Talk:Canton 10/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name Change

I originally posted most of this at User talk:193.188.105.17:

If someone wishes for us to change the name by which the canton is referenced, an explanation less silly than "Some bosnian islamic nationalists call this canton "West Bosnia Canton" to make a reference to Greater Bosnia" will have to be provided. The term "Zapadnobosanski Kanton" is widely used, in official institutions too, and in a non-derogatory manner, a simple Google search shows this, so there's little or no point in trying to claim that it's some evil Bosniak conspiracy. Please be rational. --Joy [shallot] 12:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herzeg Bosnia.gif

Image:Herzeg Bosnia.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

The symbols and name were found unconstitutional stop pushing your pov. [1] PRODUCER (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Until there appear to be symbols accepted on both sides. .. these ones will stay. Wikipedia does not obey not any constituition!! YOU should stop pushing your POV!! here you can not outvote somebody! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected this article for two weeks and hopefully a solution can be found. I see the dispute is whether File:Flag of Herzeg-Bosnia.svg and File:Coat of arms of Herzeg-Bosnia.svg should be added to the infobox. I haven't examined this issue in detail, but this seems to be a case of de jure vs. de facto status.

Infoboxes generally only include official symbols. Since the flag and coat of arms seem to be used as de facto symbols despite being ruled unconstitutional, perhaps they can be taken out of the infobox and put under a section explaining their status. Would this be an acceptable solution for both sides?

Spellcast (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spellcast!

As I have already explained at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton...

these symbols are:

• de jure:partially accepted-used by the local governement but not accepted at the federal level
• de facto: absolutely accepted

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid duplicate conversations, we'll continue the discussion there. Spellcast (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

names

the local government referrs the Canton 10 as "hercegbosanska zupanija" that counts as "native name" even if it is not official.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Same situation with the symbols, the name was found unconstitutional, this is already explained on the page as per the consensus. 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not any court that has jurisdiction over this. Therefore it is meaningless.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

HERZEGOVINA

OK, efendija PRODUCER

Could you explain me what is the problem with this sentence:

That geography proof is however disputed since the boarders of Herzegovina are not strictly geographically and especially not legally determined.

• Are claiming that Herzegovina borders are determined? And you know them?
• if they are , give us some sources for that!

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm not the one adding new information it's up to you to provide sources. Stop returning the name we've gone over this nonsense, for the last time do not return it, it has been declared unconstitutional. PRODUCER (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my question!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting. And as it seems to me I will be waitign till eternity.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Name

The official website of the Canton uses the name "Herzegbosanska županija", which is obviously the Croatian native name for the Canton. The Bosniak name is "Kanton br. 10", whil the Serbian name is "Zapadnobosanski kanton" ("Западнобосански кантон"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

precisely!That is my point ,too!Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Is there any Coat of Arms of Canton 10? All other cantons have their own heraldic symbols... --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Canton 10

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Canton 10's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Data":

• From Glamoč: http://www.fzs.ba/Podaci/10.pdf
• From Tropolje: (in Bosnian)(in Croatian) "Kanton 10 u brojkama (Canton 10 in numbers)" (PDF). The Federal Office of Statistics of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Retrieved 28 May 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Part of Hercegovina? / Constitutional Court Article

"This name has been deemed unconstitutional by the Federation's Constitutional Court partly because it "does not cover any part of the traditional region of Herzegovina""

I do not believe that is what the accompanying article claims. The article states that the petition submitted to the Constitutional Court claims this, but not that the court ruled this to be true. From my understanding, Tomislavgrad is usually considered to be a part of Hercegovina. Ezc 195 (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for CANTON 10 is an administrative region in Bosnia Herzegovina. The coords fall in the middle of the Adriatic Sea. The fol coords are closer to the correct location, although a little too far north of the centre point. 44°22′N 16°23′E

Terry in Ottawa

—Maple leaf eh (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the error. I've emended the coordinates to indicate a point roughly in the center of the canton. Deor (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canton 10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207142312/http://www.vladahbz.com/pages/ustrojstvo_vlade to http://www.vladahbz.com/pages/ustrojstvo_vlade

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Coat of Arms and flag

According to the constitution of the canton (the issue is same for West Herzegovina Canton), the Coat of Arms and the flag are defined as following:

• "Grb Županije je povijesni hrvatski grb u obliku stiliziranog štita, podijeljen vodoravno i okomito u dvadeset pet crvenih i bijelih polja kvadrata, tako da je prvo polje u gornjem lijevom kutu stiliziranog štita crvene boje. Iznad stiliziranog štita nalazi se tropleter vodoravno položen na štit iznad tri središnja polja." ("The coat of arms of the County is a historical Croatian coat of arms in the form of a stylized shield, divided horizontally and vertically into twenty-five red and white squares, so that the first square in the upper left corner of the stylized shield is red. Above the stylized shield, there is a triplet placed horizontally on the shield above the three central arrays.")

• "Zastava Županije sastoji se od tri boje: crvene, bijele i plave, s grbom Županije u sredini." ("The county flag consists of three colors: red, white and blue, with the county coat of arms in the middle.") [2]

In 1997, the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared that their use in this way is not in accordance to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina because the symbols represent only one constituent nation. However, the symbols are still used by both cantons/their governments. There are also other cases where a municipality has a CoA and a flag that were declared unconstitutional, but are still in use, such as Banja Luka as the most notable one. [3]

In my opinion, as I did not find a source that the symbols are banned, and as they are used by the local government, the infobox should contain that flag and CoA. Tzowu (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If there is the article about Kosovo with the flag, coat of arms and names used by the local government, even if the Serbian government doesn't recognize it, why should we refuse to use in this article the elements used by the local constitution, if they are refused by the national one ? What is in the local cantonal constitution, should also be here in the article, with some additional explications. Ioannes II (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Government of BiH doesn't recognize the symbols or even the name of the Canton. If you search "Hercegbosanska županija" in gov.ba websites, there are a lot of results [4]. But the name should follow WP:COMMONNAME. Tzowu (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. We should not set a dangerous precedent. You could invite editors from WikiProject BiH to join the discussion. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? With what do you disagree? Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

He disagrees with whatever my position is, without putting much effort into specifics.

Anyway, I think that Canton 10 is the most common English name so that should be the name of the article. As for the symbols, I already wrote it. Tzowu (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

1) I disagree with showing symbols (flag, COA, what have you) of any BiH canton - if they have previously been declared to be unconstitutional. 2) Banja Luka is no longer a valid example. The link which you have presented is from 2017 and it's old news. 3) Making (incorrect) childish accusations is not good for any discussion. WP:Don't be rude Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the verdict by Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If it helps. I do not have an opinion should the flag be in the article or not. Mhare (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Here you should try to understand that Bosnia and Herzegovina is a confederation, and that there is no national constitution, but only particular constitutions. The flag and coat of arms of Herzeg-Bosnia are used by the official, democratically elected government ([5][6] [7]), I see no reason to ignore the facts.

Huh? You may be forgetting about the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is also the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, rather dependent on the existence of a national constitution. And none of this seems to have much relevance here. Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Course of action to take regarding this? Beginning to be tiresome watching this thing in Watchlist. Mhare (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)