Talk:Republika Srpska

Re: Serbia

Hi All. Could I please ask you to collaborate with those people working on the article Serbia since you both appear to refer to the same country, and the articles are of similar length and quality. Any chance of you looking at merging the best bits together? Many thanks. Thor Malmjursson 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (New page patrol/Recent changes)

Republika Srpska is one of the two political entities that form Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is not the same as Serbia, the country. Read the article for further details :-) Best regards, Ev 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check the population figures... they seem very unrealistic, since East Sarajevo is basically 50 houses, check on google maps by zooming in, how can there be 80,000 people there, maybe 8,000 possible. Overall we all know that Serbs migrated to Serbia, and there is half a million Serbs in Bosnia... Lies will just act negatively again on world opinion on Serbs. 77.238.193.238 (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question (about flags and coat of arms):

Why there is no flag nor coat of arms in the infobox in the Wikpedia article about FBiH, but there are both flag and coat of arms in the infobox in the Wikpedia article about Srpska, if the Constitutional Court decision that banned all of them was the same?--MaGioZal 06:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the decision enters into force when it is published in the official gazette of BiH, which hasn't happened yet. The people editing FBiH shouldn't have removed the symbols yet.--Methodius 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not held the flag of Republika Srpska unconstitutional. See "On the constitutionality of the flag II". — In the case of Republika Srpska, only the coat of arms and anthem have been deemed unconstitutional. - Best regards, Ev 17:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.--Methodius 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The decision has been entered into the official government newsletter. Shouldn't the coat-of-arms be removed at this time? Nouanoua 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've lost the track somehow, but I think that Image:RS_amblem.gif is the current emblem, which is not declared unconstitutional and is thus valid. The old symbol was the one at Coat of arms of Republika Srpska, which is deprecated. Someone with knowledge & sources should put some info about Image:RS_amblem.gif into that article... Duja► 16:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see there is Emblem of Republika Srpska article; it's fairly confusing as it is now. The old CoA article should be merged into that one instead. Duja► 16:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-sovereign territories of Europe

I don't think this template {{Non-sovereign territories of Europe}} is appropriate—first, RS is not listed there at all; second, its purpose is to list territories with special level of autonomy/asymmetrical status from the central government (check each individual case). BiH is (kind of) federation of RS and FBiH, and the two constituent entities, with fairly symmetrical status within the country. If we go that way, then we should include States of Germany, Cantons of Switzerland, Provinces of Spain... into the template, which would render it useless (and it's not much useful now either). Duja► 12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Duja. - Ev 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and since RS isnt a federal republic it has no special rights in Bosnia and if RS has special rights then 100 % of Bosnian territory has special rights. RS is just a smaller Bosnian entity territorial integrated into the in independent, internationally recognized state BiH. Alkalada 10:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Duja, RS is not an 'autonomous' region in BiH since both the RS and FBiH are equal partners in BiH. Osli73 09:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally an agreement between the sides. My view is that FBiH and RS compose BiH. Without it BiH would not exist. FBiH and RS currently are what provinces are in other countries. If this is not farfetched, could we create a wikipedia project that would be used as middle ground (concerning delicate BiH topics). There we could discuss and agree on a consensus before aiming to change large projects that could upset either side. Good news... Vseferović 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kseferovic, I assume you mean a type of "intra-Bosnian issues" talk page, dealing with issues pertinent to the relationships between BiH, FBiH and RS. Before we set it up I think we should float the idea on the Bosnia and FBiH Talk pages as well.Osli73 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Something on those lines. Let's see if we could set up such a project. Vseferović 01:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Independence

Does anyone think if Kosovo gets there independence that Republica Srpska will also get independnce? If they do get would they become a part of Serbia or just stay seperate from Bosnia and Serbia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euro.Serb (talk • contribs) 11:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

In other words, this is not a forum. - Best regards, Ev 19:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

About Serbian ethnic cleaning in Bosnia and Herzegovina

By the end of year of 1992, Bosnia and Herzegovina was crowded with muslim fundamentalists, who have arrived from Middle East. Their plan was to create an islam country in the middle of Balkan. Bosnian Serbs were merely protecting what belongs to them. So don't think that the Bosnian Serbs are the "bad boys". Even today, in 2007, in Bosnia and Herzegovina there is a problem related to muslim fundamentalists. There were far more worse war crimes and ethnic cleanings done by Bosnian Muslim, but the truth is not revealed to the media and public.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.93.93.86 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an extreme distortion of Historical facts. By early 1992, the Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has chose to declare Independence. In a reaction to that, the large Serb minority had begun a terroristic attack all over the country and upon Sarajevo in particular. For almost two years, the entire Western World had done absolutely nothing at all to help the victims of the serbian agression (only the bombing of the Sarajevo Market, at February 6th 1994, had somewhat rendered things a little bit differently in that respect). As a result, the Bosnian government and people - who were, by then, totally remote from any religious feelings, let alone fundamentalism - had to accept whatever assistence they could get, be it Western, fundamentalist, or whatever! When a bully jumps at you in a dark alley and somebody is helping you against him, you wouldn't ask, I daresay, whether or not your sole helper and saver is a "nice guy" or not... You would just simply be grateful for his help! 88.155.17.130 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My appologies for the signature on this last entry - I had thought, that once signing in to one wikipedia, I am signed in to all. That is why I had not been aware, my nick would not appear above. Balkanic citrus 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article

