Talk:Hey, Slavs/Archive 1

Name of the page

I have added a bunch of info and moved the page to Hey, Slavs. There's too much international history to the song for it to be kept at one of the many Slavic names. Zocky 19:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian version

Can someone add the Macedonian version? --Explendido Rocha 16:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was told by a Macedonian friend that she doesn't recall any Macedonian lyrics and that they sang it in Serbian. I couldn't find anything useful on the internet. Zocky 20:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is a choral Macedonian version. Perhaps someone can transcribe it? --Explendido Rocha 14:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unofficial anthem?

The article says:

»The old anthem was officially abandoned after the liberation in 1945, but no new anthem was officially adopted. There were several attempts to promote other, more specifically Yugoslav songs as the national anthem, but none gained much public support and Hey, Slavs continued to be used unofficially. The search for a better candidate was finally abandoned, and in 1977 Hey, Slavs became the official national anthem of Yugoslavia.«

Article #8 of the Yugoslav constitution (1974) says (verbatim translation):

»Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has an anthem.«

So, what's then about unofficiality of Hey, Slavs before 1977? --romanm (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You know how Slovenian constitution says that Slovenia is divided into provinces, but none were actually ever defined? I think it was like that. See [1] and [2]. Zocky 00:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Slovak translation

I've notice that on this page the word slovaci is translated as both Slavs and Slovaks Rmpfu89

I do not think so. On what page and where?Juro 01:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Jošte, kano

To the anons who keep changing these two archaic words: jošte and kano are correct, as can be checked in any source, including [3]. Other editors, please revert those changes on sight. Zocky | picture popups 11:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no jošte in Croatian, only još ste and yes, it's pronounced like that!!!

There was no Bosnian version of the SFRJ anthem, I do not even recall there being a separate Serbian and Croatian versions either (though I may be mistaken there). However, since someone was kind enough to give a Bosnian translation I thank him but I made the correction of "još ste" to "jošte". Još ste (you are still) has a different meaning than jošte (still, archaic) and may be the result of popular etimology due to the archaic nature of jošte. However, jošte is correct. In a similar note, I changed Sloveni/slovenski to Slaveni/slavenski as this is the preferred version in modern Bosnian. And yes, I changed "riječ" to "duh" as this is the wording used in the SFRJ version of the anthem that I remember learning way back in primary school (if someone objects to this, please name your source). To avoid confusion, I think it would be best to put the SFRJ (Yugoslav) version in a separate article, to avoid confusion related to the wording of the anthem.

I have heard both "reč" and "duh", and I'm not sure which was official or most commonly used in which part of Yugoslavia. But "još ste" is definitely wrong. The sentence wouldn't make any sense: "You are still alive the word/spirit of our grandfathers". Zocky | picture popups 03:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't

Those text's be moved to Wiki media or something rather then be presented here ? --Molobo 22:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

More correct Russian translation

There is a Russian translation of «Hey, Slavs!», it stays very near to the original Slovak text:

Гей, славяне, гей, славяне! Будет вам свобода, если только ваше сердце бьётся для народа.

Гром и ад! Что ваша злоба, что все ваши ковы, коли жив наш дух славянский! Коль мы в бой готовы!

Дал нам бог язык особый — враг то разумеет: языка у нас вовеки вырвать не посмеет.

Пусть нечистой силы будет более сторицей! Бог за нас и нас покроет мощною десницей.

Пусть играет ветер, буря, с неба грозы сводит, треснет дуб, земля под ними ходенём заходит!

Устоим одни мы крепко, что градские стены, проклят будь, кто в это время мыслит про измены!

Please add it to the Russian part of the article.

I don't know if this is indeed the correct translation, but I want to point out that Hey transcribed into Russian should be Эй or Хей because Гей means Gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.145.209 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that in Ukranian and Belarusian it would be spelt with a Г, but with Russian I have no idea. Maybe in Russia the song is actually "Gay Slavs" lol. BalkanFever 13:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthem of WWII Slovakia?

So, was it the anthem of Slovakia during the Second World War? The article contradicts itself on this point. Junes 01:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

why?

Why is someone forcing ˝jošte˝ for croatian. There is no jošte, only još ste! Difference is obvious.

You are simply wrong. "Jošte" is the archaic version of "još". "Još ste živi duh naših dedova" is not a grammatical sentence. Zocky | picture popups 04:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right , but last official version was još ste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.226.61 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Zocky | picture popups 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

English translation

I do not know who did English translation, but it can be hardly called a translation. It seems to be done on a level of 13 years old heavy metal fan translating some lyrics with on-line translator... Few parts of text are missing, translation is not even slightly precise in most of fragments. I understand that to make any translation one need to know something about a cultural context of translated text. This is a main trouble in all cases. So if one knows nothing about it do not even start to translate. Here my proposal:

Hey, Slavs, The tongue of our grandfathers is alive, As long as the hearts of ours Beat for our nation.

Lives, lives the Slavic spirit, It will live for ages! Hell and thunders of your anger All shall be in vain.

Our tongue beloved God in heaven granted None of this world Will overcome His power

Let all people around be us enemy. God is with us, who against us Those shall God make perish.

So let then above us ominous storm arise. Rocks crack, oaks break, Let the earth quake.

We stand always, we stand firmly, like castle walls, Black soil devour one who's our homeland traitor.

Here is current version:

Hey, Slavs, The spirit of our grandfathers is alive, As long as the hearts of their sons Beat for the people.

Lives, lives the Slavic spirit, It will live for ages! The Hell's abyss threatens in vain, The fire of thunder is in vain.

Let all above us now be shattered by a storm. Cliffs crack, oaks break, Let the earth quake.

We're standing firmly like mountains, Damned be the traitor of his homeland!

Please advise, correct and replace current one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.97.106 (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian and Belorussian versions

Can someone please post a translation of that song in those languages? SalJyDieBoereKomLei (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect word

I changed the incorrect word "jošte" to "još ste", in serbian, croatian and bosnian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.97 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, jošte is correct. It's the achraic version of još. ;) - OBrasilo (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Including the dual name Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language

Imaginary flag of the language in question.

• Another language, Imbris? Despite the article name, Montenegrin is a dialect. Read the article. It is not recognized as a "language" by anyone. It is virtually never listed as such.
  
• "Croato-Serbian" is a completely obscure term in English. Get over it and use "Serbo-Croatian".
• Please stop removing the Serbo-Croatian language entry from the full list of foreign language versions. It is POV. The anthem subsection is completely separate from the below area where all foreign language versions are listed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Montenegrin language is a language, no matter what you belive. Languages are not recognized, they might or might not be listed on some list, but this doesn't change the fact that languages are not a matter of recognition.
2. Stop deluding the general auditorium by your rude Yugoslav nationalism manifested by blinding unitarism. Even the Yugoslav communist authorities were lenient towards the issue by establishing many names for the diasystem. Also you should know that there are no guidelines on the content of articles in the fashion of using statistics as a tool to determine the content. The policies are established only for the title of the article. Wikilinks serve a multifacet of purposes.
3. Stop adding the content twice. It is rude of you to presume on adding of extint languages in the first place, but adding it twice this is proposterous. The fact that there are subsections doesn't make it anything else than another painting of preety pictures by Mr. DIREKTOR.

