Talk:Yugoslavs

Ethymology

Is it correct that "Yugoslav" literally means "South Slav"? Could someone knowledgable please discuss this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.148.24 (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

concept prior to second Yugoslavia

I think I patched the article up sufficiently. Information about the existence of the concept in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (i.e. prior to SFRY) would be appreciated. I recall seeing one note about how the King banned different nationalities at one point in order to quell nationalism, but I'm not sure. --Joy [shallot] 13:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Serbo-Croats"

I'm removing the link to "Serbo-Croats" because it doesn't have a page and unless the rationale is provided, we'll only be promulgating the existence of this confusing while fairly insignificant term. I remember seeing it once on an American (or was it Australian?) TV show and wondering why they didn't bother to check whether "Serbo-Croatian language" translates into a nationality... --Joy [shallot] 13:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Minor grammatical point

It's not that there's a difference in meaning between 'the reason why' and 'the reason that', it's just that the former is an (admittedly common) grammatical error. As Fowler puts it in a slightly different context, there's a tautological overlap between 'reason' and 'why'. I'm interested, though — what did you take 'the reason that' to say that 'the reason why' doesn't? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "the most common reasons that people declared themselves Yugoslavs included..." doesn't make sense to me. We are not talking about the reasons that they declared, but about their reasons for declaring. In other words, they didn't actually have to elaborate their decision, we're explaining their state of mind, not something that they officially said.

A replacement sentence "the most common reasons that people had for declaring themselves Yugoslavs included..." would make sense, but I don't see why that would be better than using the "why". Although, I'm not a native speaker so I could well be wrong — please explain. --Joy [shallot] 10:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your suggested replacement sentence is fine — and means exactly what my corrected sentence does. The sentence with 'why' doesn't mean anything different, it's just grammatically incorrect; the correct construction is the same for: 'it's the house that Jack built', 'the country that I visited last year has just been invaded', and 'the reason that she said that she was Irish is that she's always been told that she was born in Limerick'. But, given that your new sentence is perfectly correct and reads well, I've put it in place of the old one in order to avoid any more disagreement.
(I should explain, by the way, that despite my User name I'm not Greek but English; in fact I taught English as a Foreign Language in Oxford for many years.)

Oh well. I'll take you word for it, although I've never heard of this. --Joy [shallot]

One more important point, though. Were the reasons listed in the article given by those calling themselves Yugoslavs, or are they explanations offered by others? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, both. :) --Joy [shallot]

offensive

A discussion on why someone declared some ethnic identity is extremenly offensive. Concluding that one has declared herself a Yugoslav because she did not have strong ethnic feelings is even more offensive. Finally, saying that "most Yugoslavs switched back to traditional nationalities such" is showing historical and political ignorance as well as ethnic insensitivity on the part of the writer. Most of us did not "switch back" because one cannot "switch back" to what she never was and many Yugoslavs were claiming that ethnicity since they were born. Further, many did not have a chance to declare Yugoslav identity since many newly formed countries have deleted such an option so the choice became to refuse to declare yourself as anything or to pick one of the options. This is an example of bureaucratic ethnic cleansing, further supported by the acceptance of the erasure of an entire population and trivialisation of the people through articles similar to this one.

Can you please be a little more specific? I'm not sure what part of the article, or discussion, you find offensive and why? --Hurricane Angel 03:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have scoured the web looking for information about Yugoslavs in 2006. Does anyone have a link to any site which gives accurate figures of the number of Yugoslavs today, not just in the former republics but over the world? It would make a good addition to the article. So might any political movement among the Yugoslavs from one republic to the next, I am sure there are still minor political parties but finding these things is hard. Celt 16 March 2006

An invented ethnicity: Yugoslavs

Apparently now users on wikipedia have invented a new ethnicity. I suppose people in Switzerland should be listed under the "Swiss" ethnicity too. Yugoslav is a designation that was created by the Yugoslavian census. It does not count as a modern day biological/cultural/or any sort of ethnicity. Hence, it does not merit an infobox. 72.144.60.37 07:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is an Internet Troll and there is no reason for response to his post. PANONIAN (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, this is a fine example of Ad Hominem attack. Argument is either valid or not, regardless of who wrote it.

