Should the flag and coat of arms of the canton be included in the infobox? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was prior discussion on this talk page, discussion at the DRN, and discussion at RSN concerning West Herzegovina Canton's coat of arms and flag (referred to as "the symbols" below). Note that this is not WP:FORUMSHOPPING as it has been determined that what was under discussion at RSN is actually a different issue. The arguments for and against the symbols 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 symbols are still widely used. There is consensus that if the symbols are (still) official, the symbols can be included.

Answer Support or Oppose (symbols in infobox). Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support. The law that currently includes the symbols has not received any scrutiny from the courts as the ruling only applied to the cantonal constitution.^[1]: 123 There is also an ombudsman report that recognizes the symbols^[1]: 65 (translate by copying text into your Bosnian translation engine of choice). Arguments that the symbols are unconstitutional because of the reasoning of the ruling is original research. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of your rational which goes: There is also an ombudsman report that recognizes the symbols is false. Organization you are citing does not recognize anything, they just copy/paste law on their page 63, and then only on page 123 report presents organization's official stance, which is that symbols are unconstitutional! Also, missing from your rational, is the fact that in earlier RfC, which is closed few days ago, this report you base this new RfC on, was commented with: I have no idea whether this report is a reliable source or not. I can't read it. Sometimes publications of government agencies are reliable sources, sometimes not, sometimes primary, secondary or tertiary. This basically means that your attempt to use page 63 falls under WP:CIRCULAR. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

65 is not just copy and paste, take a look at the lead. Službena obiliežja Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona definisana su Ustavom Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona, Zakonom o grbu i zastavi Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona i Zakonom o upotrebi grba i zastave Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona. along with presenting the symbols. The comment basically says “Government (in this case, ombudsman) publications’ reliability should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and I couldn’t read it so I can’t say.” It in no way talks about citogenesis, let alone CIRCULAR. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In secondary sources there is a world of difference between literal repeating the primary source for the sake of presenting the subject and a critical take on the subject - in this case this is so obvious: page 63 is just copy/paste of the part of the law that report authors will later comment in their own voice on page 123, Carleas, as an editor with a lawyer and legal background, noted this in his post too. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's page 65 not 63. The lead says what I just quoted in Bosnian, and it is not present in the source material. It does not repeat the source. Carleas did not say anything about the ombudsman. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is a WP:FORUMSHOP, and even worse if add to it your selective copy/paste of just part of the earlier discussion from RfC at RSN to here (followed by archiving of earlier discussion with concrete suggestions?). You simply disregarded the fact that, in a weeks long this and 2009 discussion, only five uninvolved outsiders (editors most likely out of Balkans) appeared, and of them five who decided to chip-in their opinions on various aspects, three have expressed unequivocally and definitively their concrete suggestion how to proceed in controversial matter (which falls under ARBEE) like this one, so Anachronist used two dozen of posts (in 2009 and again few days ago) to essentially suggest 1, 2, and 3, Spellcast argued against it, and suggested, and again, and SMcCandlish here, all clearly stated that symbols should not be included into Infobox, instead image and description of the situation should be included into article body. And here we are after how long(?), persistently pushing the same pov over and over again. These guys did not agree, now you want someone else to take a part, and you obviously realized weak outside participation from the editors could be of use if this time around, with a bit of luck, only one or two show up to support what you are suggesting, you will have your way. And how and when is this going to end - when you and Sheng get what you want? Only three uninvolved experienced editors expressed their concrete suggestions, and they were unequivocal - no symbols into Infoblox, apply compromise instead.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Note that this is not WP:FORUMSHOPPING as it has been determined that what was under discussion at RSN is actually a different issue.
  2. Canton 10 is a different matter as they haven’t moved the symbols to a law, I have said this before.
  3. The 2009 discussion’s pro-symbols side did not bring up the laws, which is a valid point of contention, thus we only look at your links ‘3’ and ‘here’ here. Of these, I do not see how Anachronist suggested compromise in the DRN reply.
  4. Oh please, that is not how consensus works. If you’re still here after how long(?), we don’t have a consensus. Please stop accusing people at every turn (ok, that’s definitely an exaggeration)
  5. when is this going to end When you successfully prove with TS instead of SYNTH that const. court ruling applies to all related material including laws, or successfully refute another point, instead of bringing up disproven arguments over and over again.

  Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. nothing of sort is "determined" at earlier RfC;

  2. Spellcast's mentioning of Canton 10 is lateral - he moved forked discussion from there to here and all his statements are related to this discussion; further, symbols were not "moved" into the law at some later point after years of usage, that's absurd, they were always part of the law, they were ingrained within the law from the moment they decided to use them;

  3. Anachronist was pinged by me when I used his statement - if he wanted he had every opportunity to reject or oppose what I did, instead he added that he said even more; your instance on law is commented above (2.)

  4. when editors state something and refuse to respond to your continuous afterward pinging we can conclude with a degree of safety that they have spoken definitely; ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Just look above at Szm's first reply.

  2. Ah, thanks for clearing that up. However they weren't in the law until 2003, before that it was in the constitution which got annulled.

  3. All you claimed was they 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. If that's all you mean it doesn't talk about the compromise and is representative of the 2009 argument, which I have said pro-symbols side did not bring up the laws, which is a valid point of contention so it also doesn't weigh much.

  4. How is that related to my point 4? Plus the only people I pinged in this discussion are Szm and you. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per previous discussion(s). The law regulating the symbols of the canton is in force and made after the court's decision annulling the previous law. The situation is well described in West Herzegovina Canton#Flag and coat of arms. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, and you have sources? Or should we take yours or some other editors' word instead for it. Further, what "per previous discussion", what is said in previous discussions and by whom so that you can now claim we are on firm grounds to support anything? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The court's ruling found the flag and coat of arms unconstitutional on the grounds that they exclude one of the two constituent peoples of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.^[1] It is therefore the content of the flag and coat of arms that was found unconstitutional, and so a subsequent law restating that they are the flag and coat of arms would appear insufficient to overcome the ruling.
  The Ombudsman stated in their 2018 Annual Review (p. 39) that, "The Special Report established that the legislative bodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina did not comply with the decisions of the constitutional courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina."^[2] They later (p. 40) that, "In 2019 Ombudspersons will follow the implementation of this recommendation." To me that indicates that they do not see themselves as having said the last word on the matter, and I do not take the earlier special report as expressing an opinion about whether the insignia are official.
  Taken together, I conclude that the flag and coat remain unconstitutional in substance, that the canton still treats them as the de facto insignia, but that they are still legally defective under the ruling and should not be treated as official. Carleas (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling does not extend to all definitions of symbols thus it does not apply to the laws (that now hold the symbols instead of the constitution), though the symbols are still the same and in principle should be unconstitutional, but that’s original research as the law hasn’t been struck down by the constitutional court yet.Yes just reintroducing the same symbols would still be very vulnerable to being struck down from the court but they have not done so yet so I think the symbols are still de jure legal unless there's some weird BiH law I don't know that extends rulings.

I do not see how the conformity of the entire country to court rulings correlates to our current discussion. If you meant to reference the line on p. 123 instead about canton 8: The line immediately follows The Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton still contains a provision, which clearly indicates that the prevailing ethnic principle is still in favor of the two constituent peoples, Croats and Bosniaks. The whole paragraph (listed in a nice collapsed box above) doesn’t say anything about the law on symbols and only establishes that the provision on two peoples is unconstitutional and that the canton constitution is unconstitutional so it cannot be used to say that the law on symbols and thus the symbols are unconstitutional. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, @Aaron. I think we basically agree on points of fact, but we disagree about where the facts point. It's true that there is a law that says these are the symbols, and that the law has not been expressly reviewed by the national court that previously struck down the same symbols. It's true that I am appealing to what that court might do if given another opportunity to review the symbols. But I appreciate that you also recognize that symbols are "vulnerable", i.e. that, if they were reviewed, there is a more-than-even chance they would again be found unconstitutional, because the reasoning for which they were found unconstitutional likely applies as well to a law as to a constitution. I think we basically agree about the relevant sources and their reliability, and that we agree more or less about what they say and where the question stands legally in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I hope you will also agree that the symbols themselves are controversial, in particular within Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were added to the constitution, then removed by court order, then restored by law, and we agree that they remain vulnerable to further proceedings. I hope we also agree that the fight over these symbols seems unfinished.