Imbris (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia uses sources to support claims. ISO is the "trump-card source" as far as what are languages/dialects. ISO does not list Montenegrin. Montenegrin is not a language (even the article states that FACT clearly).
• Getting personal again aren't we? This is not Yugoslavia, this is Wikipedia. This is not a matter of history, it is a matter for Google. There is only one most common term in English, and that's "Serbo-Croatian". Get over it already.
• I apologize for my apparent rudeness. Serbo-Croatian is not extinct: it is spoken by a large number of people, and it is recognized by ISO. It is to be listed alongside all other languages below. There is no way I'm letting you wantonly delete languages from the list because you're apparently "offended" by them. The section above deals with Yugoslavia, the section below is concerned with all Slavic languages that have a native version of this song. You're removing an entry because you don't like it. I'm sorry, your edit is contested. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Only a RfC here can have any bearing on the matter, and not elsewhere. I would advise against it because as Ivan Štambuk said all those names are equivalent. We are not discussing a title of the article, and in the content of the article the most appropriate wikilink should be used based on the context.

P.S. Croatian, Serbian, Slovene and Macedonian were also languages of the SFRY in one time or another, so they should be listed in both sections, is that what you are after. Funny. :)

Imbris (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I proposed an RfC on a completely different matter. Not this. There's nothing really to discuss here. Montenegrin is a non-ISO recognized dialect, and "Croato-Serbian language" is an obscure term in English. Its just that you're spiteful and stubborn.
As for the Yugoslav Anthem section, it is quite necessary to list the exact versions of the song used in the Yugoslav anthem. The section now does that in detail. There are more than one Serbo-Croatian and Slovene versions of the song, and it is necessary to make their usage clear. The reader can now clearly understand exactly which ones of the many versions in the full list were the Yugoslav anthem. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Only a RfC aimed at this topic can be created, that is if you want it to solve a problem you created with denial of the Montenegrin and favourizing Serbo-Croatian language as the only way that language should be called on this Wikipedia. Look around Macedonia is here.

No body is deleting your precious and deprecated Serbo-Croatian language but adding valuable content in order for the reader to comprehend that this language had no standardized name, that a bunch of names could have been used to describe it.

Your campaing to list the Serbo-Croatian language in both Yugoslav anthem and Other Slavic languages section of the article is proposterous and resulted in listing Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian language texts of the anthem twice (in both of those sections also)

Your futile attempt to portray as if the anthem was official in 1977 is destined to fail. The law said nothing of a sort, it merely determined the name of the anthem and stated that it is going to be temporary until a new anthem would be selected. The official status (from that of semi-official/temporary status of 1977) was gained 11 years latter in 1988-11-25 :)

There is no neccessity to list those text (exactly the same) twice in the very same article.

Imbris (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Stop removing Serbo-Croatian from the top list, that's obvious POV as its historic and even present-day significance is extremely relevant to the article (if you have not noticed, this article also deals with the historic use of the song). Use the standard English name for the language, not some version you personally prefer.
• Montenegrin is not internationally recognized as an independent language by the ISO. Removing its entry is a matter of sources, not ideology. I have absolutely nothing against Montenegro's independence from Serbia and hope that the Montenegrin language (quite different from Serbian) will be fully recognized one day. When that day comes, I'll try my best to include it in leads and articles everywhere. Unfortunately, as things stand now it is not ISO-recognized. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No one removed Serbo-Croatian, and it should be listed alphabetically as well as other languages. Stop with your "historic" BS, it has no relevance for this article, especially the denial that 1977 was a temporary fix.

Stop pretending about standard English usage, on one is forcing the ordinary English speaker to any particular name, other than you of course. The statistics on the frequency are used to determine the title of the article, not the content, and the descriptivness is better than omitting the info. No one has deleted Serbo-Croatian language from the equation, but complemented it with Croato-Serbian language (as the language had a dual name)

Montenegrin language, standardized or not is still a language, whatever you say it is. The SIL company cannot change that fact. The enough sorce is the Constitution of Montenegro, and the Census.

Imbris (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia uses the most common term in the English language, not the one you prefer.
• Montenegrin is not ISO-recognized. ISO is the main source for languages on Wikipedia. What its called is irrelevant. Non-ISO recognized, and non-standardize languages are unsupported by sources and are not listed until they are indeed standardized. There's no way it will remain here alone of all Wikipedia articles because of your anti-Yugoslavism POV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have listed both names from the begining of this, you portray the issue as if I have deleted something. I did nothing of a sort.

Montenegrin language is used on this wikipedia, it has its own article and ISO cannot change that fact. ISO (controled by some other authority continue to blatantly oppose Security Council which determined that SFRY had not a single successor, like the FRY claimed and lists that .yu was continuously used by the FRY (with no breaking in usage other than a number change.

I have no anti-Yugoslavianism POV. You are the biased party here + not listing any reliable information.

Imbris (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Subject 1: using "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language" as a term for the Serbo-Croatian language. Wikipedia uses the most common term in the English language, not the one you prefer.
  • Why are you doing this against standard practice ("Serbo-Croatian" is used everywhere)? You like to use the obscure and over-long variant simply because you like to think that's "more Croatian". Remember when you said they were seperate languages? :) Oh boy...
• Subject 2: adding the Montenegrin language version. The Montenegrin language is not internationally and ISO-recognized. It is included as a seperate language just about nowhere on Wikipedia.
  • Why are you restoring Montenegrin? Well, you believe that I'm removing its entry because I'm a "Yugoslav unitarianist" (I actually fully support Montenegrin independence from Serbia). Therefore, as a nationalist you feel an overwhelming desire to contradict the real situation and the fact that noone recognizes the language, all for the purpose of "fighting" Yugoslav unitarianism. Keep-up the good work.
• Subject 3: Serbian and Croatian as official languages of the SFRY? Ok, read this carefully: Serbian and Croatian were never official languages of the SFRY. Never. What you think are the Serbian and Croatian language are (in Yugoslavia) the two variants of the single Serbo-Croatian language. You are totally mistaken.
  • Why are you contradicting reality yet again? That's an interesting question, since by now you probably will have realized that you've misinterpreted your source, the Yugoslav constitution. Which is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not written in Serbian and Croatian as seperate languages. So why are you continuing to restore Croatian and Serbian as supposed "official" languages? Well, probably out of spite, because I lost my temper and bluntly exposed your obvious error on User talk:Ivan Štambuk. You now feel you simply must contradict me, no matter how demonstrably wrong you may be.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not done anything of a sort, at the talk page of Ivan Štambuk your POV could be seen out of Space. See User talk:Ivan Štambuk

Imbris (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well your POV is visible from Mars. There you go, I win. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Space is a broader term. And I must say that I haven't seen such rude behaviour on this wikipedia since I joined. Even Panonian was 10x more respectfull. We are not here to win, but to contribute with reliable sources. -- Imbris (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Win"? Oh, that was sarcasm (its all in the article). Your incredible stubbornness, constant disregard of arguments, use of revert-warring to push an edit that was contested when you introduced it, your petty insistence on changing every detail just the way you imagined it... well, all that pretty much tells me you shouldn't have "joined" in the first place. It may be just my opinion, but I have to say you're probably not cut-out for proper discussion. You like having your way too much.

Also, your POV can be spotted from an alternate dimension. Top that! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting. Nobody removed anything of value. Even the English speaking authors use the dual form when addressing to the language, most notably in scientific papers and linguistic studies about the language/macrolanguage. Stop deleting Montenegrin and the Hunagrian. Yugoslavia did not have official language as per the Constitution, languages of nationalities were equall in their right of usage and after 1970 the Official Gazette of the SFRY was published in two of them (Hungarian and Albanian. -- Imbris (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why am I reverting you? Because you're reverting me. Who should stop? The one who first introduced the edit, and now thinks that if he reverts enough times his version will stick. You, User:Imbris, are using edit-warring to push your edit. That's a plain obvious fact. Trying to make me look like the instigator, eh? Clever, very clever...

