Jump to content

Talk:Yugoslavia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
changed CD banner
Western Balkans is now Yugoslavia
Line 595: Line 595:
John Stewart said that former Yugoslavia has broken into so many countries that they are all the Independent Nation Of Him/Herself. He's kidding, right? Is that even possible?
John Stewart said that former Yugoslavia has broken into so many countries that they are all the Independent Nation Of Him/Herself. He's kidding, right? Is that even possible?
[[User:Ootmc|<font color="#0000FF">'''Wiki'''</font><font color="#83F52C">'''zilla'''</font>]] <sup>([[User:Ootmc|<font color="#FFFF00">'''Signme!'''</font>]])[[User talk:Ootmc|Talk]]</sup> 00:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Ootmc|<font color="#0000FF">'''Wiki'''</font><font color="#83F52C">'''zilla'''</font>]] <sup>([[User:Ootmc|<font color="#FFFF00">'''Signme!'''</font>]])[[User talk:Ootmc|Talk]]</sup> 00:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== Western Balkans is now Yugoslavia ==

Yugoslavia is now the countries of The Western Balkans; Btw, from the picture 'Lands offered to Serbia by the Allies in 1915' is clear that the natural border between Serbs and Croats is on the river of Cetina; Cheers!

Revision as of 17:59, 6 April 2007

Template:WP1.0

WikiProject iconFormer countries Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Talk prior to Yugoslav articles revamp

Does anyone know when the name is supposed to change. I notice that the government website (http://www.gov.yu) still calls it the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. --Zundark, Friday, April 5, 2002

The parliaments of both republics still have to vote on it (see vague link). I have no idea when it's supposed to take effect once (if) approved, though. ...... Ah, I found the text of the agreement; if ratified, Serbia and Montenegro are required to "effect changes in their constitutions in accordance with the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro or adopt new constitutions by no later than the end of 2002." How that affects precicely when the name is supposed to change, isn't terribly clear. Brion VIBBER
At what point should we move the related pages to [[whatever of Serbia and Montenegro]]? --KQ 20:54 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)
There already is a page Serbia and Montenegro! - John 16:35 Feb 4, 2003

There are several dates that people take as the end of SFRJ. One is Jun 25, 1991, when Slovenia secedeed, one is October 9, 1991 when the moratorium on Slovenian and Croatian secession was ended, one is April 28, 1992, (IIRC) when the Federal republic of Yugoslavia was formed and thus no government used the name "SFRJ" any more. But anyway, I think this is discussed elsewhere and doesn't really need mentioning here. Zocky 21:52 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

First of all, IIRC, FRY will cease to exist when the new parliament is constituted, so the end-date might be wrong again.

But, this page looks all wrong now.is not or will not be a country anymore, so this page shouldn't be about FRY. It should be about the kingdom SFRY and FRY. Should they all get their own pages with a summary here? Or should they all be merged?

Oh, and the page Serbia and Montenegro/History is of course not a history of "Serbia and Montenegro" but rather a history of Yugoslavia. Zocky 20:49 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Oh wait... Serbia and Montenegro/History is a redirect. It's ok for now then.

What a mess. One country was established in 1918 to be cancelled in 2003. I think we do not need three independent articles. Slovenia, Croatia and other former Yugoslav republics were as much Yugoslavia as Serbia and Montenegro were. But since the country with the name Yugoslavia will stop existing, we can't predict in full what will be in the future. There is 30 days delay from the beginning of 2003 February to decide wheather Yugoslavia will definitely stop to exist. And there will also be a 3 years period for two states, Serbia and Montenegro, to decide if they will remain in the formation of a state with the name Serbia and Montenegro. As Serbian nationalist Vojislav Sešelj from the SRS recently said that Yugoslavia was the biggest mistake for Serbia in its history. But from the period 1918-2003 there was plenty of time to learn something from. But anyway regardless Sešelj we may say that Yugoslavia from 1945 to 1991 was well formed as a state, if we look at it as a modern country. But the national differences among almost brotherlike nations have prevailed. There are many similar examples in the world (to think on some e.g. India / Pakistan; Ethiopia / Eritrea; Russia / Belarus ....). It is already a time to abandon such lucrative mediaeval coalitions of any kind. What hurts me, as a former Yugoslav citizen, is for instance that the country was kicked out of the N-AM, as it was so apparently stable and an example of stability and peaceableness; and because of so much ethnic cleansing and bunch of semi-civil wars in it. And, not lastly, let Stevie Wonder sing Bob Dylan's: the answer, my friend, is ... I can't believe in the end that these are just games of the great powers. Every nation got a right to decide its own destiny... in Bob Marley's words. --XJamRastafire 17:18 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Here's what I think should be done for the articles on "Yugoslavia":

There should be an article on the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (the state that lasted from 1918-1929) and it's leaders and history, etc. This current Yugolavia article should be about the Kingdom that lasted from 1929-1945 . The Postwar state that existed from 1945-1992 should be in an article titled Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or SFRY. The state that existed from 1992-2003 that was formed after the breakaway of Bosnia, Slovenia, Croatia, and FYROM should be placed in article titled Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or FRY. The Union that came into force in 2003 should be on a page devoted to Serbia and Montenegro.

As it stands now, this article needs serious work!

-hoshie

I agree that there should be, if not separate articles, then distinct sections of this article, though I think that article on History of Yugoslavia should cover all Yugoslavias as their histories are interconected. I'll deal with this, once :) Nikola 07:27 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Definitely separate articles, but I propose this structure:
Any thoughts?
Zocky 17:35 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This article is currently not just about the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It mentions Tito, etc. If the intention is just to talk about the Federal republic, then it should start from 1992. I think it should give an overview of all the Yugoslavias and link to them. --Jiang 20:22, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Umm, yes. As I told you on my talk page, FRY and SCG are different names for one same state and everything to be said on FRY should be said in SCG article. Basically, this article should be moved there with removing things that you noticed (they should be moved to History of Yugoslavia if not already there). That is completely different question then format of disambiguation though. BTW, I still think that History of Yugoslavia should cover all three. Nikola 22:09, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dont call the SCG FRY. That's just confusing. This, and History of Yugoslavia, should be on all entities that were ever Yugoslavia.