Title

wouldnt it make more sense to call the article "Serb Republic" like the translation says. The present title isnt in english and is confusing to those who dont speak the serb language.71.174.195.224 01:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The non-translated title is widely used in Eurpean media. Also, it's actually LESS confusing, as "Serb Republic" could be confused with Serbia — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the original name of the entity is "Republika Srpska", not "Srpska Republika"; only the later would be translated as "Serb Republic". I support leaving the title as it is. --bonzi (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Serb Republic

The english name is not Serb Republic, its Republic of Srpska.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.199.144 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you call Republic of Srpska Republika Srpska i sure do hop you call trhe federation Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine, if you dont you are really stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.166.187 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Republika Srpska translated as Serb Republic?

In the Serbo-Croatian language there is a big difference between Republika Srpska(Republic of Srpska) and Srpska Republika(Serb Republic). If we choose to translate it like this the Croatia should be called the Croat Republic, since it is called Republika Hrvatska. The translation is completely wrong and sends the wrong message. Could somebody please change this.(Honesty 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Ask the UN  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, even Microsoft calls it the Serb Republic... http://maps.live.com/ --Bolonium 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? CIS uses "Bosnian Serb-led Republika Srpska (RS)",United Nations uses "Republika Srpska", IMF(International Monetary Fund) uses "Republika Srpska", the Government of Republika Srpska and the Federation call the the state "Republika Srpska". Just because a company(Microsoft) is to cheap to hire literate people, does not make Republika Srpska into Serb Republic. Anyway, if somebody calls it Serb Republic than reference it. (Honesty 05:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On 'Republika Srpska' vs 'Serb Republic'

There is a genuine disagreement among scholars and specialists as to whether 'Republika Srpska' should be translated as 'Serb Republic'. However, rather than respect the fact that people disagree over this issue, the authors of this article claim that 'Serb Republic' is a 'mistranslation' of Republika Srpska. This is false. While it is true that 'Serb Republic' is not an entirely satisfactory translation of 'Republika Srpska', there simply is no better translation. Some may prefer to keep 'Republika Srpska' even in English, but there are legitimate objections to this as well - this is equivalent to using 'Deutschland' in English to mean 'Germany'. Translations are, in any case, rarely able to convey 100% the meaning of an original in a different language. Thus, it is simply untrue that 'Serb Republic' is a mistranslation; it simply represents one point of view.

There is no right or wrong answer to this dispute. The authors should make this clear, instead of trying to pretend that their own preferred answer is the correct one.

NB it is true that 'Serb Republic' would be better rendered in Serbian as 'Srpska Republika'. But it is untrue that 'Republika Srpska' is equivalent to 'Republika Hrvatska' - there really is a place called 'Hrvatska' and it is translated as 'Croatia', which is equivalent to 'Serbia'/'Srbija'. But there is no such place as 'Srpska', which is why the word is untranslatable as a noun. 'Srpska' refers to the Serb people, not to any country like 'Srbija' or 'Hrvatska'.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.162.237 (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is a mistranslation since no official document calls it the Serb Republic. Since Serb Republic could mean any state that has Serbians as their majority. Therefore the confusion between Serbia and Srpska would appear. The Bosnian Serbs did wish to name their state Serb Republic which would in Serbian be Srpska Republika, but that was unconstintutional. Republic of Srpska is not a state of the Serbs it is a state of Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats. Using terminology such as Serb Republic only spreads miunderstanding. And as has been proven the official state name is translated as Republic of Srpska. It means that the name of the administrative state is Srpska, not Serb. What you are trying to say is nonsense. It is like saying that Slovenia should not be called Slovenia but instead should be called Slovene Republic, since before that it was called Styria, Carinthia etc. If you can prove that the Serb Republic is widely used, then prove it and provide evidence. (Honesty 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Official usage vs linguistic correctness

The whole point of the dispute between those who use 'Republika Srpska' or 'Republic of Srpska' and those who use 'Serb Republic', is that it is a dispute between those who prefer official usage vs those who prefer linguistic correctness. If what is officially used is most important to you, then I entirely agree that you should use 'Republika Srpska' or 'Republic of Srpska'. But not all of us believe that the frequently ignorant and ad hoc pronouncements of international officials and bodies should be allowed to dictate academic standards. The recognition of the RS by the international community in 1995 was the product of a desperately and, some would say, cynically reached compromise by international and former-Yugoslav statesmen in which linguistic correctness was the last thing on their mind. Hence, the linguistically problematic term 'Republic of Srpska'.

'Serb Republic' could be confused with 'Republic of Serbia' by people who don't know the area and history, but so what ? Some people might confuse Britain with Brittany in France, or Georgia in the US with the Republic of Georgia, or the Republic of Macedonia with Greek Macedonia.