Hiding behind "Troll! Troll!" is not a good way to contribute to wikipedia. I suggest that someone do respond to this, if you don't want to look like you don't have answer to this. --Ante Perkovic 12:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But he is Troll. Denying the right of people to identify themselves as Yugoslavs is a clear example of trolling. How would you feel if somebody tell you: "no your ethnicity does not exist, you are not what you claim, but something else"? PANONIAN (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And also, I do not see what kind of answer I can give to person that claim that "users on wikipedia have invented a new ethnicity"? It is obvious that such person never read this article, never saw results from Yugoslav censa, never met somebody who consider himself Yugoslav, etc. The second claim that "Yugoslav is a designation that was created by the Yugoslavian census" also come from the person that have no idea how census is performed - the census does not "create" designations, but only register what people say about their ethnicity. In 1981 census, number of people who stated their ethnicity as Yugoslav was as high as 1,209,024! How they could be listed in census results instead as Yugoslavs? The Yugoslav designation was created by people who declared themselves as such, not by the census. Furthermore, Yugoslavs are recognized as separate ethnicity by the authorities in Serbia, thus one sockpuppet with 4 edits on Wikipedia certainly do not know more than people who work in the statistical office of Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But, he got the point. Being "Yugoslav" is merely a political statement, not nationality. Noone is being "yugoslav" because his ancestors were yugoslavs. Those people "decided" to be yugoslavs (mostly because they couldn't decide whether they will be Serb/Croat/Bosniak/Macedonian... like the father or Albanian/Serb/Slovenian/... like the mother. "Yugoslav" is just another name for people not wanting to declare that they belong to some specific "real" nation. The "swiss" comparison is valid. --Ante Perkovic 18:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no "real" ethnic groups. All of them are invented to some extent, and all of them are political statements to an extent. Zocky | picture popups 18:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zocky 100%. There is really no such thing as "natural" or "real" nations. All of them are invented and artificial. I do not know much about the "swiss" case because I am mostly interested in things in eastern half of Europe, but if the "swiss" case is same as Yugoslav, they should have table too (of course, we do not discuss the "swiss" but Yugoslav case here). PANONIAN (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslav was an ethnic designation not a biological/cultural descented ethnic group. "Serb" and "Croat" is an ethnic group because the Serbs are culturally, linguistically, genetically, and historically tied as a people. Same with Croats. "Yugoslavs" is just, as Perkovic mentioned, a declaration. It's not a real ethnic group anymore than "United-States-ian" is. 72.144.114.25 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Panonian, despite you calling me a "troll" and claiming that I "..never read this article, never saw results from Yugoslav censa, never met somebody who consider himself Yugoslav..have no idea how census is performed - the census does not "create" designations, but only register what people say about their ethnicity..." I still haven't attacked you for being slightly "POV-pushing" in your edits.

Also, I said that "Yugoslav" is a census creation meaning that the term only originated from the Yugoslavian census - not that the census "invented" it. I'm saying people invented it and some users are now pushing it for a real ethnicity. 72.144.114.25 17:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs are no different than any other group that speak Serbo-Croatian language. Serbs and Croats are "artificial" as much as Yugoslavs in this case. If you do not recognize them it is your personal opinion, and Wikipedia is not place to present it. PANONIAN (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs aren't defined as a legitimate ethnicity anywhere. No more than "American" is a legitimate ethnicity for people in the United States. 72.144.114.25 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ante, you still believe that this user is not troll? PANONIAN (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I will give answer to him (no matter of wikipedia policy "do not feed a troll"): so, mister anonymous, who should define who is "legitimate ethnicity" and who is not? You perhaps? One interesting book I have named "Lexicon of the peoples of the World" (Mile Nedeljković, Leksikon naroda sveta, Beograd, 2001), list all these peoples whose infobox you removing as separate ethnicities, and the author of this book certainly know more than one sockpuppet on Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, Americans are quite "legitimate" ethnic designation in USA. See the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg PANONIAN (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that - thats why I brought it to your attention. It's paralleled. People can't ethnically be "American" unless they were Native Americans. Yet, the ethnic designation is still on the census. Much in the same way, Yugoslavs are an ethnic designation on the census - but in what way are they possibly an ethnic group? Maybe if you had someone who had a Croatian grandfather, Macedonian grandmother, Serbian grandfather, and Slovenian grandmother - I guess that could loosely qualify as a "Yugoslav" - in a very silly way though. 68.212.177.48 03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You are a troll and a vandal. You will be blocked. Good bye. --serbiana - talk 04:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, that is an example of fine, well sourced argimen ;). --195.29.145.162 07:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The only definition of ethnicity that covers all the world's peoples is ethnic identity - i.e. what those people think they are. If there are two persons who think they are X in the ethnic sense, they have a common ethnic identity (i.e. both think they are X), which makes them members of the ethnic group X.