One might like it or not, but SCG is FRY. This should be on all entities that were ever called Yugoslavia. Nikola 04:22, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
No, when SCG existed, there was no FRY. It may be the same entity, but it should be called for what it was.
Just now noticed this. Shouldn't it be called for what it is? Nikola 07:03, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Articles about fighting the british during the American Revolution link to Kingdom of Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. Articles on British imperialism in the 19th century link to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Of course not, but SCG was called FRY. There is more difference between Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom then just name change. Not so in this case. Of course, article about Warsaw pact should link to SFRY. But it would be ridiculous for article on Kosovo War to link to FRY (unless FRY isn't just a redirect to SCG). Nikola 06:27, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
We might as well treat this as a defunct entity like the Soviet Union. --Jiang 04:54, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Soviet Union a defunct entity? Nikola 06:27, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yugoslavia is term casually used for any of following political entities:

  • First one was a kingdom, formed in 1918 under name Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; in 1929 it changed name to Kingdom of Yugoslavia and it existed under that name until it was dismantled in 1941 by Nazi Germany.
  • Second one was a socialist state, formed in 1945 under name Democratic Federal Yugoslavia; in 1946 it changed name to Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and in 1963 to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under which it existed until 1992 when its constituent republics Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia separated and...
  • Third one was formed, under name Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; in 2003 it changed name to Serbia and Montenegro.

I think "first one, second one, third one" is a bit awkward and confusing. We should skip the bullet point listing altogether and instead have this revealed in the introduction:

Then how about "First Yugoslavia, Second Yugoslavia, Third Yugoslavia"? You probably haven't read on my Talk page, but the terms are established in English language: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22first+yugoslavia%22

Yugoslavia existed as a country in southeastern Europe from November 29, 1943 to February 4, 2003. Yugoslavia formed in 1918 as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929 and lasted until it was invaded by Italy (is this right?) in 1941. After the World War II it became a communist state, under the names Democratic Federal Yugoslavia from 1945 to 1946, Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia from 1946 to 1963, and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1963 to 1992....

This claims that there is one country that was named Yugoslavia, but there never was. Yugoslavia is informal name for various countries. There is much more continuity between SCG and FRY then between FRY and SFRY or kingdom and republic. Further, constitution of 2003 is just a legalisation of factual state of affairs between Serbia and Montenegro that existed before 2003. And lastly, what is going to be different in articles on FRY and SCG? :))
Kingdom of Yugoslavia was invaded by Italy, Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria, I'm not sure for Albania.
Please reword as you see fit. --Jiang

This article should be on all entities named Yugoslavia. Serbia and Montenegro is under a new constitution and is not the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This need to be made clear. It was not a simple name change.

And how is this made clear? It's not even mentioned in the article. And Serbia and Montenegro W A S N A M E D Yugoslavia. Not now, but it was. It was not a simple name change, it was a constitutional change as well (I think that some of former name changes were also constitutional changes), perhaps that should be mentioned. But then, we are not going to have articles on Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia prior to constitution of 1974, Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia between constitutions of 1974 and 1990, Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia after constitution of 1990, aren't we?
I said it should be clear. Not that it's already clear.--Jiang
Oh. sorry. I thought you are suggesting a definitive suggestion.

I'm thinking that the individual names of the various political entities can be made into a History of Yugoslavia series. --Jiang 22:43, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC) --Jiang 22:43, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

Aren't they already? But that doesn't solve our problem. Nikola 05:33, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Let's look at how other encylopedias deal with this. This is from the Encarta encylopedia:

Yugoslavia, former country in southeastern Europe, on the Balkan Peninsula. The country existed from 1918 to 1941, when German-led Axis forces invaded and dismembered it during World War II. It was reestablished in 1945, but in 1991 political and ethnic conflicts led to its second disintegration. In the first period, Yugoslavia was a kingdom. In the second period, it was a federation consisting of six republics: Bosnia and Herzegovina (often referred to simply as Bosnia), Croatia, Macedonia (see Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. In addition, two autonomous provinces existed within the republic of Serbia: Vojvodina and Kosovo. Belgrade was the federal capital.

Yugoslavia, meaning “land of the South Slavs,” was created as a constitutional monarchy at the end of World War I (1914-1918). It was known as the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes until 1929, when it was renamed Yugoslavia. The kingdom was destroyed and divided by Axis invasion and occupation in 1941. At the end of World War II (1939-1945), Yugoslavia was recreated as a federal republic by the Partisans, a Communist-led, anti-Axis resistance movement. Under Josip Broz Tito, founder and leader of the Partisans, Yugoslavia emerged as a faithful copy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), with a dictatorial central government and a state-controlled economy. Tito broke with the USSR in 1948, and he decentralized the Yugoslav government and gradually eased repression. Economically, the government experimented with looser controls under the labels of workers’ self-management and market socialism. Yugoslavia was unique among Communist countries in its relatively open and free society and its international role as a leader of nonaligned nations during the Cold War.

Following Tito’s death in 1980, ten years of economic crisis and growing political and ethnic conflicts led to the federation’s disintegration in 1991 and 1992. The breakup was bloody, resulting in civil wars in two successor states, Croatia and Bosnia. Serbia’s leadership, which tried to preserve the federation and then to extend the republic’s boundaries to create a Greater Serbia, was involved in both civil wars. Together with Montenegro, Serbia formed what its leaders claimed to be the successor state to Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now called Serbia and Montenegro).

--Jiang 05:52, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, it is totally wrong about separation wars, but it acknowledges that SCG is FRY.

Yugoslavia is term casually used for any of following political entities:

  • First Yugoslavia was a kingdom, formed in 1918 under name Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; in 1929 it changed name to Kingdom of Yugoslavia and it existed under that name until it was invaded in 1941 by Axis powers.
  • Second Yugoslavia was a socialist state, formed in 1945 under name Democratic Federal Yugoslavia; in 1946 it changed name to Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and in 1963 to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under which it existed until 1992 when its constituent republics Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia separated and...
  • Third Yugoslavia was formed, a federation named Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; in 2003 the state remade its internal structure into a loose commonwealth and changed name to Serbia and Montenegro.
Or, if you prefer to look at them as one country (but other people will object, I'm telling you):

Yugoslavia is term casually used for a country that was formed in 1918, as a kingdom, under name Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, in 1929 changed name to Kingdom of Yugoslavia and existed under that name until it was invaded in 1941 by Axis powers, after which, after Second World War was over, in 1945 a socialist state was established under name Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, which in 1946 changed name to Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and in 1963 to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under which name it existed until 1992 when its constituent republics Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina separated and a federation named Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was formed, which in 2003 remade its internal structure into a loose commonwealth and changed name to Serbia and Montenegro.