Yes, as is well know, English uses the term (and about four others) for the language, just barely. However, compared to simply "Serbo-Croatian" the other terms are obscure. Wikipedia uses the term which is most common. You're using that term which makes your nonsense sound least ridiculous. Not only that, but the term "Serbo-Croatian" is used all over Wiki. Introducing the use of a new, obscure, term will undoubtedly cause considerable confusion with the average reader. But that doesn't bother you, does it? After all, your primary duty is to defend the Croatian language...

Montenegrin is not standardized or recognized internationally as a language. It makes no sense calling it a language if it isn't even properly defined. (It will probably get standardized next September, I hear.)

Hungarian?! Albanian?! LoL... Admit it, now you're just being silly...

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have first introduced Serbo-Croatian in the South Slavic languages list and push for it really hard, you have also first introduced the division of South Slavic languages (to this article). Serbo-Croatian (also called Croato-Serbian) can only be listed where it was listed before you came along, and that is under the section Yugoslav anthem.

You are a troll, not an investigator, you act like you WP:OWN the article, and you haven't produced any significant source for the article, even tryed to misconcieve the reader by listing 1977 as the year of officiality. Sad to see Rjecina gone, he could explain it to you.

Your inspector like questions, like, why do you think this content should be listed or what emotions I think the reader will perceive after reading the article shows just how your mind thinks. You have big issues, my dear fellow.

We are not discussing about a title for the article named Serbo-Croatian language where BTW in the lede is the full name of the macrolanguage e.g. Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language(s).

Why didn't you have problems when it was phrased like this: [[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language]]?

In the English language, both common and expert the phrase Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language is also present, you should not be mistaken, it is present in about 10% cases

Your primary function on this wikipedia is disruption and labeling other editors, you continuously defame my person and presume on my personal integrity. Please stop this.

No one is introducing anything new, I am simply trying to add content from the lede of the Serbo-Croatian article.

You omitt Montenegrin which is a constitutionaly sanctioned language of Montenegro and keep adding a Serbo-Croatian variant in the South-Slavic languages section even if that language is neither constitutional (in any country) not defined generally as a language, since it is a macrolanguage. sh - no longer exists as a language.

Hungarian and Albanian, as all other languages of nationalities in Yugoslavia were equallized as by the language policies of Yugoslavia with Serbian, Croatian, Slovene, Macedonian and with the defunct Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.

Imbris (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fresh start?

Ok, how about we start anew with this whole thing. There's no end in sight, and it seems to me that the only way we're ever going to be done with this is if we reset the discussion. Two things are essential, though, if we're going to do this (I'm assuming you agree to giving this a go).
(1) You need to stop viewing me with suspicion to such a degree, as that completely undermines all possibility of a proper consensus. I have a POV? Well, so do you. I think its safe to say most users have a "POV", its just a question of whether or not they remain objective while editing on Wiki. That's a whole different issue, and I shall certainly do my best to be as objective and "professional" as possible.
(2) Please, please, wait until discussions are over before you re-introduce your edit. You can demonstrate your changes here with no problem, and you probably realize we'll both likely get blocked for a period when somebody notices the revert-warring. It really won't make any difference who's version is on when we reach an agreement, and forgive me but I think its fair that since you started all this you be the one to temporarily give it a rest? (I'm probably deluding myself, but there you go...)
If its not too much to ask, can you list the proposed changes to the article point by point so that we may start discussing them separately? I also have to get to bed, so if you don't want to give this a fresh start (quite likely, I imagine) you can have your way for a few hours. Knock yourself out... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, I tried... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You have first introduced Serbo-Croatian in the South Slavic languages list and push for it really hard, you have also first introduced the division of South Slavic languages (to this article). Serbo-Croatian (also called Croato-Serbian) can only be listed where it was listed before you came along, and that is under the section Yugoslav anthem.

You are a troll, not an investigator, you act like you WP:OWN the article, and you haven't produced any significant source for the article, even tryed to misconcieve the reader by listing 1977 as the year of officiality. Sad to see Rjecina gone, he could explain it to you.

Your inspector like questions, like, why do you think this content should be listed or what emotions I think the reader will perceive after reading the article shows just how your mind thinks. You have big issues, my dear fellow.

We are not discussing about a title for the article named Serbo-Croatian language where BTW in the lede is the full name of the macrolanguage e.g. Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language(s).

Why didn't you have problems when it was phrased like this: [[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language]]?

In the English language, both common and expert the phrase Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language is also present, you should not be mistaken, it is present in about 10% cases

Your primary function on this wikipedia is disruption and labeling other editors, you continuously defame my person and presume on my personal integrity. Please stop this.

No one is introducing anything new, I am simply trying to add content from the lede of the Serbo-Croatian article.

You omitt Montenegrin which is a constitutionaly sanctioned language of Montenegro and keep adding a Serbo-Croatian variant in the South-Slavic languages section even if that language is neither constitutional (in any country) not defined generally as a language, since it is a macrolanguage. sh - no longer exists as a language.

Hungarian and Albanian, as all other languages of nationalities in Yugoslavia were equallized as by the language policies of Yugoslavia with Serbian, Croatian, Slovene, Macedonian and with the defunct Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.

Mr. DIREKTOR did not answer anything, not sourced anything he edits completely on the basis of his POV, he did not present any sources and keeps bickering about the dual phrasing, as if this is not present in the article itself.

Imbris (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sooo... you don't like me? I'm hurt. Now can we please talk bout your changes?! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean about your changes, no other macrolanguage (e.g. Church-Slavonic) has been listed in the South-Slavic Section of the article, so why should Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian when it is listed in the section Yugoslav anthem -- Imbris (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My changes? If I introduced Serbo-Croatian there, I don't even remember. When I introduced it, it was there for ages. Everything in this article was edited and introduced at one point. What I'm saying is that nobody contested the edit at the time. By your logic the definition of "new changes to the article" encompasses quite a bit. I ask you again to please show some good faith and leave the new contested edits you introduced recently out of the article for now while discussions are on. (I did introduce some unrelated uncontested organizational edits in the meantime, but they are not contested, are they?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I've had a lot of tough debates on Wiki, but I've never been told I'm "inquisitive like an inspector". You just hate my guts so you see every question I ask as a hostile act.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop misleading the content [[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian]] was present before i changed it slightly to [[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian]] or [[Croato-Serbian language|Croato-Serbian]] to show that the two names are of equall value. Then you started this petty edit-war to get away with completely POV phrasing. Note that both Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian lead to the same article. Ivan Štambuk supported that any phrasing is good if it lead to the same article named Serbo-Croatian language or Croato-Serbian language (in its lede).

Then you started including Serbo-Croatian under two subsections of the article, the one (where it was always present) is Yugoslav anthem section and the other (which you created) Slavic languages, South Slavic languages where it has not ever been present.

Now you insist I abandon my edits, while your should be spared.

This is not an option

Either both of our edits will be present or none

Stop misleading the general public about your kind nature and my bad nature, we are not here to discuss each other but the content, and the sources.

You have deleted the version in Montenegrin language even if that version is present for ages

You oppose the properly sourced Croatian and Serbian version from the Yugoslav anthem section, with what purpose?

You oppose the properly sourced Hungarian language version from the Yugoslav athem section, with what purpose?

You have even deleted the Croatian version from the times of ZAVNOH and still claim (with no sources whatsoever) that Croatian language did not exist in the times of Yugoslavia, Croatia was in the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia as the Federal State of Croatia in 1945, and Croatia was in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as the Socialist Republic of Croatia in 1990 when the Croatian language was most official and under its natural name of Croatian language.

Stop and discuss, if you have anything really to say, with sources please, and not with Srđan says, so and so.

Imbris (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much translations?