'Srpska Republika' would be a better rendition of 'Serb Republic', but translations aren't always able to convey nuances in the original language. Thus, the words 'Bosanac' and 'Bosnjanin' only have one possible translation in English - 'Bosnian'. Conversely, the Serbo-Croat 'narod' can be translated either as 'nation' or as 'people', but both are problematic.

The idea that the use of the term 'Republic of Srpska' is meant to convey the fact that Croats and Bosniaks also live in the RS is, from a linguistic point of view, ridiculous. Then the RS should have been called something like 'Republic of Srpska-Hrvatska-Bosnjacka'. But again, if you think pragmatic political compromises should trump linguistic correctness, then yours is a valid viewpoint.

Slovenia is not equivalent to 'Srpska'. Slovenia is a term with a long pedigree; etymologically, it derives from 'land where the Slavs live', and is broadly equivalent in origin to Slavonia or Slovakia. But 'Srpska' as an English word has no etymological basis or grammatical justification.

Paul Shoup and Steven L. Burg, in 'The War in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Ethnic Conflict and International Intervention', give 'Serb Republic' as the translation for 'Republika Srpska' (pp. 355, 367). Marko Attila Hoare in 'The History of Bosnia: From the Middle Ages to the Present Day', uses 'Serb Republic' throughout. Apparently, the Encyclopedia Brittanica also uses 'Serb Republic': http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-535337/Serb-Republic

There is enough scholarly disagreement over this question for the Wikipedia entry to give both viewpoints, instead of trying to pretend that one is right and the other wrong. Otherwise, Wikipedia would simply be representing a partisan viewpoint. And that is not Wikipedia's purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.162.237 (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Linguistically Republika Srpska means a republic called "Srpska". Which originates in the name of the majority of the people living on that territory, the Serbs. What you are saying does not make sense, in Serbian it does not mean the Serb Republic. For it to mean the Serb Republic, the name would have to be changed to Srpska Republika. It would be like saying that Republic of Serbia is the same as Serbia Republic. In Serbian Serbia Republic(Srbija Republika) does not mean anything. In relation to Slovenia its name appeared in the age of Romantisism(i.e. nationalism). No such land called Slovenia existed before, it was called as I had previously said Carinthia, Styria, Istria etc. The people living in those provinces were called Slovenes, from which the name of their new state was derived, Slovenia. I dont see the confusion, new regions gain new names, in a couple of decades Srpska will sound pretty reasonable. These things happen. Yugoslavia did not exist before 1929, then suddenly it appeared, by what you have presented it should have been named the Kingdom of Southslavia. Since Yugoslavia(Jugoslavija) means the land of the South Slavs. Just to add a small note the new names are not that much different from the invention of new nationalities!(Honesty 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

'Honesty', I respect your opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion. You do not have the right to use Wikipedia to push your own opinion as though it is the only correct one, and all others as though they were incorrect. The correct procedure, where there is reasonable disagreement, is for Wikipedia to give both viewpoints and allow the reader to decide.

'Srpska' is a Serbian-language adjective, not an English-language noun. 'Republika Srpska' and 'Srpska Republika' would both be translated into 'Serb Republic'. By comparison, Bosnians have traditionally referred to their country as 'Bosna ponosna' - 'proud Bosnia' - which means exactly the same thing as 'ponosna Bosna'. In Serbo-Croat or Serbian, it is possible for the adjective to come after the noun, as well as before. Eg the expression, 'Srbi, narod najstariji' ('Serbs, the oldest nation'), which means the same as 'Srbi, najstariji narod'.

The Slovenes don't call their country 'Slovenia'; they call it 'Slovenija'. The Yugoslavs called their country 'Jugoslavija'. To say 'Republic of Srpska' in English is like saying 'Republic of Slovenija' or 'Socialist Federative Republic of Jugoslavija'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.162.237 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I truly do not know where you studied Serbian but what you have just said is completely wrong. To start off 'Bosna ponosna' would in english be translated as 'Bosnia the proud', and 'ponosna Bosna' would be translated as 'proud Bosnia'. Srpska became a noun in the Serbian language when it was decided to call the entity Republika Srpska. This was decided during the Dayton Agreement. Lawfully and linguistically you are wrong. And if you scroll down the page you will see that almost everyone agrees what the name of the entity is. Lastly what is the difference between Slovenia and 'Slovenija'? The J? The fact is that linguists choose pronunciation over indigenous spelling. This is not your problem how the linguists choose to translate it. The discussion here is the name of the entity, not what it should be. If you have a problem with the official name, take up a complaint with the United Nations, the governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the other governments around the world. As i have said previously prove what you call 'my opinion' wrong. (Honesty 04:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

I have never said that your opinion is 'wrong'. The point I have made about a thousand times, and which you have consistently failed to respond to, is that there are legitimate differences of opinion on the subject. The Wikipedia entry should make this clear, instead of representing simply one of the viewpoints. If you want to take a more partisan viewpoint, and argue that 'Serb Republic' is a 'mistranslation', that's fair enough - just don't do it on Wikipedia; do it in your own book, article or blog, under your own name. Wikipedia entries are not supposed to represent the viewpoint of a particular author.