But, even based on other criteria, Yugoslavs are no less genetically, linguistically, culturally and religuously related than e.g. Germans. Zocky | picture popups 10:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Yugoslav was an ethnic designation not a biological/cultural descented ethnic group. "Serb" and "Croat" is an ethnic group because the Serbs are culturally, linguistically, genetically, and historically tied as a people. Same with Croats. "Yugoslavs" is just, as Perkovic mentioned, a declaration. It's not a real ethnic group anymore than "United-States-ian" is."

Genetically and linguistically different, you say? As different as let's say a German with a Berliner accent and a Deutscher with a Munchen accent? We can skip the language details because we both know how different the languages are, but can you show me your genetic research on Serbs and Croats. I would prefer both DNA and mitochondrial DNA sources. --Hurricane Angel 12:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL Where did I say say that Serbs and Croats are genetically and linguistically different? 72.144.150.20 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And now to conclude this ridiculous discussion with official sources published by the Statistical Office of Serbia: http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/Zip/SN31.pdf According to this official document, 80,721 citizens of Serbia declared themselves as Yugoslavs in 2002 census and in this document they are listed in a table which had this title: "Stanovništvo prema nacionalnoj ili etničkoj pripadnosti po popisu 2002" (English translation: "Population by ethnicity or nationality in 2002 census"!!!!). If Statistical Office of Serbia treat here Yugoslavs as an ethnic group, then they are ethnic group. People who work in the Statistical Office certainly better know what is a definition of an ethnic group than one kid that even do not know how to register nickname on Wikipedia. Every further comment is futile. I rest my case here. PANONIAN (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia, we use a policy WP:CITE. Unless you can site a reference that claims "Yugoslavs" is an ethnic group. The statistical office of Serbia does not register people purely as ethnic groups. In fact, most censuses don't. Even the United States census has American as a designation. Good luck finding a reference claiming "American" is a legitimate ethnic group. You're ignoring what is said on this page even! "Yugoslav was an ethnic designation used by some people in former Yugoslavia, which continues to be used in some of its successor countries." "Czechoslovakian" and "Soviet" is an ethnic designation too, but neither are ethnic groups. Unless you can cite a reference which specifically says Yugoslavs is a legitimate historical ethnic group, the infobox is inappropriate. You can hide behind your "Troll! Vandal!" accusations all you wish. 72.153.53.193 16:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I already cited my source and I will repeat it: http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/Zip/SN31.pdf If you do not know to read Serbian, learn it, but Yugoslavs are listed there as an ethnic group, so they are ethnic group, thus your "opinion" about the subject is COMPLETELLY IRRELEVANT. Got it? PANONIAN (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, census results in Serbia do register only ethnic groups in this listing: people that did not declared their ethnicity are listed in the line "neizjašnjeni i neopredeljeni" (meaning in English: "did not declared or stated their ethnicity"). PANONIAN (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just one question for the Anonymous user 72.153.53.193: exactly what makes a group of people a "legal ethnic group"? And what is anybody anyway if not a statistic of a designated ethnic group? Do you really think there is anything more concrete about being Russian, or Irish, or Turkish? Take the term "legal" and consider the world's largest recognised stateless nation, the Kurds. They occupy large sections of four big countries. Three of those four governments (Syria, Turkey and Iran) never recognised the national claims of these people in the past, whether they do or not now is something I don't know. However, had Iraq not given the Kurds some form of autonomy in the early 70s, would that mean that so-called Kurds are not a legal ethnic group? As for "designated ethnicity", tell me, which people ethnicly affiliated to the Germans but originating outside of German territory (not descending from an earlier diaspora) call themselves German? In Vienna they declare themselves Austrian, so if areas accross the border into Bavaria had been absorbed into Austria before becoming a part of the modern German state, would those people (remember, never having lived in what you know as the Federal Republic of Germany) still claim to be ethnic-Germans living in Austria? If so why? What would they share in common with Hanoverians some hundreds of kiloemtres north, but have so different from the rest of Austria, itself a small country? All this according to you makes "German" (and others, too many to mention) ethnic designations as well. --Evlekis 09:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A very real Ethnicity

Without political fueds, Yugoslav would be the MOST realistic ethnic group for the Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks. With this said, there is no difference between the three other than religion and preference of alphabet (i.e; cyrillic / latin). The only reason this ethnicity does not exist realistically is because politics has prevented it from thriving.