Did I mention before that I love long sentences? :)
And to make one thing clear: is FRY successor to SFRY is a subject of debate. But there is no doubt that the term 'Yugoslavia' is used for FRY, and the above sentence makes no assumptions on wheter it is a successor or not. Nikola 07:38, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To avoid refering them to one country and having a long sentence, how's:

Yugoslavia is term casually used for three separate political entities. The first was a kingdom formed in 1918 under name Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, whose name changed name to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929 and existed under that name until it was invaded in 1941 by Axis powers. The second was a Communist state established immediately after World War II in 1945 under the name Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, which in 1946 changed its name to the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and again in 1963 to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under which it existed until 1992 when its constituent republics Slovenia, Croatia, Republic of Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina separated. As a result a federation named Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was formed between the remaining republics of Serbia and Montenegro, which in 2003 remade its internal structure into a loose commonwealth and changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro.

Fine with me. I just linked kingdom. Nikola 19:29, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "don't change this to Republic of Macedonia as "Republic of" isn't used for other republics". What's wrong with "Republic of" and what right about "Former Yugoslav Republic of"? Let's go by its constitutional name, as agreed upon in Talk:Republic of Macedonia. "Republic of" is necessary to disambiguate it from the greater Macedonia region. --Jiang 07:49, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, imagine that it was the only republic that broke away. The sentence would be: "...it existed until 1992 when its constituent republic Republic of Macedonia broke away." A bit silly, no? :) (At least here) it is not a problem but a matter of style: it is already said that these are republics of former Yugoslavia so it is already disambiguated. OTOH, if formal name is used for one of them, it should be used for all of them, and these are all "Republic of" (except BiH i think): "...it existed until 1992 when its constituent republics Republic of Slovenia, Republic of Croatia, Republic of Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina separated. Now that IS silly :)) If you still think that it should go as you said, OK. Nikola 19:29, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If you think it's redundant, how's [[Republic of Macedonia|Macdeonia]]. FYROM is a bad link which just redirects to Republic of Macedonia. However, with this, we risk being POV and offending the Greeks. I assume it is okay in this situation for the reasons you have mentioned--the sentence already states that it is a "constituent republic." We put in "Republic of" when it is necessary to disambiguate. You should see that People's Republic of China, Republic of China, and Republic of Ireland do not usually appear on wiki in their shortened form, when referring to the modern political entity, for clarity and NPOV sake. --Jiang 19:57, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I just typed FYROM because it's shorter to type. I don't think it matters whether something links to a redirect or to main page if link text is same.
Watch Kingdom of Yugoslavia for explanation on Vardarska Banovina :) Nikola 20:10, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

FYROM is not Macedonia. This is Serb Province Vardarska Banovina(Province) See map: http://forum.smartnet.ba/Forum5/HTML/000389-1.html Makedon,Thessaloniki 15.08.2003 You're lieing yourself that FYROM isn't Macedonia! It is and her constitutional name is REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Macedonia was Serbian Province until 1941. After the II w.w. she became federative state of Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia- proove that Macedonia from then isn't Serbian Province!! And stop calling Macedonia FYROM! It's not wright! Is it wright somebody to cal your country Former Republic of something?

Now what should we do with the articles for the individual Yugoslav states (e.g. Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Democratic Federal Yugoslavia)? Give them all separate articles, have them all redirect here, or give each political entity one article? The problem with giving each political entity an article is that only one of those titles can be adopted. When we look at defunct entities, we look at the entire entity as a whole, not at a single point in time (i.e., the present). Therefore, it is inappropriate to endorse only one of those titles. What should happen here?

I'd give each one separate article. I'll write something about their internal structures for start, I think that you'll see that even that couldn't be easily joined. As for title, we could adopt the last title, that's what we would do for an existing country. Other titles would then redirect to it.
You mean for each political entity only? Why not a new article for each name? We shouldnt treat defunct entities as existing countries. --Jiang 02:48, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yes. If there is separate article for each name, how would that articles differ from each other? See Kingdom of Yugoslavia for what I have in mind. You'r right we shouldn't treat them wholly as existing countries but we could just for naming. Nikola 10:31, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Okay, looks good to me. It seems like the only way around it. Just have the other kingdom name redirect there. --Jiang 16:47, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've started both kingdom and socialist, now it only remains to be seen what to do with rest of Yugoslavia. Nikola 18:03, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Maps showing the various Yugoslavias would be helpful. What is the purpose of this page? Why not merge with history of yugoslavia?

--Jiang 00:20, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have no idea how to get PD maps. And the purpose, well... a glorified disambiguation page? :) Also, what should be done with Transportation in Yugoslavia and other pages? Should they be deleted, redirected to SCG, redirected to Yugoslavia? Nikola 02:39, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
They currently redirect to those of Serbia and Montenegro (I moved them there.) Let's just keep them that way for now. Maybe not everyone is aware of the name change. --Jiang 02:48, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think this should be merged with History of Yugoslavia or we can put in a full blown country template incorporating this: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/yutoc.html. But since there were different Yugoslavias, that probably belongs at Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. --Jiang 21:56, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regarding disambiguation notices

I deleted the following. Does it really belong on this page?

This is NOT a disambiguation page; that is, one that just points to other pages that might otherwise have the same name. But anyway, some links that point here should rather point to the appropriate specific page, so if you followed such a link here, you might want to go back and fix that link. RickK 00:27, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I dont think it does. --Jiang

The above text is cumbersome. Romanm now added the generic disambig notice, but it doesn't really fit either. Even after we eliminate all the ambiguous links, there will still remain a substantial amount of links to this page because there are things that refer to both (or even all three). --Shallot 16:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you propose that we should remove the disambig notice? IMHO this article is still more or less disambiguation: all three Yugoslavia's had different territory and different political system.
No, but it should have a non-generic phrasing, because the generic one implies that /no/ pages should link to a page that includes it. --Shallot
The only confusion I can think of is links to this page during the Second World War - should we treat links to the Yugoslav territory in context of Kingdom of Yugoslavia or in the context of post-war SFRY? --Romanm 20:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Neither, really, that sounds like another link that can be left pointing to this page. --Shallot

