Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republika Srpska (1992–1995)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Republika Srpska (1992–1995)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article essentially covers the Bosnian War-era existence of the autonomous entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina known as Republika Srpska. The claim that today's RS is somehow distinct from the RS of 1993 is completely ahistorical. There is no reason that the entity's entire existence from January 1992 to the present should not be covered by the Republika Srpska article.

Some background: The argument that the wartime RS was somehow distinct from the current RS is often used by Serbian ultra-nationalists to put distance between the RS of today and the war crimes that were committed in its name during the war. They worry that these war crimes could delegitimize the entity in the present day and provide critics with ample ammunition to call for its abolition. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We routinely split histories of states in distinguishable time periods, if there is much to write. The language of the nomination is clearly politicized and nonencyclopedic. For example, we do not merge Nazi Germany with Germany because some want to " put distance between the <...> of today and the war crimes that were committed in its name during the war". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if the Germany of today was still called Nazi Germany, but it isn't. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take Poland (eg Second Polish Republic) or Russia or Soviet Union or Greece (eg, First Hellenic Republic) - all split into pieces. and BTW Germany was not called Nazi Germany by Hitler, it was the same Deutschland even when it was uber alles. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is scholarly consensus across the board that Nazi Germany was a unique state distinct from prior and future Germanies. The same cannot be said here. Moreover, the RS isn't a sovereign state, it's an autonomous entity. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in wikipedia we have our own consensus what to do with our articles. Even if your position is right, i.e., there is a continuity of "statehood", the correct solution would be History of Republika Srpska (1992–1995). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That could work within the framework of a larger History of Republika Srpska article. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The same name put aside, RS of that time was not an entity established based on an internationally backed agreement. The political context and legal status make a difference. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you argue that the Kosovo of 2008 should have a different article from the Kosovo of 2019 due to the ICJ decision in 2010? Or perhaps we should create a new article after Serbia eventually recognizes Kosovo and it becomes a UN member? After all, legal status makes all the difference. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing Kosovo here. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanuensis Balkanicus As I said, the difference is made by the legal status and the political context. The legal status does not merely depend on whether an entity recognizes another. Albania declared independence in 1912, widespread international recognition came a year later. But we do not have two articles named Albania because in both cases Albania considered itself to be a country. On the other hand, the first RS considered itself to be a client state of Serbia/Yugoslavia or another kind of entity within Serbia/Yugoslavia. The second RS considers itself to be an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to your rationale, the Republic of Kosova article should be merged to Kosovo. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think Kosovo should cover the geographic region while Republic of Kosovo should cover the self-proclaimed state, but that's a discussion for another time. You're kind of proving my point with the Albania 1912/13 comment. Why should we have an Albania (1912) article and an Albania article, just because the Albania of 1912 wasn't internationally recognized, while the Albania of 1913-present is internationally recognized? The RS of 1993 considered itself an independent state, not a client of Belgrade. In the end, it was the RS's independence-oriented behavior that prompted Belgrade to place an embargo on the RS in 1993 for blocking peace negotiations, effectively cutting the entity off from the outside world and indirectly contributing to the end of the war two years later. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the first RS considered itself to be an independent state or an entity within Serbia/Yugoslavia is not important. The important thing is that it did not consider itself to be part of an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina like the current RS does. The matter of the legal status begins with what status an entity claims for itself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Staszek Lem nailed it Ribbet32 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.