Seriously, what is this translated stuff even doing here? Bosnian? Montenegrin? We have "Croatian", "Croato-Serbian" and then "Croato-Serbian" in Cyrillic. They're significantly different to the original, really. Who cares about Polish or Turkish translations? Transwiki that elsewhere, to respective national Wikipedias, wikisource, wiktionary, wherever. We're killing the poor reader. Is this stuff even referenced? If you want a WP:30, this is crap, pardon my French. If I had enough time, I'd prone it myself. No such user (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris is making a joke of this article. He's on a crusade to prove Croatian was not unified into Serbo-Croatian, and no amount of nonsense will stop him. Bosnian is ok, its a recognized language, but Montenegrin!? I mean the language isn't even standardized, for goodness' sake. Serbian was never independent of Serbo-Croatian in the SFRY, and neither was Croatian. The two variants of Serbo-Croatian simply changed their names a few times. The Croatian variant never used Cyrillic, and he listed Hungarian and Albanian as official languages of the SFRY?!

The man is fiercely opposed to historical Yugoslavia and the old unification of the two languages. That's fine and dandy, I suppose, but now he's transferring his POV to the article. It also looks like he'll move on to other articles as well... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I will not engage in "discussions" with Mr. DIREKTOR, who is currently so busy in defaming my character

First. Have I ever said that the languages were named in the Constitution of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia? — No. I have not said that. What I have said is that the Constitution of the FPRY existed in the four different languages, Croatian, Macedonian, Serbian, and Slovenian. Also Mr. DIREKTOR deliberately speaks of SFRY in order to cloud the issues.

Croatian language was and is open to neologisms, with an excellent authors like Bogoslav Šulek. As for the standard language, it is in major connection with sociolinguistics.

As for the official languages of I should remind you of the Odluka o objavljivanju odluka i proglasa Antifašističkog vijeća narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije, njegovog Predsjedništva i Nacionalnog komiteta na srpskom, hrvatskom, slovenskom i makedonskom jeziku (»Službeni list Demokratske Federativne Jugoslavije«, br. 1/45, No. 10, stranica 5.) and of the sources listed below my contribution to this discussion.

As for the fact that languages were not listed in the Constitution of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (1946-01-31), I should refer you to its Article 65. Zakoni i drugi opći propisi Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije objavljuju se na jezicima narodnih republika. (See also the Article 13 and the Article 120.)

From 1970s the Official Gazette of the SFRY was also published in the Albanian language and the Hungarian language, see Odluka o početku izlaženja Službenog lista SFRJ na albanskom i mađarskom jeziku (»Službeni list Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije«, br. 51/70, No. 582, p 1216)

Mr DIREKTOR is simply wrong, not only because of the facts, but because his POV is blinding him.

Sources:

• Uz te svoje »preteče«, ovaj rječnik ima i svoju pretpovijest. Njegov je zametak nastao zapravo još u danima prvog desetljeća komunističke vlasti, kad je još (doduše uglavnom samo zato da bi se hrvatski narod dao lakše podjarmiti) postojala ustavna odredba o četirima službenim jezicima u Jugoslaviji; srpskom, hrvatskom, slovenskom i makedonskom, pa još nije bilo zabranjeno i govoriti hrvatski, nego su se, dapače, čak i sami Titovi govori s njegova socijalističkog metajezika u beogradskom tisku prevodili na srpski a u zagrebačkom na hrvatski. U to dakle prijelazno vrijeme ranog socijalizma u kojemu je kroatiziranje srpskih tekstova, dakle njihovo prevođenje na hrvatski, još bio zakonit posao, a ne kontrarevolucionarna rabota, radio sam profesionalno na uspoređivanju srpskih književnih tekstova s njemačkim i francuskim izvornicima i »prevodio« ih za hrvatske čitatelje. Pri tome sam bilježio sve leksičke, sintaktičke i stilističke osobitosti srpskoga jezika, s čvrstom nakanom da načinim neku vrstu priručnika za »čitanje s razumijevanjem« srpskih književnih djela, priručnika prijeko potrebna svakome govorniku hrvatskoga jezika koji bi se želio temeljitije pozabaviti kako suvremenom tako i starijom srpskom književnošću, za što je u prvom redu potrebno potpuno razumijevanje teksta koji se čita.
• Otkako Jugoslavija postoji, u njoj se nije ustalio trajniji i jedinstveniji koncept jezične politike, pa je povijest problema bitno diskontinuirana. Njen se diskontinuitet manifestira u ovih nekoliko varijacija: hrvatskosrpski kao jedinstven jezik ili ne, hrvatskosrpski kao zajednički jezik ili ne.
• Iako mi jezičnu i nacionalnu šarolikost Jugoslavije rado ističemo kao nešto posve iznimno, moramo odmah reći da to u odnosu na većinu evropskih zemalja nije, osim eventualno po broju različitih etničkih i jezičkih skupina, ništa specifično. No posve je jedinstven status etničkih i jezičnih skupina u Jugoslaviji u pogledu upotrebe svoga jezika, i općenito njegovanja kulturne, jezične i nacionalne posebnosti; ovom modelu u jezičnoj politici, kojemu je osnovna načela dao AVNOJ, približuju se samo Švicarska, i donekle SSSR. Naime, za Jugoslaviju je karakteristično da nema jednog državnog i nadnacionalnog jezika, koji bi važio na cijelom teritoriju, a da osim osnovnih nacija (južni Slaveni osim Bugara) i svaka druga etnička i jezična skupina, koja to želi, ima puno pravo i slobodu na upotrebu jezika u gotovo svim sferama javnog života (ali ne npr. za službeni saobraćaj u JNA), tj. da na svom jeziku, ili na varijanti svoga jezika, organizira sve stupnjeve škola, izdaje novine, časopise i knjige, da se svojim jezikom služi u lokalnoj administraciji itd. Iako u novije doba i u drugim zemljama, barem načelno, zapažamo slične razvojne tendencije, do danas nijedna zemlja nije dosegla razinu jugoslavenske jezične politike ni u pogledu pravnih normi ni u pogledu prakse. Jugoslavija zauzima posebno mjesto na jezičnoj karti Evrope, ne samo po broju i raznorodnosti etničkih i jezičnih skupina neko i po upotrebi jezika narodnosti u najrazličitijim sferama života.
• Poznate su i često citirane odredbe Avnoja i Ustava FNRJ, gdje se navode četiri jezika, među njima srpski i hrvatski.
• »Termin hrvatskosrpski/srpskohrvatski za Hrvatsku je u 45 godina druge Jugoslavije kao ustavna kategorija važio devet godina, od Ustava FNRJ 1963. do amandmanā na Ustav SR Hrvatske u ožujku 1972, sankcioniranih Ustavom iz 1974, odredbom da su u SRH “autentični tekstovi saveznih zakona i drugih saveznih općih akata (...) na hrvatskom književnom jeziku, latinicom” « (Matković, 2006, 204)

I'm "defaming your character"?! LoL, did you see your posts!? They all start with "You", and they all tell me how much I suck. I'm "defaming" you? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are portraying your opinions about what I supposedly think, and in a way that is derogatory and defamatory. I have tryed to assume good faith, addressed you constantly as Mr. DIREKTOR and valued your contributions, like the re-positioning of languages to West, South and East Slavic. Your contribution at that srbosjek issue is also noted quite favourably by me. So stop playing a victim here, start discussing issues. -- Imbris (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

One at a time

Here are the issues, lets tackle them one at a time.