To make things clear, I didn't initiate the proposal below for the name of the entry to be changed; somebody clearly agrees with me that 'Serb Republic' is preferable to 'Republika Srpska'. So I suppose out of eight anonymous participants, two of us go for 'Serb Republic' and eight go for 'Republika Srpska' (not, it seems, 'Republic of Srpska'). Do six out of eight anonymous people comprise 'almost everyone' ? I could ask my mailman, my brother, my mum and a few other people to post votes in favour of my position so as to gain a 'majority', but it wouldn't prove things either way.

I'm sure you are aware that literal translations are technically impossible, and that that being the case, translators are constantly faced with the dilemma between translating individual words as accurately as possible and trying to convey the meaning as accurately as possible. Some argue, for example, that 'Greater Serbia' better conveys 'Velika Srbija' than does 'Great Serbia', even though 'Great Serbia' is the literal translation. These are all legitimate debates.

'Bosna ponosna' could be translated as 'proud Bosnia', 'Bosnia the proud' - or even 'Bosnia proud' (which would be correct in certain literary forms of English). If it accurately conveys the meaning of the original, and is grammatically correct, then it's not a 'mistranslation'. But even in 'Bosnia the proud', 'proud' remains an adjective, not a noun.

There is no such noun as 'Srpska', even in official usage. The terms 'Republic of Srpska' and 'Republika Srpska' are officially used, but not 'Srpska' by itself. Can you show us an official document that refers to 'Srpska' as opposed to 'Republika Srpska' ? Does the alleged noun 'Srpska' exist anywhere as a word in its own right, independently of 'Republika' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.163.215 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Routledge Encyclopedia 'Central and South-Eastern Europe 2006' uses 'Republika Srpska', but translates it as 'Serb Republic' (p. 103). This volume's contributors include Richard Clogg, Richard Crampton, Tom Gallagher, Miranda Vickers, Marko Attila Hoare, Vesna Bojicic, Dimitar Bechev, Peter Palmer and others. So a book compiled by many of the leading Balkan experts in the UK translates 'Republika Srpska' as 'Serb Republic'. Is it really likely that a book of such scholarly calibre would do this, if Serb Republic really were a 'mistranslation' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.163.215 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are trying to say, the problem is that it is a mistranslation. This article is not an anti-Bosnian Serb rhetoric, what you are trying to make it. Firstly the sources you give are people who are not linguists, not even remotely related to the discussion of the translation of the name of the entity of Republika Srpska. We can use the translation of Misha Glenny in his book "The Balkans", where he translated Republika Srpska as 'Serbian Republic'. Would you accept this as a legitimate translation. Since it implies that Srpska actually means Serbian, not Serb. I am more than happy to use this but also other names would have to be changed. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina would also have to be renamed the Bosnian-Croat Federation, since he uses this term instead of the federation of B and H. The fact that some authors have certain 'intrests', while others are just completely unrelated to the subject proves that their opinion does not matter in this instance. Why I completely disagree with you is because not only is it a mistranslation, but is anti-Serb rhetoric, which only brings confusion and hatred. It can easily be said that we should add to the Republic of Croatia the translation of its official name as the Croat Republic. If we are going to talk about translations there is a perfect example of a slavic state that translate their names correctly into English. The Czech Republic which in Czech is 'Česká republika'. Then we have the Slovak Republic which in Slovak is 'Slovenská republika'. Then we have the Republic of Poland which is 'Rzeczpospolita Polska'(not Polska Rzeczpospolita). The name Srpska would be translated as Serbia, if the Republic of Serbia did not exist. But since Republic of Serbia does exist, the international community has choosen to keep the indeginous name of Srpska. I dont see the confusion. If you have a problem with this as I have previously said you are free to write to the governments and linguists around the world, but wikipedia is no place for misinformation, or hear say to be posted. Lastly yes, a book with so many leading anti-experts in the local language is likely to mistranslate the name.(Honesty 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Earlier, you said that 'The Bosnian Serbs did wish to name their state Serb Republic', but they weren't allowed to. Now you're saying that the use of 'Serb Republic' is 'anti-Serb rhetoric'. How can it be 'anti-Serb rhetoric' to use the name that, according to you, the Bosnian Serbs themselves favoured ?! You can't have it both ways. This is not a political discussion; if you want to see it that way, I'm sure you can read into it anything you want.

I accept that official usage is 'Republika Srpska', and I don't have a problem with the Wikipedia entry being called 'Republika Srpska'; I personally prefer 'Serb Republic', but it's reasonable that Wikipedia should go with the name that's most widely used. What I take issue with, is the claim that 'Serb Republic' is a 'mistranslation'. The fact that 'Republika Srpska' is official usage has no bearing on whether 'Serb Republic' is the correct translation. I'm not arguing that the official name should be changed; merely that 'Serb Republic' not be described as a 'mistranslation'.

Misha Glenny's use of 'Serbian Republic' is entirely legitimate. 'Serbian' can legitimately be used as an adjective referring to Serbs in general, not just the Serbs from Serbia, in which case 'Serbian Republic' is the same as 'Serb Republic'. It's a case in point: 'Hrvatska Republika' could be translated as 'Croat Republic' or as 'Croatian Republic'; you can't simply say one is 'correct' and the other is a 'mistranslation'. Glenny is a fluent Serbian speaker who has extensive first-hand knowledge of the former Yugoslavia. So that's another specialist who translates 'Srpska' as an adjective in English.