DA page

This shouldn't really be a disambiguation page. When we refer to the "Former Yugoslavia", we're not just referring the Socialist Federal Republic but the Federal People's Republic. History is not a snapshot. Let's move History of Yugoslavia here. I don't see why it belongs separately. --Jiang 06:09, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, what exactly do you mean? Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia are already on the same page!
If you mean that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (ie. Serbia and Montenegro) should be on the same page as Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia then I strongly dissagree. The new formed FRY is not the same country and not the only legal successor of it; as the Badinter Commission pointed out the common country dissolved in 1992. Of course the parts of it may still bear the name "Yugoslavia" if they choose so, but it is not the same country. --Romanm 06:58, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
FRY is the only successor of SFRY, which has not dissolved but whose constituent republics have separated one by one. The fact that there is the opposite opinion is why this page was created in the first place - otherwise it would be just a redirect to Serbia and Montenegro. Nikola 07:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of the pre/post-1991 issues, the page Yugoslavia could still have a disambiguation character because of the kingdom, and because most references are actually to the phrase "former Yugoslavia". --Shallot 10:21, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then what do we mean by "Former Yugoslavia"? What if the situation's ambiguous? Do you object to moving History of Yugoslavia to this page? --Jiang 07:53, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Though, logically, each of the three could be referred to as "Former Yugoslavia", AFAIK the term is used almost exclusively for the SFRY. Nikola 07:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The meaning of "former Yugoslavia" can be ambiguous, yes. However, I don't think that there's much point in replacing this summary page with the long history page because that would deter many readers from easily understanding that there was more than a single one of them. Maybe now that we've got sections in the history page the summary page can provide better links into the history page. --Shallot 10:21, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If it's made clear in the first sentence that they were separate entities and we bold their names in the introduction, I don't see the confusion. This is not a "summary page". It is a disambiguation page with a gazillion links pointing to it. That's a bad idea, especially when we have ambiguous cases. The history page is really a summary (it fits on one page). Moving the content over here would make this an overview. --Jiang 10:46, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't see a reason for not having a summary of history on this page. I dont think that entire History of Yugoslavia should be here, but a summary of it, saying that the main article is History of Yugoslavia could be acceptable. Of course, we can't have the infobox, geography, politics or other sections usual for countries, but there could be history. But it shouldn't replace the introductory paragraph. Nikola 07:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The content of History of Yugoslavia fits on one page, so I don't see why not. It won't replace the current introduction - only tacked below it. We'll have more detailed history articles at History of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, History of Communist Yugoslavia, etc. so "History of Yugoslavia" itself will be the summary. We don't need two summaries... --Jiang 08:02, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
One page??? It's eight screens long! (On my screen.) On all country pages I've seen, summary of history usally fits on one screen. There are a lot of cases with two summaries: Russia#History is a summary of History of Russia which itself is a summary of 11 articles, some of which are also summaries. Nikola 09:37, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's well under 32kB. The point of having a summary of the history is to leave room for other subjects (economy, politics, etc.). Russia#History/History of Russia is redunant, but that way because it is impossible to cross-post content. [History of Russia] was the original detailed version but got longer and had to be split.
What else (other than the history) do you envision to fit on this page? --Jiang 12:05, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't. I envision only the summary of history. Nikola 17:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Then what? --Jiang 01:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand this. Nikola 07:26, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, misread your last comment. If we just have the history, then there's no point in having two summaries. We no longer need room for other subjects. All we care is that everything is under 32kB, which it will be. --Jiang 08:08, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, my bottom line(s): this page is just a bit more then a disambiguation page. I don't think it should become much longer. It is common practice to have a one-paragraph summary of history on country articles and I don't see why this article would be different just because it doesn't have geography or economy as well. History of Yugoslavia is linked as such from several articles and people expect to read about history of Yugoslavia when they get there, not this introductory paragraph. In the same way, people who come to this page expect to see what a country it is, should click on appropriate exit and in general don't care about history enough to read it all. So far there are no two summaries and probably there won't be for many moons; but even if there are more summaries, I don't see what is wrong with that. Bottom line of the bottom line: As far as I am concerned, this article could have no history at all, or it could have a short summary, both are fine with me. I wouldn't revert if someone copy-pastes history here but I wouldn't like it.
By the way, what others think about this? Nikola 06:26, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[History of Yugoslavia] speaks of Yugoslavia in its entirety. This article should be a general historical overview of the Yugoslavia in its entirety. Many of the links to [History of Yugoslavia] refer to a specific era. We should treat that as an disambiguation and change links there to be more specific. If history of Yugoslavia redirected here, wouldnt people get the same deal? People coming here should be forced into reading history. They cannot ignore history or avoid it because Yugoslavia is a defunct state so everything about it is inherently historical. I don't know what else there is to say about Yugoslavia. --Jiang 23:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nikola, the opinion you stated above is not generally accepted in the world. United Nations says this about the issue (see [1]):

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was an original Member of the United Nations, the Charter having been signed on its behalf on 26 June 1945 and ratified 19 October 1945, until its dissolution following the establishment and subsequent admission as new members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

This was also the conclusion of the Badinter Commission. --Romanm 07:59, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The UN was a hostile entity towards FRY generally, and conclusions of Badinter Commision were likewise influenced by political reasons. Nikola 08:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Restructure again?

I know I was the one who came up with the idea of separating the articles, but I think that dissambiguing links is going to far. First of all, the Kingdom and SFRY were not two distinct political entities. The kingdom was superceded by DFY, FPRY and then SFRY, but it was still the same country. Compare it to the French 1st and 2nd kingdom, 1st and 2nd Empire, not to mention the 1st-5th republic. Should they all have articles? Sure. Should every link to France be disambiguated among them? Definitely not.

A problem with this idea is that SFRY was superceded by FRY. And even if you argue that FRY is not the continuation of SFRY, you can't argue that FRY wasn't called "Yugoslavia", just as SFRY was. Nikola
Zocky, I have to disagree with you. Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a unitarian dynastic monarchy while Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a fully federal state with national republics who already had elements of independent countries. Compare Russian Empire and Soviet Union, for example. And I have to agree with Nikola that FRY can also be called Yugoslavia if it choose so (not that this means that it is a continuation of SFRY, though - likewise use of name "Macedonia" doesn't mean that Republic of Macedonia is seen as a continuation of Alexander the Great's Macedon, for example). --Romanm 22:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
AOL. --Shallot

Also, I'm starting to think that grouping Kingdom of SHS and Kingdom of Yugoslavia under Kingdom of Yugoslavia and FDY, FPRY and SFRY under Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is arbitrary and misleading (mea culpa). OTOH, we need a grouping of history articles separate from the name changes, because changes in 1929, 1946 and 1963 didn't really make much difference.