I have not found a more apposite policy than MOS:FLAGS, so please correct me if there's something better, but I think that policy reflects general principles that should hold here: it cautions against the use of flags in infoboxes when they are controversial; it cautions against uses of flags in infoboxes that may be politically motivated; it emphasizes that flags are always optional and that, when in doubt, they should be avoided, even at the expense of consistency. Given the consensus that this is controversial, perhaps legally uncertain and certainly legally vulnerable, to present the symbols in the infobox as established, as though it is settled, is misleading, partial, and does not help to inform. They appear in the article, this discussion should be reflected there, but that is sufficient. Carleas (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of three involved editors, but it will not hurt if I express my agreement with this very eloquent expose, and probably best explanation so far. Regarding Policies and Guidelines, in context of this current issue MOS:FLAGS tops all other P&G's, but we could be considering some additional in combination with it, namely MOS:INFOBOXUSE, WP:WEIGHT (especially on prominence), while useful essays are WP:CONTROVERSIALFACT, WP:CONTROVERSY, ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like Santasa said, this is very well written. I'm not really sure on how prominent/controversial the controversy is but the fact that we've been discussing this for several months should be enough to count it controversial. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As I suggested in the DRN discussion, they should be discussed in the article body, including the disputation about them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I replied, the constitutionality of the symbol is under controversy but pretty much everyone agrees that it's official and they haven't been declared uncontroversial in their current iteration yet. Therefore I think it should be included in the infobox. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'll try to encompass in short some of my arguments as involved since the beginning of this whole affair: Wikipedia is not bound nor bows to any law or constitution; it doesn't matter how we label it - official/unofficial, legal/illegal, or as Wikipedia appropriately does, de-facto/de-jure; what's matter is that we have law and constitutional court ruling as primary RS, and only those secondary RS which show that symbols are de-facto used and de-jure unconstitutional, including Ombudsmen report; that this is a county level of administrative division which is 3rd level and part of the system of Bosnian state, not breakaway republic which fell out of the state legal-political system; that the upper level of govt doesn't recognize symbols and even lower level can refuse to use them simply depending on which ruling party occupies municipal (or even cantonal) govt; that all this probably suffice to most uninvolved and experienced editors to realize a sheer extent of real-life and Wikipedia controversy, to learn about jingoism related to the symbols (amounting clear chauvinism, as described in court order), and with policies and guidelines on icons/flags, Infobox, controversial articles/topics, to make up their mind and argue against placing the symbols into Infobox, and for explaining the controversy in article body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, you have not successfully demonstrated that the symbols are currently unconstitutional. None of your RSs demonstrate that the law on symbols and thus the symbols are unconstitutional. Please address what I said above instead of repeating what you previously said that does not address what I said above. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With this forum we have finally come to a point where we all have to WP:DROPTHESTICK or WP:LETGO, whatever happens, happens. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Drop The Stick: No, the debate has not come to a natural end, evident by how there is still rejuvenated interest in the topic after you unarchived the RSN discussion after 2 months.

  Let go: This is about not arguing for the sake of arguing and in general being civil. I don't think it means what you might think it means. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What I meant is, don't ask me to recycle my old arguments and evidence over and over again (Sealioning), while we are at the point where editors make up their mind and express their opinion in concrete manner. You asked for Support/Oppose in this RfC, not for redressing arguments in yet another cycle of same discussion - that discussion is now over. Comment what you wish, write a counterargument, but don't ask me to address sources after I did it many times over, although I am not the one who wants to add content, and after we had RfC and RSN on sources I provided only for the sake of my arguments. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An RfC IS a discussion, a more publicized and structured one, not just some sort of vote (WP:VOTE). It also isn't final in any way. I just realized that you may have supplied reasoning to this that I didn't reply to one day before the archival of the DRN discussion. So here is it I guess.

Your reply to this basically read "The sources are reliable thus I can use them to prove that the ruling extends to the law on symbols/the symbols are unconstitutional. I am not adding content so I don't need sources anyways but you need sources to add the symbols to the infobox." You have also declined to respond to my argument that the part of ombudsman on page 65 isn't copy and paste for the same reason.

Yes, the information in the sources you provided can be taken as "fact", save for Tacno which is an opinion piece. However, as I said above in "My refutal", the facts included within the sources don't include what you're attempting to prove.

There is consensus that a ruling in 1998 declared the articles of the constitution declared the symbols unconstitutional and canton 8 put the symbols in a law and removed its description from the constitution in 2003. You are attempting to add onto this here that the ruling applies to the law on symbols or the symbols themselves, so you DO need a source for that. We are attempting to prove that the ruling only applied to the constitution and not anything else and we have proven that with a source, the text of the ruling itself.

In case you didn't see it, I have also responded to your accusation of me cherry-picking PRIMARY. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your POV concerns and concerns vis-a-vis RS is answered and even better explained by Carleas, a real-life lawyer and editor with a background in law research, in his Oppose above. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – as per comments made by Carleas --Mhare (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Carleas explained it. Also, this is open for a year, can we now finish this? | Z1KA (R) | 14:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is already effectively closed. Just that something isn't archived doesn't mean it's open. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you meant the IP edit, they did not get consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]