You may feel you are right and the experts are wrong; that's fair enough. But why should Wikipedia go with your opinion ?

I'd suggest that the sentence

'Republika Srpska is sometimes mistranslated as "Serb Republic"'

be replaced with

'Republika Srpska is sometimes translated as "Serb Republic", although this is not universally accepted; while some believe that "Serb Republic" is the correct translation, others believe it is a mistranslation.'

That is factually true and something we can all agree on.

Alternatively, the sentence can remain as it is, with the warning sign to indicate that the factual content is questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.52.238 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but could we change it a little bit, so that it sounds something like this:

'Republika Srpska is sometimes translated as "Serb Republic", although it should be mentioned that this is not universally accepted. Some believe that "Serb Republic" is the correct translation, others believe it to be a mistranslation.'

It satisfies both sides.

P.S. What are we going to do about the definition of the 'Republic' in Republika Srpska? (Honesty 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

This sounds fine to me. I've inserted your suggested sentence into the article, and removed the warning sign. I hope that's acceptable. Thank you for what has been a very interesting debate.

P.S. What are we going to do about the definition of the 'Republic' in Republika Srpska?

When I tried altering it earlier, my edit was immediately reversed, but since posting my objection, nobody has attempted to defend that sentence. I'll try altering it again; if my edit is again reversed, I suppose there'll have to be a Requested Move to have it changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.163.215 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move. Húsönd 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The name should be changed into its English translation.. I thought it was a hoax with that name which is not very well known in English speaking countries. A quick google search threw 3 million results for republika srpska and about sixty million for serb republic. --F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the disadvantage of using raw google results. Performing the obvious refinement of searching for "Serb Republic" as a single phrase cuts this down to 98,000 hits; excluding Wikipedia, and limiting to English, gets 84,700. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Common usage in English media; the Google results are often spurious. We should not automatically translate: we should ask what English does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Common usage is RS, including by the US government. Dchall1 19:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Dchall1 and per Pmanderson. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - as all of above and to distinguish from Serbia  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose this proposal. The name of the entity is Republic of Srpska. In relation to the number of results that a google search gives out, it is nearly 200 thousand for "Republic of Srpska" and only 100 thousand for "Serb Republic", and more than half of these pages use Bosnian Serb Republic. Which is correct. Calling it Bosnian Serb Republic is different from calling it the Serb Republic. Bosnian Serb Republic is not the name of the state but rather a way to distinguish it from the Croat-Bosniak Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina(the other entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.(Honesty 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

• Oppose, as Pmanderson & Dchall1, for our naming conventions require us to follow English usage. - Ev 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Serb Republic is linguistically correct. There is no such word in English as 'Srpska' - BDR (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.163.215 (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose use Republic of Srpska instead. Serb Republic is just too confusing with Serbia and the most likely search target for Serb Republic is Serbia. Unless you want to move this to the Bosnian Serb Republic? then you'd also have the Croatian Serb Republic, and the Serbian Serb Republic, parts of Greater Serbia. 70.55.201.4 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose . If we go to original source , Dayton Peace Agreement which legalized the existence of RS than the proper name is untranslated "Republika Srpska". --Dado 01:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Srpska or Republika Srpska. // laughing man 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On the sentence

'Legally, the RS is not a republic in the sense of a sovereign country or a federal unit (such as the autonomous republics in Russia or the former Yugoslavia) as the term "Republika" (Republic) may imply, which is why its English official name is "Republika Srpska" as per the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina'

In all the many books on Bosnia and the Serbs that I have read, I have never heard this claim before. The idea that 'Republika' is not intended to convey 'Republic' does not appear to make sense to me. The RS is much closer to a sovereign state than any of the autonomous republics in Russia. If the authors have evidence for this assertion, they should provide it. Otherwise, this sentence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.162.237 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Srpska is one of the entities of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and is a republic. The definition of republic is "a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state and in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them." It is not part of the name, it is like saying that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not really a federation in the sense like former Yugoslavia was a federation, therefore the name "Federacija Bosne i Herzegovine" should be used. That sentence needs to be changed. I did not see that before. (Honesty 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

I think the point is that according to the Bosnian constitution RS (or the Federation for that matter) is not a Republic. Therefore the official name Republika Srpska should not be translated as Serb Republic. That it may de facto be a republic is another matter (see eg Kosovo, which although it is de facto a republic is not officially as the Republic of Kosovo).Osli73 (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From some old 1977 articles from Time about the then-Apartheid South Africa Afrikaners:

“ An Afrikaner will not be ruled by anyone but an Afrikaner ”

The Defiant White Tribe

“ Integration will be the ultimate destruction of the whites ”

“ It is just not in our nature either to integrate with them or oversee them. We only want to live among our own people, to live our own religion and to lead a rational, happy life ”

White Roots: Seeds of Grievance

Change "Whites" and "Afrikaners" to "Bosnian Serbs" and you will got the same result!