I agree but on the whole, it is neither here nor there. Each of the three nations have a religion synonymous to the name but that doesn't truely stop one of its members from converting, nor one from another religion accepting the other's nationality, but if the Muslim chooses to be Muslim-by-Nationality as many still do, nor having accepted Bosniak, then it will be strange for him or her to be Roman Catholic and still pertaining to the original religiously inspired nationality. The key difference is down to ideology, there are those who strongly feel that difference in religion, linguistic variation and history should not necessarily prevent people from embracing those ethnicly affiliated to them to create a nation. Therfore, supposing a Mostar-based Catholic wishes to be Yugoslav, as shall we say a Muslim living among Gorani along the Serb (Kosovar)-Macedonian border belt may also choose, they are automaticly national affiliates regardless what their family members and local friends may think. Suffice it to say that the Muslim's neighbour's (a declared Goran) reluctance to accept the Mostar-based Catholic as a member of his nation does not fictionalise the dreams of the pro-Yugoslav neighbour, but rather alienates himself from his pro-Yugoslav neighbour. One's nationality is only what one declares. As democratic people, we must respect this.Evlekis 18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

SERBS??!?

Ok, i consider myself a Yugoslav, and am technically 1/4 serbian, and i dont understand what being a Serb has to do with being a yugoslav, as you will note someone had added this as a part of being serbian on the right hand side of the Yugoslav page, can we please remove this?

More

There's more to a Yugoslav people than presented dully in this article - the origin dates back far beyond. And the fact that the majority indeed were "Yugoslavs" fro twenty years isn't relly emphasized. --PaxEquilibrium 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs Abroad

This one is difficult, I am very interested to see the source which speaks of tens of thousands of Yugoslavs in the South American countries. The reason that it appears odd is that those countries have similar economies to our Modern eastern European microstates (lies, filth, government corruption, empty promises, puppets to the US, rich presidents and poor normal people etc). That is not to say that they could not have ended up there some other way though. The interesting point is that each country has its own manner in carrying out its census and I see that in the UK, one is categorised by his declared ethnic group which doesn't always correspond to ones chosen nationality. What I'm simply saying is that there must be a few numbers here and there in every country where there remains a Yugoslav diaspora who declare themselves Yugoslavs. Naturally, most will choose their modern republic or more familiar affiliation (eg. Serb if Orthodox from Bosnia etc), but it would be interesting to estimate the number of Yugoslavs from the diaspora countries such as Australia, Switzerland, Sweden and the UK. The question is, how?! Evlekis 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

Photo strip

I have added a photo strip for the people who helped form Yugoslav identity. Reisender 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Lepa Brena, Ljudevit Gaj

I think thats a very good idea, but Ljudevit Gaj and Lepa Brena should be added to the Photo Strip, too. They had the strongest feelings for the yugoslav nation.

Many people had strong feelings for the Yugoslav nation but the photo strip can only have so many faces. These tend to be those who were more instrumental in the country actually being what it was. So Gaj maybe, Brena though is just a modern celebrity; there must be thousands like her even if it is not immediately clear. The problem with the strip is Vuk Karadzic. I could be wrong but the literature I have read about him makes him sound more Serbian than Yugoslav, meaning that his linguistic reforms were in the name of Serbian and his vision of a larger state meant incorporating Bosnia and much of Croatia on the grounds that those people were Serbs; I could find this easily enough but it is all secondhand (ie. written in English by analysts). Evlekis 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

Actually Vuk Karadzic's works contributed to the formation of Serbo-Croatian, and the photo strip shows the people who contributed to Yugoslav identity. Vuk Karadzic is an essential figure in the formation of a union. Also, much of the Croatian language is based on Karadzic's formation of the alphabet. 68.118.250.233 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not what it should show. Many people contributed to Yugoslav identity without being Yugoslavs themselves. // estavisti 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs means "South Slavs" and those people fall under that category, especially Vuk Karadzic.