They didn't, but neither of them has its own article. But the changes in name, population, teritorry, political system and whatnot in 1941-5 made a lot of difference, hence two articles. Nikola
AOL. --Shallot
Again I agree with Nikola and Shallot at this point. Pre-war Yugoslavia (choose period) was not the same as the post-war Yugoslavia. --Romanm 22:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hmm... The claim that SFRY was not the same country as the Kingdom is very questionable. It was much different, but it was formally the same country, as accepted by WWII allies, UN, SFRY and now the successor states. Also, the flag, the capital, the money were kept, the territory was largely unchanged. Partizans' official position was defending Yugoslavia, not replacing it.
The political system of SFRY and the Kingdom was so different that it can hardly be said that it was the same country, although there were some elements that could support this point of view - Western sponsored Tito-Šubašić Agreement in 1944 and post-war referendum on political system comes to mind. But the same could be said for the Soviet Union and Tsar Russia - they shared almost the same territory, but were entirely different from a political system POV. IMHO the SFRY was a legal successor of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but not the same country. Do we have some professional historians here, by any chance? --Romanm 23:42, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Successor or not, it was different enough to warrant own article, just as Soviet Union and Russia do. Nikola 06:08, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
OTOH, there's no doubt that FRY is the same country as Serbia and Montenegro. It should definitely be linked from here, maybe even dissambiged, but it should really be treated as an alternative name for Serbia and Montenegro. Zocky 22:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So what to do? First of all, most links should go to Yugoslavia. Here's also my updated proposal for structuring of articles. Alternative suggestions for names of articles welcome. Some kind of consensus would be nice before anybody moves anything.

Most of it (except history) is unapplicable because of teritorrial difference between FRY and SFRY. Nikola 17:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You might find it surprising, but in the majority of cases (plurality at least) the links can actually be disambiguated into the kingdom, the socialist state, and the post-socialist state, they do not have to go to the general Yugoslavia page. Romanm and myself have been at this for months and it's generally workable, it just requires man-hours. I suggest you try it, it's an informative exercise... :) --Shallot 18:19, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether it's possible, but of whether it's a good thing. In most areas other than economy, political system and military, the distinction is unnecessary. Zocky 22:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--Zocky

I think we should make the defunct entity titles part of the history series like Democratic Kampuchea. Maybe something like Communist Yugoslavia will prevent an arbitary cut. We could redirect the official names to the history series.

For this article, let's not duplicate Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. It tends to come out a disaster like Czechoslovakia because country templates are designed as a snapshot of the present, not a holistic view of the past. Think Prussia, not Soviet Union. The boxes don't need to be made. --Jiang 14:26, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For a state which existed for 73 years out of last 86, i'd say Soviet Union is a better analogy. There's a lot to write. Zocky 14:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My point is that Soviet Union is poor encyclopedia article. The history section is bloated and most of the others are too thin. If we have to deal with successor governments, dissolutions, etc. then for the box, listing the area will be a disaster. Don't apply the country template here. It's not designed for defunct entities. We're focused on the history. --Jiang 15:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hm, if this is just about the country, boxes, there's already one for SFRY and it seems OK to me. I see no reason why one shouldn't be made for the kingdom. Althougn, my main point is the location of articles and where to link. Zocky 15:59, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make boxes for the individual political entities but not the main Yugoslavia article. But even for those, we should ignore momentary data. --Jiang 01:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No edit wars, please

I noticed that Nikola reverted my edit, but I did not revert it again (nor planed, until we talk it out), although I dissagree with his version. My change was:

... four of its six constituent republics ... had seceded. changed to ... gained independence and the country dissolved.
AFAIK, everyone agrees that the republics seceded. Not everyone agrees that the country dissolved. The exact way in which the republics seceded, whether or not successive secessions (notice that my wording doesn't say successively, although it's also undisputed, I think it would smell POV) have dissolved the country and who says what about that should be best explained in History of Yugoslavia, and perhaps in History of Serbia and Montenegro. Other articles should use neutral wording rather than have entire explanation repeated everywhere. Nikola 05:51, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also noticed that GeneralPatton reverted to my version with some harsh words for Nikola. I would like to ask everyone to stay away from personal attacks, remain calm and not start another edit war. We can talk the wording over here to reach some NPOV, but please can we do it like civilised persons this time? --Romanm 22:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to rephrase the seceding part or repeat that it dissolved. It remained in place until the secession of four out of six constituent republics -- by which time its constitution that was talking about the structure of six republics was inherently void. --Shallot 22:38, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stop the over-disambiguation!

This is going way to far. When you talk about Kosovo and say "the rest of former Yugoslavia", you don't mean the kingdom or the republic, you mean both. Same goes for:

Disambiguating these links is confusing and factually incorrect. The first and the second Yugoslavia had tha same name, virtually same territory, continual trasfer of government. All the international treaties of the first Yugoslavia remained in force (if they weren't explicitly cancelled). It can be argued that the first and the second Yugoslavia were separate states, but there is no basis for considering them to be separate countries.

The article on Yugoslavia should be the main article for, well, Yugoslavia, and the rest should be part of the History of Yugoslavia series:

The only dissambiguation that is needed is [[Serbia and Montenegro|Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]] --Zocky

User:DO'Neil seems to have thought that the 1941-1945 period should also be marked as KoY, which isn't quite correct. I'm going through the edits now and correcting them with proper explanations. --Shallot 10:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I should also point out that DO'Neil did in fact properly disambiguate several of them. Some talked about "Republic" or were in a clear context of interbellum or so. Those are fine, I'll just correct the properly ambiguous ones. --Shallot 10:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is no longer a disambiguation page and should not be. Please keep the ambiguous references linked here and revert any misleading disambiguations. --Jiang 18:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jiang changed link in the ICTY on "former Yugoslavia" to point here. In this case that's wrong, because that meaning is SFRY and SFRY only. --Joy [shallot] 11:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

current article

It looks pretty good this way (with history in here), I think. I've added "main article" links for the two sections, and those articles should continue to be linked in relevant contexts, but whatever is linked here should be good too. --Joy [shallot] 10:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I found this article to be fascinating for me, one who knows little about the topic, until I reached "Breakup." At this point, the article seems emotional and without objectivity. I hope someone can fix this, because I really want to know what happened.--TeresaDieter 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladko's .bg edits

User:Vladko, kindly rid your edits of glaring POV issues before reinstating them. --Joy [shallot] 12:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has been proposed that uses of terms Macedonia¤, Macedonian¤, and Macedonians¤ in articles mentioning the Republic of Macedonia¤ should be accompanied with the following disclaimer:

Template:Macedonian naming dispute

In particular, this article will be affected, among some others. If you happen to have an opinion for or against this proposition, please vote on it at Talk:Macedonian¤ denar/Vote. Thank you. -- Naive cynic 16:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really pleased with the external links section. It's heavily focused on the conflict in Serbia, one isn't in English, and one's mind-bendingly NPOV. Anyone up to finding new, more relevant links? PoptartKing 06:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would, I'll get started on that later today and also see which current links (if any) should be removed. --Hurricane Angel 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a debating forum