Infobox

Can we please use standard infoboxes rather than "cooked" or, worse still, subst'ed ones? The standard infobox seems to be {{Infobox Country}}, which, despite the POV-sounding name, is intended for similar cases. Duja► 12:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree... so why not have a go yourself? It's your encyclopedia too!  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Why is {{sofixit}} always applicable to me? Duja► 08:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Republika Srpska

Template:Infobox Republika Srpska has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Duja► 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Serb Republic

I appreciate this is a well-worn topic, but I understood that RS was also known as the "Bosnian Serb Republic" - normally by westerners durng the Bosnians War to denote the Serb part of Bosnia or the republic of the "Bosnian Serbs". Would anyone object if I added this to the "Name" section?? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that term Serb Republic is adequately explained in the name section .--Dado (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Demonym?

Could someone explain and justify the use of demonym that was added in the Info-box--Dado 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that information should be in the infobox, it should be in the Demographics section IF and only if reliable references are found for the 2006 estimate. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

City population

Looks like these figures have a few extra zeros. They add to several times the population of the whole country... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuizBalloti (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Map

I have yet again replaced the map shown here

. I would ask everyone kindly not to use this map or to replace it if it appears again on the article because it is wrong. The map represents only territory of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Bosnia and Herzegovina while Republika Srpska is represented as not being part of BiH. This is very deceptive and incorrect. I have urged the user who is pushing this map to refrain from doing that but he seams to be ignoring this valid request. Thanks--Dado (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the map gives the impression that BiH and RS are two different parallel entities.Osli73 (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

However, the current map is also not right. Because, in the current map, Banja Luka appears as the capital of this entity. But, according to Article 9 of the Constitution of the RS, the official capital is Sarajevo; Banja Luka is the de facto capital. --Cercersan (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, highlighting the government seat (and, for all purposes, administrative capital) should be acceptable. Marking Sarajevo would probably cause confusion, so I believe it's better to elaborate that point in the article. --20% 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

To distinguish or not to distinguish?

That is the question. Should {{Distinguish}} be used at the head of this article, to distinguish RS from Serbia? I know it might seem insulting, but there are people who might not understand the difference between them, and after all, an encyclopedia should provide every opportunity to educate the ignorant (and I mean that sincerely). This is not a poke at Serbia nationalism, just a neutral, honest and strong judgement of simple editing sense. And it's not as if it's not happened before (see here).  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a distinguish line. I understand the argument about equating a subnational entity with a state, but the bigger issue is that the names are easily confused, especially to those unfamiliar with the political situation in Bosnia. Dchall1 (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I also favor distinguishing RS from Serbia. It is easy to see how they could be confused. I don't see how anyone could disapprove.Osli73 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone does. I originally put the {{Distinguish}} with a link to Serbia, i.e.

Not to be confused with Serbia.

but that has been removed twice [1] [2], so I wanted consensus before simply engaging in a needless edit war. To be fair, the distinguishment of Srpska (Montenegro) is less of an issue, but it is still worth inclusion, as Srpska of course redirects to the RS article.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, given nobody seems to object, I will re-instate the template. Please do not remove it without explaining here first.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

History?

Should the first part till the creation be deleted? Republika Srpska was in nonexistance then and the article contains no links. The article is more of Serbia's history than Republika Srpska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.45.115 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You’re right on that. The history of Rs should be start at 1992, since before that date Republika Srpska never existed in History. And Srpska is not Serbia, Republika Srpska is Bosnian territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.226.144 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What? it was still predominantly inhabited by Serbs prior to 1992! It is a Ethnic Serbian entity, the land of Bosnian Serbs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexm0d (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Srpska

As the official name of this entity in official documents, in English, is the "Republic of Srpska", should I move this article to "Republic of Srpska". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007apm (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A move to "Serb Republic" was discussed above and the consensus was against the move. You're free to suggest a move to "Republic of Srpska", but I don't fancy your chances. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We should take into consideration that under the official documents of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina which are prepared "in English", the name of this entity is again "Republika Srpska". For instance, if you see the case-law of the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina, you will see that the decisions were drafted in English and the entity is always referred to as the Republika Srpska. --Cercersan (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Birth Rate

The Vital Statistics taken from Republic's Statistics division shows that birth rate for Serbs is actually higher than that of Bosniacs and Croats. I heard many times that Serbs have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. So what is the reason??? Axxn (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Serbs in Serbia have a low birth rate but Serbs in Bosnia have a higher one? Not sure. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Repubila Hrvatska

Why there was Croatian name for Republic of Croatia and then in brackets (cyrillic script of name)?

recent population data

The 2007 data that says that serbs are 95% is wrong. Or at least, the source for that data is wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

The first president of Republika Srpska…

…has just been caught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.216.113 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

History section

The entire history section of this article should be removed. It is practically uninteligible, aside from the fact it is almost totally unfounded considering this state did not exist until 1992.

