Talk:Christian Schmidt (politician)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian Schmidt (politician). 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/20130603180245/http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/abgeordnete17/biografien/S/schmidt_christian.html to http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/abgeordnete17/biografien/S/schmidt_christian.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Croatian puppet
There needs to be a section on how he's a fascist agent of the Croatian state 125.236.236.3 (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is New Zealand IP provoking tension in Balkans tense area? ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Disputed - Alleged requirement for UNSC endorsement/approval (in addition to being appointed by PIC)
- Special:Diff/1183651419 till Special:Diff/1183651419/1183655718


 * notably due to the fact that he was not approved by the United Nations Security Council, nor was he chosen or approved on a broad consensus by the Peace Implementation Council, as was the case for previous High Representatives

can you explain why UNSC involvement is "(due to) the fact"? The issue is at PIC no UNSC. no unanimous decision in PIC/PIC SB not UNSC lack of all P5 accord. russia veto in PIC not russia/p.r.c. veto in UNSC.

In the UNSCR 1031 (passed in relation to 1995 Dayton Agreement), the quote text:

The quoted UNSCR text mentioned the UNSC endorsed the establishment of HR by PIC (which the PIC is in turned established by the Dayton Accord)

The quoted UNSCR text also mentioned UNSC agrees but not appoint, since the HR was established by PIC, which in turn established by Dayton Accord.

OHR/PIC have elaborated on [Appointment of the High Representatives] / [Archived]

Here is Russia objection as member of PIC Steering Board [] The PIC SB expressed its appreciation to Ambassador Valentin Inzko... The Russian Federation did not agree with this decision.

So there's only one issue regarding his legitimacy, not two issues. The only issue is Russia veto in PIC. Only PIC and no UNSC. Never does UNSCR mentioned the need for UNSC to endorse the appointment of HR by PIC. Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you justify and show which UNSCR text specifically mentioned the need for UNSC to endorse PIC appointment of HR?

Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cat12zu3 I did NOT write that the UNSC "appoint" the High Representative, I wrote "approved" (I wrote that he is "chosen" by the PIC). Because, even if it is indeed not a legal requirement, and that's the reason why he (Christian Schmidt) is today High Representative, it was convention for previous High Representatives to be further approved by the UNSC after having been selected by the PIC, as is stated in the sources used. It was previously done so as a manner of furthering the legitimacy of the HR and assuring that he has the support of the International Community. That is an argument used by Russia, China, and others, either inside or outside Bosnia, who are opposed to the tenure of Christian Schmidt as HR. Snarcky1996 (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then the word "due to the fact"...."approved" is not true, because it is typically agreed by convention, and convention is by tradition and not the same as legal act, and as you had acknowledged it is not a must to approve legally. By the way have you found a quote in UNSCR that say so...that need to endorse a PIC appointment of HR? Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3 What "due to the fact" mean is that, until then, the person selected for the post of HR had his candidature systematically submitted for approval to the UNSC. Saying "due to the fact" simply state that that was how it was done before, nothing else. Snarcky1996 (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3 It is "due the fact" that this procedure was not followed here that Schmidt is contested by some. Snarcky1996 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3 And yes, "approved" is the correct term, that was the procedure followed, I don't see what's the point of that semantics debate. Snarcky1996 (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "due the fact" this happened that happened...ok....what about "approval"? where is the part in UNSCR that specifically mentioned the procedure that it must be approved? ... the UNSCR mentioned UNSC agree the designation 1st HR ... They can disagree... But did UNSCR said HR should be send to UNSC for approval? for endorsement? Cat12zu3 (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "approved", in the context within UNSC, means there is such approval procedure exist in a UNSCR...does UNSCR mention such procedures? Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3
 * Saying "approved" (I did not wrote "MUST BE approved" by the way, you are adding that) simply indicate that the candidature was sent to the UNSC for formal approval, that was the procedure previously followed. It should also be noted that, until then (selection of Schmidt), in the case that the UNSC rejected the candidature (that never happened), either because of a veto of a permanent member or because of a majority negative vote of the members of the Security Council, it was informally agreed that the countries of the PIC would chose another candidate, in a spirit of consensus and because the approval of the International Community is always something deemed crucial for the implementation of the peace process, even if technically it was not legally necessary to do so. So, it was not legally imperative/necessary under the Dayton Agreements that the candidature be sent to the UNSC, but it was done so anyway.
 * So not "must be approved", but still was sent to be "approved", yes, again, that's the correct term. Snarcky1996 (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * since UNSCR didn't mentioned any procedures on approving/endorsing HR, that would be agreement, as in customarily agree to the appointment of the HR, as a courtesy like Senatorial courtesy or Constitutional convention (political custom) but not approval
 * since approval meant that there is such approval/endorsement procedures, which UNSCR didn't mentioned, that would be misleading. why not change to agreed as mentioned in the UNSCR? Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3 Utimately, this is a rather insignificant and meaningless semantic "difference", "approved" and "agreed" have ultimately the same meaning, I really don't see why the current phrase should be reformulated. If we really must go on a debate about semantics though, I would say that, in the context of the "legitimacy" dispute, "approved" is a term that convey much better than "agreed" the argument advanced by opponents of Schmidt, that he lack legitimacy and that he don't really represent the international community. So I would rather vote to keep "approved" I think. Snarcky1996 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3 It should also be noted that, in all the sources that I have read, the terms "approved" and "approval" of the UNSC are always used, not "agreed". Snarcky1996 (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * UNSCR mentioned UNSC agree to Carl Blidt and never mentioned any procedure on approval/endorsement of HR. approval is misleading, subsequent UNSCR follows the same pattern eg Welcomes and agrees...Valentin Inzko as High Representative
 * Also such phrase/sentence are loaded, and given the controversy surronding the ambiguous text in UNSCR and subsequent UNSCR on HR, had change it, from a particular viewpoint (doesn't matter what the opposing camp think, doesn't matter what you think), had change it make it plain, neutral plain (WP:POV) (WP:NPOV) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3 Consensus (WP:Consensus) was not yet reached, you should not have changed it. Sources state "approved". I do not agree with the need to reformulate it. However the way you chose to reformulate it is close enough to the spirit of the original phrase, so we can leave it at that if you insist (why you insist is a mystery to me however...). I still think however that the controversial nature of the whole affair require the usage of the correct term, which is "approval of the UNSC". "Doesn't' matter what you think" is contrary to wikipedia rules of consensus-reaching by the way, so be mindful of that for next time. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3 See: WP:Consensus Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @TylerBurden I'm yesterday (Special:Diff/1184157617) made it neutral since there is controversy about the ambiguous text of UNSCR 1031 that doesn't mention any procedure about approval/endorsement/authorization of the appointment of HR appointed by PIC...and that leaves only one legitimacy issue not two, which is Russia veto as PIC SB member (above) and not UNSC...PIC only no UNSC --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the phrase/sentence is loaded, as in loaded statement, that I had mentioned way earlier (Also such phrase/sentence are loaded, and given the controversy surronding the ambiguous text in UNSCR), so I just rephrased it...from WP:POV(loaded) to WP:NPOV...which said is non-negotiable...cannot be superseded...by editor consensus....so just said plainly vanilla plainly appointed without a corresponding UNSC resolution.Thank you very much. And Thank you-all in Wikipedia team very much. Good night/day. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3 I consider the debate closed, and I accepted your last revision of the article, however you should take note of a few important things: "approve" is not at all a misleading term here, it is the term used to talk about the "approval of the UNSC" which was still understood to be required by all parties of the Dayton Agreements before the whole Schmidt dispute happened. It is also a perfectly neutral term despite your claims of "non-negotiable WP:NPOV", and it is not you who get to alone decide what is "non-negotiable". You should also remember that you don't get to decide unilaterally to modify the article when there a debate ongoing on the talk page of said article, see WP:Consensus. Your claim of a "non-negotiable" situation here is inadmissible. Snarcky1996 (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just quoting WP:NPOV is non-negotiable...cannot be superseded...by editor consensus. had asked in summary edit (Special:Diff/1184090325)) and started asking in talk page (Special:Diff/1184104874)...Anyway, now that phrase is a WP:NPOV, we shall move along and carry on. WP:CIVIL. Good night....(and mine is daytime) Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3 Well,sorry for bringing it up once more, but since you invoke the WP:CIVIL rule, then you should at least also follow that rule and warn in the ongoing discussion that you are going to edit the page before deciding to do it on your own and not wait for the consent of the other editor(s). Anyway, good night/daytime to you. Snarcky1996 (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cat12zu3 Well,sorry for bringing it up once more, but since you invoke the WP:CIVIL rule, then you should at least also follow that rule and warn in the ongoing discussion that you are going to edit the page before deciding to do it on your own and not wait for the consent of the other editor(s). Anyway, good night/daytime to you. Snarcky1996 (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)