That's disingenuous and you know it. If the two terms were synonymous, we wouldn't have two articles on the two topics (see: South Slavs). "Yugoslav" is also a political identity, which doesn't exclude national identities like Serb, Croat etc. You'll notice that this article is about the ethnicity (it uses the ethnicity infobox). There is no evidence that Vuk considered himself to be of Yugoslav ethnicity, although he did believe in South Slav unity (not the same thing).

All I'm saying is that we should discuss this before deciding whether to insert it or not. You ramming it in by reverting repeatly is just annoying and not conducive to an atmosphere of cooperation. I won't revert or edit it for now, but I suggest you don't see that as you having "won the argument". // estavisti 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We're having a discussion here. Now the point is that Vuk Karadzic was living in a time when the ethnicity was being formed (obviously he couldn't be something that was not created YET) but he was for the idea, thus his works were used to unify the Croat-Serb people. He was a supporter of the union and we know what that leads to. Also, in the book A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples it is clearly stated that the union meant to combine the "one and same people" who were dispersed into different "tribes." From what we know, Vuk Karadzic supported the Yugoslav ethnicity by being for such union. He himself being of the "serb tribe" would make him a Yugoslav, having believed in such cause.

Well, you seem remarkably uninformed... And we're discussing this after you rammed your change through, but anyway... It's your opinion that "Vuk Karadzic was living in a time when the ethnicity was being formed". Do you have any sources to back up that claim? He was "for the idea"? What idea? You don't even specify. What is A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples? Who wrote it? Who published it? How do I know it's a reputable source, and not something you just made up? Even if I take what you say at face value, what can some book say, against the man's own works? Take a look Vuk Stefanović Karadžić. Every work has the word "Serbian" in the title. Take a look at these reputable sources that refer to him as a Serb - Encyclopaedia Britannica, University College London, Microsoft Encarta etc. On the other hand, we have your opinion that he belonged to the Serb "tribe", which is - frankly - offensive bullshit. Are you even serious? --estavisti 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion? Have you read the Vuk Karadzic page? Do you know what the Illyrian Movement was all about? No! The book is written by Fred Singleton BEFORE the civil war. Also, please do not attack me with your over worded sentences. Vuk Karadzic was for the idea when the Yugoslav Identity was taking shape. And yes, those who supported this idea saw this unification process as something similar to what the Germans had gone through. Please read the book, you can find it on Amazon.

Number of reputable, verifiable sources you provided? Zero. One book which was written during the Communist period. And you don't even provide quotes from that one book. What may be "clearly stated" in your eyes may be nothing of the sort to others. Number of points you answered? Zero. The fact remains, I listed three credible, reputable sources that list him as a Serb. His work deals with the Serbian language - not the "Yugoslav" language, not the "South Slav" language, not the "Serbo-Croat" language, but the Serbian language. It's not disputed that he had pro-Yugoslav leanings. However, that is a political orientation, not an ethnicity, and so his inclusion in the pictures of famous Yugoslavs is misleading and incorrect, and merely an expression of your political opinion. // estavisti 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that he is a Serb, but being a Serb can qualify you to be a Yugoslav , as many have proclaimed themselves to be. Also, his serbian works were used to link serbo-croatian .. please read up on that. He is a big figure in the unification of the language of former Yugoslavia.

As the strip should show people who themselves identified as Yugoslavs, Vuk Karadzic is a Bad Idea. Nikola 19:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Nikola. I have revised the strip. Reisender 19:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Goran Bregović is arguably the most famous self-identifed Yugoslav. Duja^►