Name of the "unified language"

(Reply to your post above)The names did have "equal value" in Yugoslavia, but not in English. We are talking two names of one language (with two variants, but its still one language and one language only). These two names are:

• "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language". That's the full official name of the language, and that's the name you've been using. You may believe you're listing two names, but that is a mistake: "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" is one name, the full official name of one language (with two variants). It is never used in English. Not on Wikipedia, not anywhere. It has 266 hits on Google [4]. (Just to be clear "Croato-Serbian" has a grand total of 3,310 hits on Google. [5])
• "Serbo-Croatian language". That's the by far most common name of this language in the English-speaking community. It is used everywhere. Both on Wikipedia and everywhere else. It has 2,430,000 hits on Google. [6]

At the risk of being "inspector-like", I must ask you to please explain how do you justify using the name with 240 hits (or at best 3,310 hits) against one with two-and-a-half million hits? Are you trying to defend the Croatian variant's (quote) "equality"? I may be wrong, but that's how it looks to me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer to DIREKTOR

In order for the better understanding of a bystander, we are here not discussing the renaming of the article Serbo-Croatian language, statistics cannot apply.

The article on that "language" exists and has these wikilinks, all available for a user to use:

• Serbo-Croatian
• Croato-Serbian
• Serbo-Croatian language
• Croato-Serbian language
• Croatian or Serbian language
• Serbian or Croatian language
• Etc.

The Internet can be used as a tool, but up to a point, statistics also, and those infamous Google search results can be used in the context of determining the title of a particular article. Not here, where we discuss whether or not we should list besides the Serbo-Croatian the Croato-Serbian name in a phrase that goes like this:

• Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian

Google books places a different light on the data

• 678 hits for Croato-Serbian
• 6760 hits for Serbo-Croatian

This reads something like 10% of those authors that mention Croato-Serbian naturally in the context of Serbo-Croatian.

From looking at what books, papers and such publications can be found in those sources, seems that the term Serbo-Croatian was used predominantly in some dictionaries (sponsored by the state) and that we have a great number of scientific (linguistics) papers that deal with the language and use just the phrase:

• Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian

And one can find English authors that describe: "The Serbs refer to the joint language as 'Serbo-Croatian', the Croats call it 'Croato-Serbian'"

• 628 hits for Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian is a good place to start our search for the sources that show that even if this is a minority view it should be respected and presented accordingly.

This is why the Serbo-Croatian is before Croato-Serbian and even portrayed like this:

• Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian in the article Hey, Slavs

Mr. DIREKTOR is obviously not a inclusionist but a rigid statistician (I hope that he would specialize in public health and go to work in Africa) ;-)

Mr. DIREKTOR should read: Undue weight, Croato-Serbian has every right to be used when we are dealing with specific issues, which include the joint heritage of Yugoslavia.

Mr. DIREKTOR should also look at the Template:Slavic languages (on this and other related issues)

Imbris (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No response by DIREKTOR. Now he is insisting that this discussion should be at Talk:Serbo-Croatian language. Well, this is not the problem for the article on that macrolanguage (under the code hbs), but the problem on this article. There are no serious problems with the SC article at this particular moment. Other than the fact that Central South Slavic diasystem article should exist separately from the SC article. DIREKTOR should have a great deal of trouble setting up a RfC at the SC article, because its content is not involved with the right of every user to use whatever wikilink (leading to the SC article) that he or she wanted. -- Imbris (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talking to your "general auditorium" I see... I refuse to discuss while these edits are being pushed without consensus. I will not address the issues until the revert-war is stopped. We have to agree to some kind of "ceasefire" first and finally stop editing the article while discussion is on. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of the Montenegrin language

The Montenegrin language is not a standardized language. It is not recognized internationally, and has no ISO designation. It is mentioned virtually nowhere throughout Wikipedia, other than its own article. Should its entry be excluded here as well on the basis that the we really have no idea what grammar and wording adheres to this language's (non-existing) standards? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Montenegrin is still a virtual "language" in production. It has no ISO code, no normative grammar/dictionary/orthography. For all the practical purposes it can be treated as standard Ijekavian Serbian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Virtual language or not, it is official language in the constitution of Montenegro, and the reason for no ISO is the diversity between two sides of how should the language be standardized, but until that, it still uses the standard of Serbo-Croatian which doesn't mean it is a dialect of Serbian. Rave92^(talk) 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be in the constitution of Montenegro, but this article has nothing to do with Montenegro. We're talking about the language itself, not the Republic of Montenegro. If the language is a virtual language (as you've agreed) it is not standardized, if its not standardized, we don't know what it is. If we don't know what the standard Montenegrin language is, we can't really use it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I didn't agree, I just said it in the way virtual or not, the fact is that it is the only official language (beside "in official use" which doesn't have any meaning) in Montenegro, a country which was a part of Yugoslavia and it was also their anthem and it deserves to have it own translation when we can have some other languages like Russian etc... And also take an example of section for Montenegrin language at the University in Niksic. They have classes and work with the old Yugoslavian standard. So if they can, I think we can use it here, it's not like it translation will be changed after the final standard :).Rave92^(talk) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're ignoring my point. This is not about Montenegro, or what it "deserves". Its a simple matter: how can we use a language that does not have a standardized form?? Until its standardized its doesn't really exist, it exists in name not in form ("virtually"), it isn't "formulated". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Standard language has nothing to do with the appearing of the words Montenegrin language in this article. We have a native speaker, Rave92 who rightfully thinks that the language will not change any of the words of the song named Hej Sloveni. Who are DIREKTOR and Ivan Štambuk to demand that Montenegrin would be a banned language on this wiki. They are not native speakers of that language, and even if they knew something about that language or the text of the song in that language, any mistake can be easily repaired.

But the oppression of Montenegrins who use Montenegrin language should be seen through as an attempt to alienate Montenegrins from editing this wiki, because they are subject of constant harrasment and defamation of their homeland, their government and their native language (each an every nation has a right on their maternal language)

The two users are trying to scare Rave92 to allow the continuation of the domination of certain aspects of historical constructs, like the SC "macrolanguage" in order to kling as much as they can with the illusion of (better said delusions) of unified nation called Yugoslavs.

Imbris (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Montenegrin language" except in the heads of some Montenegrin nationalists who are too proud to call themselves "Serbs" (the usual Balkan identity crisis). Montenegrin kids still (AFAIK) in schools learn grammar and orthography from books that have a title "Serbian language", Montenegrin press and mass media use standard Ijekavian Serbian. Efforts by Montenegrin nationalist to standardize a language that will have some Montenegrin-specific traits (2 new letters of alphabets, Montenegrin-specific lexis etc.) have not been fruitful so far. For a language to "exist", there has to be more to it than simply a bunch of personae claiming to "speak it". No grammars, dictionaries, orthography books, school curriculum - it doesn't exist. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fight the oppression! Don't give in to the fear! :P What a colorful world you live in. Anywayz, ignoring the irrelevant stuff... the issue is obviously not the inclusion of the words "Montenegrin language", but the words in that language. A language that, again, has no standard formulation, no international recognition, no grammar, and only a name. When that language gets standardized (hopefully soon), I'll be the first to introduce it in equal status. How about addressing the other guy's point for once, Imbris? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ivan, if Montenegrin doesn't exist, neither does Croatian. I can't believe that Croats are talking here about "nationalism", you even created a new words just so it will be different from Serbian. You have no right to tell to anyone if their language exist or not. Imbris thanks for the support. Rave92^(talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unlike "Montenegrin language", Croatian is fully established as a modern standard language, having its own grammars, dictionaries, orthography books and literary tradition. Of course, "Croatian language" is but a mere sociolinguistic creation: at the dialectal and genetic level, taking also Bosnian and Serbian into account, there is really only one language (Neoštokavian dialect). It all depends on the perspective of how you define a "language".

