Talk:Yugoslavs

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) This is the only way that a Yugoslav would be invented. I dont understand why people cry for this old SFRJ, its gone and it never coming back and good job too. It is absurd for a Serb or a Croat to think he is "Yugoslav", a bit like someone saying he is "USSR Soviet" because he is from Moscow. It should have never been created and it must not come back. Arvatov 6-9-06

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]