There is another problem with all of this. Many people were proud Yugoslavs during the time of the country and in the end, some of those played a part in its disolvement. Here is an example: take the Montenegrin speaker of Parliament Ranko Krivokapic. He has said on RTCG that during the time of Yugoslavia, he was one of its biggest supporters but without the 4 out of 5 republics, there was no point in Montenegro being united with Serbia. Now just supposing that he became who he is but 80 years ago, the likelyhood is that he wouldn't be here today, and being known of course, he could have been on that photostrip. So what is to say that Ljudevit Gaj would still have supported a united South Slavic ethnic group had been fortunate to still be alive in 1992?! And the other thing: it is known that people today declare their nationalities as Yugoslav (I have family who do this though I don't personally), and it is primarily on them that the article is written, but, from 1945-1991, each citizen of Jugoslavija had his own internal nationality, I doubt "Yugoslav" was actually applicable then because it had to correspond to one of the six republican adjectives, or Muslim, otherwise a name for a people based outside of Yugoslavia (ie. Romanian, Albanian, Italian etc). My point is that "internally", Goran Bregovic could have been a Serb, or Croat (probably not a Muslim unless that was his faith which I don't believe was) and he STILL could have been a proud Yugoslav. I am not against the photostrip, only it is difficult to establish what really is what. Ragusan 14:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

> To correct you, during Yugoslavia the ethnic group "Yugoslav" was allowed and many people did proclaim themselves as that.

I only said I doubted it was used. All right I know it was once upon a time widely used. The first census showed 85% or so as Yugoslav with hardly an entry for Serb or Croat etc. The other 15% were mostly other nations (Albanians etc). I just didn't think it was used after 1945. My point was that many who believed in the cause whilst it was active did abandon it when it came to supporting an independent republic. I mean, if the overall percentage of Yugoslavs from all six former republics today is about 0.1% (an estimate is difficult because they hardly register in Slovenia, Croatia or Macedonia), then there MUST have been millions more proud Yugoslavs during the SFRJ. No way does 0.1% control 99.9%, not even with all the military and oppression. Please don't think I am in any way against Yugoslavs or people who choose that name! Ragusan 20:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

> You're right, but the ethnicity has no faults.. this is something political now. The people who lived can only be viewed on the times they lived, not in another century, etc. So, what I am saying is that Yugoslav is no longer used because of political fueds.

At long last we have statistics from Croatia. 176 is better than nothing! Jordovan 13:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gaj

There is no mention, at least not in Wikipedia, of Ljudevit Gaj ever having spoken in the terms of Yugoslav or Yugoslavs. His fairly liberal linguistic policy is a natural predecessor to the Yugoslav idea, but it is just that - a predecessor, not a constituent. Unless someone has evidence to point otherwise, he should be removed from the image. --Joy [shallot] 16:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there isn't. Gaj's lifetime predates the first time when Yugoslav was accepted on censa as a regocnised ethnicity. But then I don't honestly know that any of those people call themsleves Yugoslav. We can say that Tito did, but then where is the significance? A President for Life for over 25 years, infallible; yet if he had to be, why didn't he make everyone else this ethnicity in the same way that people had to become French, Spanish, Italian, German, Polish etc. when they too became absorbed into their respective countries. The Yugoslavs today are few, and I doubt any of them are notable; they are at most every day communal people fully blended into their societies, or as they may feel: the other ethnicities revolve around them. If this comes to a concensus, I would vote to remove the gallery all together. Evlekis 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if none of those people ever considered themselves (officially or unofficially, it's the thought that counts) Yugoslavs, then they could all be removed, yes, that is true. But I'm not arguing that, I'm simply saying that the case of Gaj is particularly strange. The others don't seem too controversial. You will notice that I'm not arguing against the inclusion of Ante Trumbić, who was another Croat who predated Yugoslavia itself, because in his case there's a rather clear connection to the Yugoslav Committee. But for Gaj, there is no such clear link. --Joy [shallot] 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If that be the case, then I'd get rid of him all together because you will never find the type of link you are looking for. In his place, I'm currently in favour of adding Oliver Dulić. I'm sure there will be no dispute if you remove Gaj along the grounds you stated. Evlekis 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Slovenia

As you'll all see, there is a link for Slovenia now and it appears that they too systematicly fail to take this ethnicity seriously in that they have acknowledged the numbers yet place them in the section "undeclared" where they also display the small numbers who have declared themselves regionally, again, the individuals are discriminated for their choice. Evlekis 15:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

World War 1

The result of Yugoslav nationalism. (I added this as it is very important and it was the result of Yugoslav nationalism)