.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcolavita (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Repubila Hrvatska

Republic of Srpska

Requested Move to Republic of Srpska

I propose that the article be moved from Republika Srpska to Republic of Srpska. The reasons I support this move can be summarised as:

• Accuracy - Republic of Srpska is the official English-language translation of the entity's name. Here is just one source:[3]. Does any one disagree that Republic of Srpska is the correct English language name?;
• Consistency - We call Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina because the latter is its official English-language name. We should be consistent and do the same with the Republic of Srpska; and
• English WP - This is the English-language WP. Using English language names is the general convention.

Please give reasons if you oppose the move (preferably with sources). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Your arguments are correct and reasonable. --GOD OF JUSTICE 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NAME, which states "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", which is Republika Srpska as evidenced by its usage by the OHR, the UN, USAID, the BBC, European Commission, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Does the English language have a translation for "Republika"? I believe it does - "Republic". RS is not an official Republic, but in name, it is, and this is not a matter of opinion. Might as well rename Czech Republic to Ceska Republika, since it says so in it's constitution.

Oppose, the entity is called Republika Srpska in the official translation of Republika Srpska's constitution by the RS Constitutional Court, as well as in Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement, containing the (state-level) constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alternative translations of the name are not official, even if sometimes used by official institutions. --20% 16:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Officially, it is a Republic in name. The reason why people oppose "Republic" is because they think that if "Republic" is written in Serbian, it will make it sound like less of a Republic. Well, nobody here is claiming that Srpska is an independent country. But Srpska is a "Republic" in name, and writing it in Serbian won't solve anyone's frustrations with it. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no, it's not about status or anything. You probably know that the English language version of the Dayton Agreement is not just official, but actually the original language version. And Srpska's own constitutional court uses Republika Srpska in English-language documents, including the constitution. This is a bit like the dispute about the capital city. Most RS government websites won't mention anything but Banja Luka, but Sarajevo is still the official capital as declared by the constitution.

Now, I'm not ignorant. While the Republic vs. Republika dispute is pretty much a red herring - of course the entity is a republic - the real issue is whether to use Srpska as a standalone noun (which is only possible in the "Republic of" case). There, it's damn near impossible not to make a political statement regarding political or historical legitimacy. --20% 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Dayton Agreement. The main purpose of the Dayton Agreement was to end the war in Bosnia. To us, it is only one of the sources (an important one, but not the only one). If you agree that Republika is Republic (and should be changed as such), I won't spend any time explaining why they used Republika instead of Republic. As far as Srpska is concerned, of course there are Croats and Bosniaks living in the Serb Republic too, just like there are Slovaks and Germans living in the Czech Republic, etc. I don't see a political statement in that, it's just the name. Not every Czech is an ethnic Czech, not every German is an ethnic German, and not every Serb (from RS) is an ethnic Serb. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange. I did not address ethnicity at all (because it's orthogonal to the issue at hand, if not irrelevant), yet you keep bringing it up. The Dayton Agreement as a whole plays no role either. But the (state) constitution is laid down in Annex 4, and its English version is as official an English translation as you can get - simply because it's not a translation at all, but the original document. Yes, "Republika Srpska" is the entity's constitutional English name. "Republic of Srpska" is not, let alone "Serb Republic". Btw, the literal translation of "Ceska Republika" is indeed "Czech Republic", so that's another red herring. "Republic Banana", anyone? --20% 11:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: And "Ceska Republika" is derived from "Cechy", a long-established term for "Bohemia". On the other hand, you could perhaps compare Republika Srpska to Slovakia (created more or less from scratch in 1918) or Slovenia (of which Carniola is only a partial predecessor), both with names derived from the dominant ethnic group. But it's really beside the point - while I acknowledge that naming does have political implications, this case can be solved on legal arguments alone. --11:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. There is no question that the name "Republic of Srpska" sounds wrong in Serbian and Croatian, as the word "Srpska" is an adjective and the correct translation of "Republika Srpska" would be "Serbian Republic", or "Republic of the Serbs", names reserved for Serbia proper. "Republic of Srpska", fully translated, means "Republic of of the Serbs", or "Republic of Serbian". This is probably the reason for the resistance to the move. However, it is a simple fact that the English name for the state is "Republic of Srpska", and if I'm not mistaken, there can be no other alternative in accordance with the naming conventions (or any extensive discussion on the issue, either). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. Regarding semantics, if you think about it, "Republika Srpska" was a pretty strange name from the beginning - Hrvatska is grandfathered, sure, but think about "Republika Crnogorska" for a moment... Anyway, I don't really care about the title. --20% 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - it would be much more helpful to the discussion if, instead of presenting logical arguments for/against, folks would present referential evidence. The Gov't documents cited really are primary sources...what we need to know is what the majority of English-language secondary sources (such as the BBC one given above) call the place. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, this easily becomes a slinging match about the acceptability of sources, so I'll recommend searching for "republika srpska" site:edu vs. "republic of srpska" site:edu (quotation marks included, of course). --20% 18:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Republika Srpska ,the first recognized fascist and genocidal entity

The arrests of Bosnian Serb war fugitives, including Radovan Karadzic, will end the Bosnian Serb entity of Republika Srpska, Karadzic's brother warns.