I realise anything concerning Yugoslavia is highly emotional for many people. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If it is going to have any value at all, it needs a neutral point of view! Whether or not a referendum is 'illegal' or not is a topic for debate, not for bombastic statements. And the use of the word 'terrorism' is so obviously a question of point of view. Please! (Barend 12:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

To my knowledge, there is not one reference which claims that the referendum was legal. OK, maybe the text shouldn't just state outright that it was illegal, but then I'd also remove that the referendum was declared valid. It does remain unclear whether it was successful - I don't see why have you removed that? Also, there is no one questioning that KLA was a terrorist organisation.
I for my part have never before heard the claim that referendum was illegal, and would like to challenge you to provide references for this. (Barend 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Well if Malcolm is your source of information I'm not surprised. There's some talk about this at Talk:Republika Srpska#(Un)constitutional. We can't find a definitive reference for either. Nikola 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously want NPOV, but have actually POVed the article (I believe, unintentionally, and in good faith). You wrote that KLA actions were "dubbed" terrorism by the Serb authorities, implying that there was no one else who considered them terrorist. But KLA was on American list of terrorist organisations almost until NATO started to bomb Yugoslavia. Nikola 08:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that I POVed the article. I do not agree that I am implying that no one else considered them terrorist, but I do imply that many did not consider them terrorists. Certainly many among the Albanian population. So stating bombastically that they were terrorists is quite clearly POV. (Barend 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Well you did and now you did it even further. You said that the vote was "massive" as if the readers can't see that for themselves. You added Malcolm as a reference, and Malcolm is very biased (though correct on this one). I don't agree that many did not consider the KLA terrorist, in particular among the Albanian population. Statement that "KLA started terrorist actions" is not bombastic at all. Also this part about "Frustrated by the lack of success of these policies" is most blatant POV, unverifiable, unsourced, and the lousiest excuse for terrorism I've ever seen. Nikola 18:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malcolm represents the main-stream opinion of most who write on this topic. My recent edit on Kosovo is based on the wikipedia-articles on Kosovo and the KLA. Can you not see the possibility that it is you, as a Serbian (I assume, from your profile) who are slightly biased here? Wikipedia is not here to represent the Serbian side, neither the Albanian. You may not be completely neutral here. (Barend 14:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Malcolm is journalist who pretends to be a historian, writes opinionated propaganda, and thus should not represent the main-stream opinion of most who write on this topic. Articles on Kosovo and the KLA are likewise disputed, often source of edit wars, and you shouldn't use them outright. Article on RS too, however the paragraph you used is a result of compromise, so it's OK.
I, of course, can see the possibility that I am biased here. But I don't think that that is correct.
To sum it, you said that Albanians formed KLA because they were "frustrated". This is POV speculation, unverifiable and outright insultive. I see no reason why would it be in the article. Your version also makes appearance that Serbian and American authorities "denounced it as a terrorist", (implying they in fact were not terrorists), and implying that these are the only authorities which did so, while there are others (f.e. Russia). You also speculate that it were their "indiscriminate tactics" which made the State Department add them to the list. I believe that my version is better in these respects. Nikola 08:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the cause of the rise of the KLA not that important. I can't understand why you object to me writing that the KLA used indiscriminate tactics as you are obviously not very favourably inclined to them yourself, but OK, fine. And I won't even go into your views on Malcolm, because life is too short. Edit war over? (Barend 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I don't object to writing that the KLA used indiscriminate tactics, but that they were added to the State Departement list because of theat. A lot of groups use indiscriminate tactics but are not on the list, and some groups don't use it but are on the list. Maybe I'll insert that in the article.
There was an edit war? I haven't noticed. Seriously. This is an edit war, or this, or this. But this article? It's just normal Wikipedia editing process. Nikola 09:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND JURIDICAL POSITION OF KOSOVA AS A FEDERAL UNIT IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

According to the Constitution of the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) of 1974, which was in force until the deassociation of that country, Kosova was one of the eight federal units of that state, i.e. it was its constituting unit (Article 2 and 4 of SFRY). The territory and border of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia could not be changed without the consent of all federal units, therefore without the consent of Kosova too, and the territory and borders of Kosova could not be changed without its consent (Article 5 of the Constitution of SFRY). Kosova as a constituting unit of the former Yugoslav Federation, according to the (now defunct) state, was identified as such in basic principles and normative part of the Constitution. Without the participation of the representatives of Kosova, and without its consent on decision-making matters of common interests of the federal state, the functioning of federal organs and decisions on those matters, was impossible. Kosova as a federal unit, with its representatives, participated directly in the constitution of federal organs: Presidency of SFRY, Federal Parliament, Executive Council (Government), Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia, Federal Court, National Bank of Yugoslavia, etc.

The Federal Parliament could not pass laws, and other general acts without the consent of Kosova as a federal unit (Articles 286, 292, 295, 296, 298, 304, etc. of the Constitution of SFRY). The Constitutional of SFRY could not be changed without the consent of Kosova too (Articles 398 and 402 of the Constitution). Kosova, like other federal units of former Yugoslavia, had its Presidency, which represented it within Yugoslavia, its Parliament, Government, juridical bodies (Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, Public Prosecution), administrative bodies, and all other state bodies. The constitutional position of Kosova, the structure of state bodies, and their functioning, were regulated by the Constitution of Kosova. Thus, Kosova as a federal unit of former Yugoslavia was equal with other federal units in all matters marking statehood.--Hipi Zhdripi 20:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1991 events (10 day war)

I have changed chapter...

"However, under orders, the Yugoslav Army did not carry live ammunition and the Slovene territorial defence took advantage of this by shooting at young conscripts. Recently the Austrian ORF tv station showed footage of several young Yugoslav soldiers at Holmec (border crossing with Austria), carrying a white cloth and raising their hands in the air, apparently to surrender to the Slovenian territorial defence, before gunfire was heard and the troops were seen falling down. This and other events are known as the so-called Ten-Day War in Slovenia."

... into ...

"Army however had no logistic support for a long term warfare, aswell as there was no political consensus within the Federal Executive Council to which extent the army was to be used. After ten days and 76 victims the so called Ten-Day War for Slovenia was over and JLA army was forced back in the barracks."

Yugoslav Army did carry live ammunition, there were several incidents involving gunfire, and from 76 persons killed, 19 were on Slovenian side (Territorial defence and Police).