Probably due to some kind of nationalism because the ethnicity isn't factual. It's like being a Soviet or a Czechoslovak. Yugoslavs is just a nostalgic thing mostly for people born to mixed nationality parents, but it should be like everywhere else. Half-French, Half-Spanish kids don't go round calling themselves Latins or Romans and Half-Serbs Half-Slovenes shouldn't hide behind "Yugoslav" either. Either they should accept that they are the one which matters to them more, or go on record as being mixed. Serbs and Croats are distinct ethnicities and nobody is geneticly Slavic, only linguisticly, so what is someone who is half-French half-Serb? an ethnic European? 195.27.52.149 11:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What a load of trash. You ovbiously havn't got a clue. People declare themselves Yugoslavs, they are accepted. I choose to be Serb and there is nothing more definete about that. As Yugoslav means South Slav, the term "Slav" not only underlies everything that from where modern Serbianism is derived, but it goes on to include other peope in other places, who happen to want to call themselves Bokelji, Hrvati, Makedonci, Bulgari itd. I am Serb not because it was passed down to me, you want the facts? It wasn't, my father is to this day another nationality and my mother doesnt actually come from todays Serbia. I don't need to say more.I want to be Serb not so much because I come from there but because for personal reasons, I dont want to take Slovenes, Croats and Bulgarians as what I call my nation (Montenegrins and Macedonians are OK, but they dont wanna be Serb and I cant force them). So if they wanna be Yugoslavs, that they are, you cannot distinguish what makes someone Macedonian and another one Serbian in the same town. Even in Bosnia, the three religions and three nationalities dont all corelate 100%. As for genetics. Remember friend, there are hundreds of millions of Slavic peoples, genes are different accross the board compared with Basques who are only a small group. BUT, if you want to take a small group of South Slavs from the same place, but those who give themselves different nationalities, you'll see they are geneticaly closer than to their own people living on the other side of same country. If genes told the facts, Serbs and Croats would never argue over who is the Muslims of Bosnia, they'd take blood tests and see. Stop attacking Yugoslavs. Jordovan 15:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a nation

Yugoslavs are not a nation. Never were, never will be. Before the country was created there was never such a people to call themselves Yugoslavs. Yes you had your Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Slovenians, but never "Yugoslav". The country was a federation, that meant "made up from little pieces". It was at most a rendition of "Greater Serbia". When they saw they had the chance to take over Croats and Slovenes, they jumped at the chance, same way they annexed Kosova. The term was used to force people into a forced "brotherhood" they never believed in. Serbs and Croats don't even have the same ethnogenetical origins. All the nations have their own ethnogenetical origins and so "Yugoslav" isn't a nationality or an ethnicity either. I vote this page for deletion with immediate effect. Lepa Brena was a Bosniak, and the so-called Yugoslav "Tito" was Half-Croatian, Half-Slovenian. How can he have been Yugoslav? Ethnicity is about genes, Slavs are not united, only by language. Speedy deletion. Shqipman 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Yugoslavs are not a nation, however there are people who consider themselves to be Yugoslavs by nationality (and they apparently consider Yugoslavs to be a nation). The rest of your writing is complete nonsense. Nikola 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a Yugoslav nation, in 1929-2003. Please see Nation. --PaxEquilibrium 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction. There is a Yugoslav nation. Check the censa of Canada, the USA and Serbia! (esp. Shqipman) Evlekis 18:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Serbs and Croats are ethnically identical. Himmler's nazi documents should not be taken as a scientific fact. Albanians and Serbs/Croats are not ethnically identical, but I am sure that you are aware that albanians were a minority in Yugoslavia.

Well that's right. Of course there are principles beyond politics for choosing such a nation. Obviously choosing to be Serb, Croat or Bosniak also has its ideologies, theories and principles but I shouldn't take the Shqipman comments too seriously. He didn't make too many friends anywhere on Wikipedia, not even among the reputable Albanian Wikipedians. Evlekis 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"All the nations have their own ethnogenetical origins and so "Yugoslav" isn't a nationality or an ethnicity either." Yes, you're so correct. I've heard about this American ethnicity, it's so real! --Hurricane Angel 08:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The article

