filing unregistered editor is also very strongly advised to register an account, because they have gotten close to 3RR, and it is likely that the articles that they have been edit-warring will be semi-protected. Registering an account has other advantages also. Also, it appears that the images in question either have been deleted or are in a deletion discussion, in which case the deletion discussion should decide the status of the image. Ask for copyright policy advice at the Village Pump or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Horse Eye's Back believes that because a public domain image was modified to blur faces in the image that the image cannot be used because we don't have permission of whoever the author is of the modified image. I have found nothing in the policies and guidelines to support this claim.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By finding out if the other user's claim is true or not according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Summary of dispute by Horse Eye's Back
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Larry Vickers discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