Holmec incident is a subject of current political games between Serbia and Slovenia and it's meaning in the ten-day war is prepotent. It had no obvious impact on the war itself, and no one was shot dead in that incident. Serbian side claims first war crime in 90s happend there, however this was already legaly rejected by the Slovenian court, so unless this is to be legaly proven in the future, such statement is not to be taken as historical fact and as such written down in Wikipedia.

Wikification

This article looks as though it should be broken up into smaller articles. This page is 51 kilobytes long and contains very long paragraphs. PiMaster3 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Would it be possible to have comparitave maps of the various stages of Yugoslavia? S.Skinner 22:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Split: Disambig vs. History of Yugoslavia

I know these two were merged in the past, but I don't think it makes any sense anymore. There are now full-size entries for Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. What does a page called Yugoslavia have to offer? The rest of this page's contents should be moved to a separate History of Yugoslavia (ideally in summary style.) Thoughts? --TheMightyQuill 12:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, previously we didn't have enough specific information about KoY, SFRY and FRY in order to form decent articles for each of the three. Now we do, and the primary article has lost the need to describe each and every one of them.
There remains is a rational need to describe the Yugoslav idea and its continuity from its origins in the 19th century to its leftovers in the present. However, that will need to be a major rewrite to create a summarised article in which we must diligently avoid keeping too much information, otherwise we're just duplicating everything (and making a duplicate honeypot for flamewars, too). --Joy [shallot] 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point. everything on Yugoslavia is inherently history. The proper way to approach this is to use Wikipedia:summary style, which is already done. The full size articles fit perfectly as daughter articles in this summary style scheme. The purpose: "Yugoslavia" is a summary of several successive entities of the same short name. --Jiang 09:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jiang, please re-examine the "summary" style of the breakup section in this article... and not to mention the separate article Dissolution of Yugoslavia that also cropped up over there... --Joy [shallot] 10:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
text here needs to be moved over to Dissolution of Yugoslavia--Jiang 10:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Again, there are no separate entities. SFRY is no more separate entity from FPRY and KOY than French 5th republic is a separate entity from, say, 4th republic and 2nd empire. Zocky | picture popups 10:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Oh, and FRY was just the original name of Serbia and Montenegro, so yes, it was a separate entity from the others. That's why it should say for Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, see Serbia and Montenegro, but the article should be about the real Yugoslavia, that existed from 1918 to 1991/2. Zocky | picture popups 11:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Big peice [sic] of poop"?

Hi all... Mention is made of "the Catholic fascist militia known as the Ustaše which actually was a big peice [sic] of poop that came into existence in 1929". What's that all about?!?

That sounds like out and out vandalism. In the future if you see something like that that's obviously some 5th-grade insult you can remove it. 68.39.174.238 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup section NPOV tag

Much of this section is devoted to the thesis that Yugoslavia was broken up by foreign states (notably Austria, Hungary, and Germany) rather than by internal dynamics within the various republics and regions. What is the source for this assertion? It strikes me as POV and a borderline conspiracy theory. Also, there is so much space devoted to advancing this thesis that practically nothing is written about events in Yugoslavia during the 1980s. Its as if absolutely nothing took place between the death of Tito and the rise of Milosovic. How did the collective leadership of Yugoslavia that succeeded Tito lose power to the leadership of Serbia? None of this is covered. Peter G Werner 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came across reviews of this book taking issue with the German role in the breakup of Yugoslavia. Clearly there's some disagreement among historians on this issue. Both sides should be covered for this article to be properly balanced. Peter G Werner 23:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that the notion of "greater Serbia" is completely based in Nato war propaganda. I myself speak Serbo-Croation and can verify that the Milosevic speech at Kosovo did not in any way advocate greater serbia. If you also check the English translations you will find this concept lacking entirely.

Informative Book on Yugoslavia, the geopolitics, internal strife, and more

Wacky formatting

Hey all,

Noticed a couple of weird formatting things:


(1)

"The only European states which did have a strategic interest in the Yugoslav theatre tended to want to break it up. It would be wrong, of course, to suggest that there were no other, specifically Yugoslav, structural flaws which helped to generate the collapse. Many would argue that the decentralised Market Socialism was a disastrous experiment for a state in Yugoslavia's geopolitical situation. The 1974 Constitution, though better for the Kosovar Albanians, gave too much to the republics, crippling the institutional and material power of the Federal government. Tito's authority substituted for this weakness until his death in 1980, after which the state and Communist Party became increasingly paralysed and thrown into crisis. In 1990-1991, then, Yugoslavia was in the grip of a dynamic towards break-up despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of its population did not favour such a course."

This piece of text appears in the 'Breakup' section as one paragraph, and it is also spread over two paragraphs toward the end of the previous section. Why is this... is this anything to to with the neutrality tag on the 'Breakup' section?


(2)

"In 1974, the two provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo as well as the republics of Bosnia & Herzegovina and Montenegro were granted greater autonomy to the point that Albanian and Hungarian became nationally recognised minority languages and the Serbo-Croat of Bosnia and Montenegro altered to a form based on the speech of the local people and not on the standards of Zagreb and Belgrade."

Near start of section 'The Second Yugoslavia' - this is horribly worded. It's a very long sentence with no punctuation, and is therefore very ambiguous. It should probably be rewritten in a few different sentences, but I'm not even sure where to start with that.

Also, why is there so much written on the second Yugoslavia, when there's a separate page for that? I think it could be a lot shorter, if the info's being duplicated.

Bird of paradox 13:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sources?

I only read section 4 of this article, but it feels like it was taken from a book. I don't know if it was or not, but it certainly reads like a book. taking a look at the sources, I notice there are only 1-2. seems really strange...where is all this information coming from? there needs to be more citations.