Let's leave this stupid irrelevant subject. It's been proved conclusively that this nation exists and that it is founded on solid principle. People can be what they choose. If he wants to be American with no affiliation to European or Asian ancestors, so let him. It's getting exhausting. Does anyone agree that this article should be moved from Start-Class to Level B? It seems the meet the criteria. It has an infobox, it has sources and the infobox matches the sources too. It's a bit advanced for Start Class, any comment? Balkantropolis 08:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are partially correct, but not everyone can be a "Yugoslav." One must come from the tribes that make up the south slavic people. It is not the same as American. For example, an ablanian or greek could not be a "Yugoslav." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.129.28 (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Interesting point. I see what you're saying and that is also "partially correct!", not because you're "partially wrong" but because it is a paradox. Of course a Greek or an Albanian could not be a Yugoslav, but if he wishes to be, what is stopping him? It's only what you decare on the census what makes you what you are; but then once you have declared it, if you are serious in your desire for people to see you as that, you don't additionally identify as being Greek or Albanian. It's one thing for Serbs and Croats to rally around a unifying flag which flies for both groups but not others whilst still maintaining their Serbian or Croatian identity, but totally different when they are not calling themselves Serb or Croat in the first place, but Yugoslav. This is what the article is all about: I'd gamble my life that if you were to count the number of people who still see themsleves as united across all six former republics and their resepctive diasporas, the number would be high in its millions, but the sources used only give us those who have chosen the name itself. That means those who have disassociated themselves with the proposed nationality which "other people see them as being!" --Evlekis 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry i have huge objection to this article.I consider myself fully Yugoslav,:my mother is half Serb half Macedonian,the father is of foreign non european descent.however I am of protestant religion.I demand that ASAP under tab religion you add "protestants" besides all those you named.

Notable Yugoslavs

If those displayed are in any way controversial, then it may be worth noting that Serbia's speaker of Parliament Oliver Dulić self-identifies as Yugoslav. It is of particular importance as he is a contemporary polititian and only 32 years old. Evlekis 03:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I also would like everyone to take a look at this: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=41413

Count me in, too; I believe that, in the near future, Yugoslavia will once again become one nation. (Tovarishch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.147.168 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Tito and the resistance to Germany

This article states that Yugoslavs have affected world history at many times; as an example it mentions that Tito would have been the first to organise resistance against the Germans in WWII. That's simply not correct. There were resistance groups operating in countries such as France and Norway even before the invasion of Yugoslavia, and the Chetniks had taken action against the Germans before Tito decided to, only after the German invasion of USSR.JdeJ 15:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The article meant that he was the first to organize against them in Yugoslavia. Article has been changed.

That is of very little relevance. He wasn't the first in Europe and he wasn't the first in Yugoslavia. And once again, removing tags without providing credible sources is vandalism. Not that I think you'll mind, as you have quite a history of vandalism with both your main account and your sockpuppet.JdeJ 06:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the article, it seems you don't do reading. He was the first in Yugoslavia to organize a real resistance. Cetnik government ran in exile when Tito organized the resistance. You must do the reading. Also, Cetniks goals werent a unified Yugoslavia as they committed atrocities against croat and bosniak populations and cooperated with nazis.

I've read the article, thank you very much. I've read quite a number on Yugoslav history as well. To begin with, there was never any Cetnik government, only the legal government of Yugoslavia that escaped the Nazis. Regardless of the Cetniks' goals, their attrocities and their alliances (and I don't dispute any of your points there), they were still the first resistance. As for the fact tag, you haven't provided any source for it. The article in itself can never be a source for a claim, so please provide a reliable external source or stop vandalising the article by removing tags. JdeJ 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

they are not the first resistance. Show me proof. Tito's partisans were the official resistance group. When I say Cetnik government I mean the monarchy , the king fled the country and Tito's partisans took charge. I am not vandalizing, but I see that you have no sources. I will put my sources in if it means you will back off with false history.

Don't try to turn the tables and hurl out false accusations. I haven't written one word of this article, so what is there I'd have to prove? Nothing at all. You, on the other hand, make several claims without giving any sources, and when you are asked for sources you just remove the tags instead of giving any sources.JdeJ 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. My sources are now listed.

Gavrilo Princip

Can someone explain this? --78.0.116.133 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He identified himself as a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming to unify all Yugoslavs in any form of state except that of austro hungary. Read up

He's more a Serbian nationalist than a Yugoslav, but that's just my opinion. He's not the best example!!! --78.0.110.91 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, that's your opinion and opinions don't cut it in an encyclopedia. He was pro Yugoslav (as he called himself that) and because he wished to have Yugoslavs under austro-hungarian rule build their own country, instead of being subjected to it.