If it ever comes to the arrest of Karadzic and Mladic, than Republika Srpska would be proclaimed an illegal creation according to the international law, since then it would be proved that was it created on genocide,” local media on Friday quoted Luka Karadzic as saying. http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/10416/

Leadership of the Bosnian Serb entity of Republika Srpska (RS) was fascist and genocidal, like the army, former USA ambassador in Croatia Peter Galbraith.

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=193390

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the fate of the Native Americans, would that make the USA an 'illegal creation' too? ;-) Jonathanmills (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Map of war crimes which were made on RS controled territories

[4] --Čeha (razgovor) 01:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

'mistranslation'?

Hi all,

just wanted to raise the following point, regarding:

Republika Srpska is sometimes translated as "Serb Republic", although it should be mentioned that this is not universally accepted, as some believe it to be a mistranslation. Those who oppose such translation argue that the Republika Srpska per its constitution is an entity of three ethnic groups so the possessive adjective in this translation tends to violate the rights of the other two constituent ethnicities in the entity by describing the entity as belonging to only one ethnic group.

Some people believe 'Serb Republic' is a *mistranslation* because its constitution states that it is an entity of three ethnic groups and such a name would violate the non-Serbs' constitutional rights? That is completely confusing an issue of translation (which is an empirical, linguistic issue) with a political issue regarding national rights vis-a-vis the RS's constitution. They are factually separate and unrelated matters. Jonathanmills (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

True, and the paragraph actually doesn't state anything else. It's possible to argue on linguistic grounds alone that Serb Republic is a mistranslation as the original would be something closer to Republic Serb. Though it's true that most opponents of such translation actually oppose the entity's name as such. --20% 09:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Just writing 'Republic Serb' would be incorrect, because - though my knowledge of Serbo-Croat is extremely limited - as I understand it, the 'a' in 'Republika' indicates a possessive relationship to the adjective, which in English we would express by either reversing the word order ('Serb Republic') or using a couple of small words (eg 'Republic of the Serbs'). In any event, given that word orders vary across languages, it's correct translation rather than mistranslation to change them as necessary (it would be ridiculous to translate the French la voiture rouge into the car red, even though that is literally what the words are).

I really don't want to weigh in on the rights and wrongs of what is the exact correct translation (and as far as I understand Wikipedia rules, we should just be using the most common English-language 'reliable source' formulation, listing alternate 'common names' as necessary), rather I'm just pointing out that one cannot argue a country's name is a 'mistranslation' based on the content of that country's constitution. It's totally confusing an empirical issue (what do the words 'Republika Srpska' mean in English?) with a political one (because of the RS Constitution, the country ought not to have a name which indicates Serb ownership of it). Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In these cases word order in Serbo-Croat is not any different from English - the standard translation of 'Serb Republic' would be 'Srpska Republika'. So this technically is a mistranlation. BTW, I agree that the name issue in English is (or should be) unrelated to ethnicity. It's possible that 'Srpska' will turn into a standalone noun referring to the RS, just as the grammatically similar 'Hrvatska' is a long-established name for Croatia. (It hasn't really done so yet - if a Serbo-Croat speaker uses 'Srpska' as a standalone noun these days, it's still a pretty clear indicator of Serb nationalist leanings, but that might change.) Anyway, as I've said above, the entity's authorities themselves use 'Republika Srpska' in all authoritative English texts. Regards --20% 13:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi 20%, thanks for your very useful input -- I take it you are a native speaker of Serbo-Croat? (I don't mean to pry, I was just wondering. If you are, your English is outstanding, BTW). Incidentally, re your last sentence: "the entity's authorities themselves use 'Republika Srpska' in all authoritative English texts" -- does this mean the article's sentence "the government of Republika Srpska uses the term 'Republic of Srpska' in English translations of official documents" is incorrect? Jonathanmills (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

translation cont.

Hi all,

I just deleted the following from the article, as I don't think it's correct:

The word "Srpska" can be interpreted as an adjective ("Serb"), and, bearing in mind language rules for the creation of names of countries in Serbian and other Slavic languages, also as a proper noun. The Serbian name for several countries is analogous: France - Republika Francuska (Република Француска), which is also the official French name for France (République Française); Croatia - Republika Hrvatska ; Bulgaria - Republika Bugarska (Република Бугарска), and so on. However, in these cases there has long existed an appropriate Latinized translation of the name to English.

While I admit my knowledge of Serbo-Croat is extremely limited, the above argument is plainly wrong: just because 'la Republique Francaise' is a proper noun (meaning 'France', literally 'The French Republic') doesn't mean 'Francaise' can be a noun -- although in this case, it can mean Frenchwomen, I believe. It's like saying, I don't know, 'great' can be a noun as well as an adjective because 'The Great War' is a noun (it's the pre-WWII name for WWI). Jonathanmills (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, unless Srpska can be a *stand-alone* noun, it's incorrect to describe it as such. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See my answer in the section above. Cheers --20% 13:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

lead to this article

Hi all,

I don't want to be rude or offend anyone here, but I think the intro ('lead') to this article could be significantly improved. I don't have time to do anything right now, but I just thought I'd quickly post Wikipedia's overview on the subject:

The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section)

I'll come back to what I think are the main problems/areas for improvement. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)