Coinage of new words (neologisms) has been a part of Croatian literary tradition for centuries (from Kašić along Šulek to Krleža), and has nothing to do with "differing from Serbian", except in the brief period of the first decade of 1990s (Tuđman's dictatorship) and the unfortunate fascist period of 1941-45. You'd be surprised to find out how many words used today by Serbs and Montengrins are a result of some scholar's mental effort to invent new words, not being incorporated into literary idiom from narodni govor ^_^

Whether a language exists or not is not a matter of somebody's opinion. For a Montenegrin language to exist as a codified variety of Neoštokavian/Serbo-Croatian (with it's own peculiar features), it must have some kind of normative, codifying literature (officially published grammars, orthography books, dictionaries..enforced by the media and academy). Bosnian got those really fast (in a few years), but Montenegrin is still at its inception (there seems to be a lot of political will, but not enough scholarly, at least not since Nikčević's passing). For a language to exist on paper, there must be some kind of standard. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I dreaming or are you personifying all Croats, and giving them form of Ivan Štambuk and myself?! What else is there to say? Montenegrin is not a language in anything but name. Not yet unfortunately. Hopefully soon it will be. You should also notice that Imbris is quite obviously by far and without competition the most nationalistic Croat editing this talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't really see what's the point of the discussion. It is true that the term "Croato-Serbian" existed if that's the problem (sorry I didn't read all). He is right. I mean, I think I have dictionary on which says "Croato-Serbian" from 70's which was published in Zagreb :/. Rave92^(talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... its a bit more complicated. "Croato-Serbian" is an alternative name for the language known in English primarily as the "Serbo-Croatian language". The alternative name, "Croato-Serbian", is most commonly used when referring to the Croatian variant of the two variants Serbo-Croatian has, however in English usage it is virtually non-existent. Its still the same language. (I think I may have the same dictionary :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha quite possible about having the same dictionary, but here is an example of what I am talking about: http://i.ebayimg.com/17/!BRH-GlgBWk~$(KGrHgoOKj8EjlLmVnm)BJ8ZyYGL9g~~_1.JPG . Rave92^(talk) 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, mine's all yellow. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So is mine but I am saying that term Croato-Serbian was known in English. Rave92^(talk) 09:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well considering that it has 3,000 hits on Google compared to 2,500,000 of "Serbo-Croatian", I'd say there is no real competition. That dictionary itself is Yugoslav, so I don't see how it factors in your statement... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

Hi guys, I saw the request for some informal mediation on this article so thought I'd come give you guys a hand. Firstly, just so you know, I know nothing about the anthem or any of the countries/languages involved. If you guys are happy for some informal mediation please sign your name below & outline briefly your viewpoint-what the issue is & what you would like to see in an ideal world. In order to do this, we are going to need everyone to agree not to edit the article when the discussion is taking place-otherwise we can get it protected. It's been protected to make everything easier. Let's get started! Thanks. Dotty••|^TALK 14:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)PS. I may organise people's comments to make it easier for me-don't worry I won't change what you say at all.

• Comment: This is out of procedure, 3O, then RfC, and then some informal mediation. In my opinion DIREKTOR is calling his troops to vote his POV into "law". -- Imbris (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Stambuk

• Confer Hey,_Slavs#South_Slavic_languages. Do you, as a total ignorant and an outsider, see any difference (and hence reason to keep the columns) between the "Croatian variant of Serbo Croatian" and "Croatian" columns, and also between the "Serbian variant of Serbo-Croatian" and "Serbian (Latin script)" columns? Now, according to Imbris, we are supposed to keep them because they represent "different languages"... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR

• First off, thanks for taking the time to get involved in this mess. I can guarantee it wont be easy, but getting involved in such conflicts does credit to any Wikipedian :). As I mentioned before, there's a lot that's in dispute. In an ideal world I'd like to see the article restored to its state before User:Imbris introduced his disputed changes (hopefully without him pushing his edits with constant edit-warring). In detail, that means I'd like to see:
  • the most common name for the Serbo-Croatian language (i.e. "Serbo-Croatian") used everywhere except its article's lead, per my understanding of the MoS. Usage of the other various names and variations thereof will unavoidably lead to confusion with the average enWikipedia reader. Moreover, the usage of an alternative name is, in this case and most others, motivated primarily by petty Croatian nationalist tendencies (I'm Croatian as well) trying to emphasize the "Croatness" of the language by using the term "Croato-Serbian language" which places "Croato-" (i.e. "Croatian") to the front of the name. Completely disregarding the alternative term's obscurity and the needless confusion it may well create.
  • I'd like to see the unstandardized, incomplete, controversial, and unrecognized Montenegrin language entry removed. Not because I have something "against" Montengrins and/or their independence and language, but simply because that language is incomplete, unrecognized (a "work-in-progress") and its existence and standardization is a subject of much controversy even in the Republic of Montenegro itself. Insistence on the inclusion of that language is, in my opinion, based only on the nationalist tendencies of the opposing party, which believes that its removal is somehow "pro-Yugoslavia".
  • The "Yugoslav anthem" section is also being clogged by the listing of languages that simply were not official in Yugoslavia. I'd like to see that stopped. The claim that the Republic of Yugoslavia had no less than seven(!) "official languages" is ludicrous at best.
  • Since the "Slavic languages" section includes all version of this song in historic and present-day Slavic languages, I'd like to see the Serbo-Croatian language version included there as well. It is arguably the most significant version of the song, as it served as the Yugoslav anthem. It is being consistently removed, again due to the idea that its inclusion in that particular section somehow "resurrects" that language.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Imbris' comments

I hope that Dotty would search through the history of the article because he/she would see that it is DIREKTOR who added the Serbo-Croatian twice:

• Introduction:
• In the Yugoslav anthem section of the article (where he expanded it beyond comprehension to the Croatian variant in Ijekavian "pronunciations" and Serbian variant in Ekavian "pronunciations" forgetting the fact that Serbian variant also uses Ijekavian, and that both scripts were equalized [at one time in the history of the Central South Slavic diasystem], and the fact that peoples in easternmost part of Slavonia use(d) Ekavian "pronunciations", etc., etc.)
• In the South Slavic languages section of the article, where it was not included before. BTW in the Template:Slavic languages it was Ivan Štambuk who placed the Serbo-Croatian among "Other" Slavic languages, even if certain international institutions regard it as a macrolanguage.
• Mr. DIREKTOR then added Macedonian and Slovene language to the Yugoslav anthem section, denying the same courtesy to Croatian, and to Serbian language.
• Conclusion of this part of the discussion would be:
  • (1) stop listing texts in the Yugoslav anthem section in those languages that are listed in either Slavic languages section (nest), or in the Other languages section.
  • (2) create Slavic languages, Other where Serbo-Croatian should be listed.
  • (3) arrange the lede (where the titles of the anthem are listed in bold) in a fashion similar to those of the Slavic languages and Other languages section.
• Delete as well as the anthem of the World War II Slovak Republic since the section Tiso's Slovakia says otherwise.
  • Formating of the table should be as before – 100% and the text should be grouped per three or maximum four in a "row"
  • In the lede the titles in various languages should not be mixed, the titles should be arranged either by alphabet (names of the languages) or by the groups, west, south, east, other (containing Serbo-Croatian). The current way of sorting is biased, without reliable sources to support it and frankly defamatory towards the Bosniak language, the Croatian language, and also the Serbian language.
• On the dual name. First of all we are not speaking about the title of the article named – the Serbo-Croatian language. All of the versions of the name of that article have its support, all lead to that article and Ivan Štambuk at one point said this is a fine enough solution.
• As I explained here, and as can be seen at Talk:Bosnian language, the users, Mr. DIREKTOR and Mr. Ivan Štambuk are trying to accomplish different things in the same sphere of thought. They propagate including the alternative name of the Bosnian language (in the article about it), even if that name is used by a smaller portion of the World. The name they are trying to include is the Bosniak language. But no, in this and other articles they place a virtually dead language in front of all other living languages, they deny that in times before the Agreement of Novi Sad there were four main "official" South Slavic languages in Yugoslavia (except Bulgarian), and they deny the common usage of any phrasing other than Serbo-Croatian or even Serbo-Croat.
• I advocate that in articles that deal with the content specific to Croatia, which relates also with former SFR Yugoslavia (Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and Democratic Federal Yugoslavia also) we can use Croatian or Serbian language or Croato-Serbian language, where we deal with the content specific to Serbia (in times of SFRY) we use Serbo-Croatian language or Serbian or Croatian language, when we deal with the content specific to Montenegro we should use Serbo-Croat (up to 1974, latter in Montenegro the language was not officially named), and when we deal with the content specific to Bosnia and Herzegovina (all in times of SFRY) we use Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.
• In cases where we deal with a multitude of spheres, and with content that is not specific, but a generally Yugoslavian content, we should acknowledge the use of:
  • Serbo-Croatian (also called Croato-Serbian language)
  • Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian
  • Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian
  • Serbian or Croatian/Croatian or Serbian
• Why?
  • Because we have enough sources that show that the Croato-Serbian language is used in the English language and listing that content is not confusing anybody. I will not play games of speculating why Mr. DIREKTOR is willing to drag this issue as if it is controversial. With the addition of content like (also called Croato-Serbian language) we do not confuse but clarify. No one deleted Serbo-Croatian language from usage, but added content that clarify on the historical policy accepted by a certain number of English authors. This is why the Serbo-Croatian is listed before the addition.
• On the Montenegrin language:
  • There are plenty of languages in the World that are not completely standardized, the English language, whether you believe it or not; is not completely standardized. This has no bearing of the usage of the name of the language. The language might have only speakers, the language could have been only written. The Etruscan civilization had a language; we do not know exactly what every "word" of it means, but we list it, we describe what we know.
  • First of all there is no Republic of Yugoslavia; nor has ever been (to Mr. DIREKTOR), second the Republic of Montenegro is constitutionally no longer called this way, but only Montenegro. We have a certain number of native speakers of the language called the Montenegrin language, we must WP:AGF when Rave92 tells us that he is a native speaker, and that he believes that the words of the song Hej Sloveni would not change from the times when it was official in the Socialist Republic of Montenegro (the last Constitution of the SR Montenegro did not name the official language)
  • Mr. DIREKTOR is putting pressure on Montenegrin language for the sole benefit of driving Rave92 from this topic, and thus from supporting a position different from Mr. DIREKTOR. Mr. DIREKTOR cannot deny users who speak Montenegrin, to include the Montenegrin language from any list that pertains to that language.
• Languages of national minorities:
  • In the Constitution of the FPRY and latter SFRY, as well as in the Amendments to those former constitutional acts, the languages of national minorities in Yugoslavia were equal with those of South Slavic nations of Yugoslavia (except Bulgarians, who were considered a national minority). DIREKTOR should known that, so listing the name of the anthem in all those languages should be done in the Yugoslav anthem section.
• Mr. DIREKTOR is wrong, the texts of the anthem are listed in their historical versions of the same West, South and East Slavic languages. Serbo-Croatian is deprecated as a language, considered a virtual macrolanguage (a term vaguely described in the General Linguistics), it belongs in the South Slavic languages, Other section. See diff
• @Ivan Štambuk: Concluding on the basis of the words in this song that Croatian, and also, Serbian texts should be deleted to make "room" for the Croato-Serbian is a completely null and void POV. There is no longer any state that use Serbo-Croatian. Croats and Serbs had a choice of using just words of the Croatian literary language, or just words of the Serbian literary language, the orthography manuals of the 1960 contained doublets, and multifaceted words, nothing was strict (for the personal usage, fine literature (when authors issued their words paid by themselves)).
  • The historical failure of the Serbo-Croatian language warrants us to list it last, to use its full double/dual name and even not to portray the text in SC but rather say, see Croatian, and also, see Serbian text.

Imbris (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy... I need to skip the lectures tomorrow if I'm going to read, decipher, and weed out the irrelevant stuff from all this... I asked you to please be briefer and to pay more attention to your grammar. You can cut down your posts easily by keeping only to the stuff that's relevant to the subject of discussion (that probably means you should stop devoting so much of your post to discrediting me personally as an editor). Can you also try and organize your posts better? I have no idea what you're trying to say most of the time. (I'm being sincere, I'm not saying this to annoy you: please work on your posts a bit more.)

P.S. You don't have to address me as "Mister DIREKTOR", "DIR" is fine :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, can you briefly (in several points) describe what exactly is that you advocate in this article? How should the introductory paragraph noting the name of anthem look like with respect to various (ex-)Serbo-Croatian languages, and which columns in the section on South Slavic languages' version of the anthem should be kept, and under what name? Extensive historical and political perspective that we have abundantly already discussed elsewhere simply obscures the issue altogether (I'm not even sure what the issue is). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Sorry, if you can't get your point through in one or two paragraphs, I can't be bothered to read those walls of text. I really don't have enough time to read that, let alone respond to that amount of hand-waving, where the subject changes in every sentence. For what I gathered, you think that some nations in Wikipedia are suppressed because we didn't mention their Holy Name of the Oh So Distinctive Their Own Language, to which I replied that we miss Chinese translation indeed. These days we have many Chinese immigrants in all Ex-Yu republics and they ought to understand the lyrics of the former anthem, or otherwise they would feel oppressed. Or did I miss something? Oh, yes, that you're edit warring to make sure your point -- whatever it is -- gets in the article. No such user (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not so much that the edit is long, its the lack of organization and good grammar ("to use its full double/dual name and even not to portray the text in SC but rather say, see Croatian, and also, see Serbian text...").

---

(unindent)Well I tell you what-you know how to confuse someone who doesn't know about all this! With regards to the matter at hand-I think I hear what you are saying Imbris-but can I ask you to briefly say what you would like changed about this article-we can then look at each individual thing you want changed & work something out. Thanks! Dotty••|☎ 09:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• The intro should look something like this. Providing that both names should be mentioned "Serbo-Croatian (and also called Croato-Serbian", I would agree to this macrolanguage (of today) to be listed according to the alphabet, by the names of languages in that intro-list.
• Yugoslav anthem section should be without texts of the song
• Because this is primarly the anthem of Panslavic movement, there is nothing strange in allowing all the texts of that song in all living Slavic languages to be present. Omitting one of those languages because of some simmilarity would be playing favourites with what text should stay.
• All of the central South Slavic languages, that Ivan Štambuk speak of, are obscure in the English speaking world, to the point of insignificant, so picking favourites would be without base in any real data or sources.
• If there is a need to list Serbo-Croatian it should be listed as Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian, when we speak of certain symbols, and Yugoslavian topics shared to a point that they are not specifically Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian and Herzegovinian, Montenegrin, Serbian (Kosovac, Vojvodinian), Kosovar, or Macedonian.
• For a language to exist, we do not need any manuals, Ivan Štambuk is disrespectfull toward Montenegrins and their Montenegrin language on basis of his quasi-scientific POV. His opinion should not be regarded as proven, there are many languages that have no written standard, even languages that have not been written with a single word in any script (those languages have only spoken standard)

Imbris (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Going, going, OK?

OK. This is what I think the basic dispute is as far as I understand it-it's very likely to be wrong!