I also agree with the earlier comment about POV and western interests in the break up of yugoslavia. I've read about the western interests in some other articles, but most of the time they seem to just be unreferenced claims by the author. the same is true for this article. this section definitely needs more citations.

this article on a whole needs to be cleaned up. I'm adding some tags PMoney 06:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some tags, sorry if I overdid it PMoney 06:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and read this article looking for places to add "citation needed." its my opinion that too much of this article is in need of citations to go through and mark individually, especially sections 3 and 4. I'm curious what other opinions are PMoney 07:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

refer to the references section. the original text was copied verbatim from the Library of Congress Country Studies. we cannot cite the original statements unless we search other texts to justify our text. this is turning the procedure backwards and defeats the point of referencing: as a published, professional work, material from the LOC country study can be sufficiently believed to be reliable and accurate.--Jiang 09:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so can CIA world fact book, in principle, but it had claimed for years (IIRC) that there was universal suffrage at 15 in Yugoslavia (and even later Slovenia) and that consumption of drugs was illegal, both of which are not true. We should still refer to primary sources, where possible. Zocky | picture popups 10:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it used to say there was suffrage at 15, if one was employed, which is only partly true. All employed people (and you couldn't be employed before 15) could vote in the elections for one of the houses of republican parliaments, but not for the other two houses, or for the federal parliament. Zocky | picture popups 10:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Yugoslavia

I noticed that someone proposed that the "History" section of this article should be split into a different article. Personally, I think this is not a good idea. First of all, Yugoslavia is a part of history by itself, it no longer exists. This article is the same as "History of Yugoslavia". I think there is no need to split it, yes it is a little long, but I do not see a harm in that. What to others think? --God of Justice 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since no one answered my question, I assumed that you all agree. I tried to fix this article as much as I could, and I'd like to hear some comments on my changes. --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Strangled"?

In March 1990, during the demonstrations in Split (Croatia), a young Yugoslav conscript was strangled on the tank by Croatian mob.

Assuming "strangled" here means "strangled to death", this is not true. A conscript soldier was indeed killed during the demonstrations, but he was shot in a separate incident. GregorB 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that, I remember seeing a video that shows the strangling of the soldier. But, thats just my memory, I'll look around for some links :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYR is not Succesor to SFRY: shouldnt it be included in yugoslavia article

i suggest a simple mention

eg state the first 2 yugoslavias and the history in the intro, then for info on the state FRY see Serbia and Montenegro or now just Serbia.

Serbia is successor to the state knwn as FRY which later became Serbia Montenegro

However each constituent republic of SFRY is an EQUAL SUCCESOR TO SFRY

FRY was never considered a Continuation of YUGOSLAVIA. YUGOSLAVIA DIED WHEN SLOVENIA CROATIA BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA AND MACEDONIA DECLARED INDEPENDENCE!--Jadran 14:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think people should also refer to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia_national_football_team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_national_football_team

Yugoslavia is defined as an union between South Slavic nations. When Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia secceded from Yugoslavia, remember that two republics, Serbia and Montenegro, remained in the federation.
Now, no international organization accepted FRY as the successor of SFRY, but the name did remain FR Yugoslavia, which means that it deserves a place in this article, no?
And as far as football is concerned, you are right that every republic is an equal successor of SFRY. So, Croatia played in 1986 as Yugoslavia, and Serbia played in 1986 as Yugoslavia (just an example :))
--GOD OF JUSTICE 03:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


actually as far as fotball is concerned, uefa surprisingly( quite odd if you ask me) 

only recognises Serbia as the sole succesor to pre 1991 yugoslavia footbal federation

but as far as countries and politics is concerned, each country of the fomrer yugoslavia are EQUAL succesors

My reverts

I have reverted these edits because, to someone who doesn't know alot about the situation, they are riddled with very obvious bias, loaded terminology, tangental soapboxing, and other things that left the articel in a worse state then beforehand ("liberating" v. "taking over", "foolish", "Jugoslavia was the first democratical country in the world", "How convenient", etc). 68.39.174.238 00:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change organization to organisation?--TeresaDieter 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup

What sort of sorry excuse for an encyclopedic entry is the breakup part? That's pure vile nationalism (probably of the Serb variety) which tries pin the blame for the breakup of Yugoslavia on Germany and Austria. IMO that entire section should either be deleted or seriously revamped.

I agree. Foant 00:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The west, particularly Germany and USA, had many influences on the breakup.
The section is abysmal. Apart from huge POV, there is a number of falsehoods and distortions. I have tagged some with {{fact}}; this is, of course, in vain; I don't really expect people to support their made-up "facts" with citations. GregorB 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I am no expert on Yugoslavia, and I am not defending the actions of any nation-state in their role of its breakup, but the section describing it in this article is obvious some one's ranting. It appears to be more opinion than anything else, and should be either removed or described as such. Even if it is true, it should be worded in a way that better adhere's to Wikipedia's standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.11.128.196 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
This section needs historical cites at least, I have not read it carefully so I cannot say anything about bias--as time permits I plan to make edits to try to correct any POV. Antonrojo 14:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest usage of the term Jugoslavia /Yugoslavia?

When was the term J/Yugoslavia first used? Politis 15:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. thats a good question, I'll look into it :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

It'd be sweet if there was a flag put in here, like the pages for other modern defunct states have. -I don't have an accound, 19 December 2006

But you see, this is not an article about a country - it's more like an article about the concept of Yugoslavism. Perhaps you know that there were actually three countries which were named Yugoslavia, and they had nothing in common except that they were located in approximately same area and were inhabited by the same people. The first of them was the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, then there was the SFRY and later FRY. If you follow these links, you will find the articles about appropriate defunct states, as well as their flags. --Djordje D. Bozovic 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this is a popular idea on this talk page, but it's simply not true. The second Yugoslavia was explicitly the same country as the first Yugoslavia, and FRY considered itself the successor of second Yugoslavia, although it later changed it mind. This certainly is an article about a country, and it should include both the royal and the socialist flag and coat of arms. Zocky | picture popups 14:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Breakup" section NPOV tag

I was the one who originally tagged this section. I've now removed the tag, as the deeply biased and problematic paragraphs in this section have recently been removed and it doesn't seem that anybody has tried to revert the edits back in.

I think that the article "Dissolution of Yugoslavia" could reasonably be expanded to cover the debate as to what degree foreign powers had in the breakup of Yugoslavia. However, the kind of unmitigated Serb Nationalist POV that was given in the recently-deleted paragraphs would very much need to be balanced by an opposing perspective, for example, the one given in this book. Peter G Werner 03:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

end date for Kingdom of Yugoslavia

As I understand it, most countries continued to recognize the royal government in exile until March 1945, when Tito and the royal government came to an agreement. At that point, Tito actually served as prime minister of a royal government until the monarchy was abolished at the end of the year. So shouldn't December 1945 be given as the end date for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? john k 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?confusion?

John Stewart said that former Yugoslavia has broken into so many countries that they are all the Independent Nation Of Him/Herself. He's kidding, right? Is that even possible? Wikizilla (Signme!)Talk 00:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Balkans is now Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia is now the countries of The Western Balkans; Btw, from the picture 'Lands offered to Serbia by the Allies in 1915' is clear that the natural border between Serbs and Croats is on the river of Cetina; Cheers!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yugoslavia&oldid=120782639"