• Serbo-Croatian vs Croato-Serbian-Imbris wants the second one mentioned everywhere the first is mentioned.
• The official language of Yugoslavia-can anybody clarify-What was the official language of Yugoslavia-The only language that should be under the Yugoslav section is the official language at the time & the English translation.
• The anthem then became Serbia & Montenegro's correct?-what was the official language at the time of that country?-again, that's the only one that should be there in my opinion.
• Other languages-if you want translations of other languages-please put it down & give some reasons as to why you want it.

I think we want to avoid having 4 million different translations for the song & try & condense it a bit. This is my brief overview of some points-please feel free to correct me on any if I've misunderstood! Thanks! Please try & ensure your points are concise & to the point! Dotty••|☎ 07:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC) PS. Renaissancee has volunteered to help, wanting to get some experience mediating so hopefully he'll pop in & give us his thoughts!

Point-by-point:

• I think that the Imbris's request, if you summarized the essence well, is utterly absurd. We don't write "yogurt (yoghurt)" or "colour (color)" at every occurrence to maintain the political correctness. We aim to be correct and reader-friendly but not necessarily politically correct, esp. if it comes on the expense of first two. We can mention "Serbo-Croatian (Croato-Serbian)" first time, possibly once more if we're to include both variants (see my point #3) but everything more is just ugly.
• For what I know, there wasn't really a notion of official language in SFRY. Even if it were, it probably gradually changed, in the sense that definition was moved from federal to republic level (i.e. each republic defined it in its own way, akin to U.S. States). If we had to define them, these were Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian, Macedonian and Slovenian. The first one had two equal variants, "western" (Croatian) and "eastern" (Serbian). Minority languages (Albanian, Hungarian, Slovak etc.) were "equal" in Serbian provinces but not on the federal level.
• Let's put this in the following way: suppose there is a common song in English-speaking world, among Brits, Americans and Aussies. Naturally, each variation will have minor spelling variances, such as color/colour, -ise/-ize etc. For example, spelling in Serbia is "živeće", in Croatia "živjet će" and in Bosnia & Montenegro "živjeće". I'm not sure if those variances were even officially sanctioned, but even if they did, why should we record every combination of these? Why should English reader care? Why should we have "post-SFRY" variants, practically identical to previous versions, when the song is not an anybody's anthem anymore?
• In my opinion, we should leave only 3 translations (Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Slovenian), possibly 4 ("western" and "eastern" variant of Serbo-Croatian). Everything else should go to Wikisource. In addition, the early WWII variants may be included, to see the historical development. Everything else should go out as PC-cruft. No such user (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a a matter of "political correctness". The name of the language in English is "Serbo-Croatian" (2,500,000 hits). The name User:Imbris is insisting on ("Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language") has cca. 250 hits. The alternate name is being pushed here (i.e. outside its main article) solely due to nationalist POV, which would not be "appeased" no matter what concessions we make. Even though I know from experience this will not be enough for User:Imbris, I'm also ok with mentioning the alternate name in the lead only. I do not think any further mention would be necessary, and I would find it quite distasteful to make any further alterations solely for the purpose of pleasing one User's POV, which would not be satisfied in any case.
• Agreed with Dottydotdot and No such user, Serbo-Croatian (x2, Croatian + Serbian variant of the language), Slovene, Macedonian. These are the only languages that supersede the Republic borders and reach federal level. "Croatian" and "Serbian", even if they were called that, were never standardized in the SFR Yugoslavia and were considered variants of the Serbo-Croatian language. To list them is pure POV beyond belief. An effort to rewrite history into a version which keeps the Croatian language alive throughout the 20th century.
• Montenegrin isn't a "living language". Its not yet "come to life", as it were. When it does, you may rest assured noone will object to its introduction in the text.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what are people's views on:

• a)At the beginning, making clear it can be Croato-Serbian as well & then referring to it as Serbo-Croation for the rest of the article?
• b)Keeping Serbo-Croation, Macedonian & Slovenian as suggested by No such user & removing the rest?
• c)Are there any others you feel need to be in there?

Obviously, this is mainly directed as a question towards Imbris. Dotty••|☎ 10:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) I have not demanded that everywhere Serbo-Croatian is mentioned we must mention Croato-Serbian, I have expressed concerns over this article and simmilar articles. The phrase Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian is perfectly suited for such articles as articles on symbols and on issues that are in general Yugoslavian.

(2) I hope that in the list of the title of the former anthem and Panslavic song, all languages should remain.

(3) As Yugoslavia never had an official language, we should use modern languages, not historical and defunct Serbo-Croatian language (which was artificially composed of the Croatian language and the Serbian language)

(4) we might link all the versions to like this [[:bs:Hej Slaveni|Hej Slaveni]], make a table of some sort, and thus not list any version, other than historic versions in Czech, Slovakian, Polish and WWII Croatian.

(5) Insisting of Serbo-Croatian, Slovene and Macedonian is a false interpretation of Mr. DIREKTOR who disregards constitutional acts of AVNOJ which guaranteed four South Slavic languages (except Bulgarian) the right of existence, no matter of his delusions about standard languages, English is not completely standardized, there are languages in Africa which by his definition do not merit. etc.

(6) In those special cases where a language doesn't have its wikipedia, we should list the article on this wikipedia that is dedicated to that language, namely Montenegrin language.

(7) In that table we should keep the division that is used in the template on Slavic languages, which lists separately West, South and East Slavic languages, as well as a separate Other Slavic languages.

(8) Even the English translation should be on wikisource.

Imbris (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK, so as you say you have not demanded that everywhere Serbo-Croatian is mentioned, we mention Croato-Serbian, I can assume that we will make clear that it can be called either at the beginning of the lead & then refer to it as Serbo-Croation.
• Although it looks like Imbris does not want to budge, to me, it would seem that only the languages mainly spoken at the time should be in the article-which in this case would seem to be Serbo-Croation(with it's split). Yes, it is historical, but in the end, this is an historical anthem. Thoughts?
• With regards to Montenegro-disregarding the dispute over whether it's a proper language, in essence it's a new country & therefore, although the Hey Slavs anthem may be slightly related to them because they are Slavs, it was never & is not an official/semi-official anthem of theirs, so I can see no need to have it in there-is that right?

We need to remember that it's likely we aren't going to end up with a solution perfect for everyone, but we need to try & build some consensus if possible. Thoughts on my points? Dotty••|☎ 19:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) In this article, it should be everywhere if we are to assume that you advocate that in SFRY there were official languages, because there weren't any official language in SFRY. There were official languages in the socialist republics, but SR Montenegro hadn't declared the official language in their Constitution of 1974.

(2) None version other than in English language should be present, because we will never agree on the fact that there were at least four South Slavic languages (except Bulgarian) that were used in the times of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia ended in 1991, by that time most republics declared their national language as official.

(3) There weren't in fact any singular Serbo-Croatian language, ever in former Yugoslavia, except in the military.

(4) The song was anthem of the SFRY from 1988 to 1991 (officialy) then it was anthem of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which officialy had Serbian language (both Ekavian and Ijekavian, both scripts) as official., then it was the anthem of Serbia and Montenegro (which succeded only the FRY, not the SFRY). So the matter is very complex, to say we shall write Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Slovene.

(5) The easiest way to solve this mess is to write only in English language, that the translation to English is the only one that should be included and that all other should be outsourced to wikipedias, wikisources, etc.

(6) Only the original Czech and Slovak should remain, as well the historical version of the song from the times of the WWII (in Croatian), and the last official text in Serbian (it was official in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) + Slovene pre-WWI text of course

(7) The song never had been published as having official text in the times of FPRY/SFRY, the anthem was only named in 1977 as temporary and again only named in 1988 (listed by name) but this time in the Constitution, the text was never issued officially.

Imbris (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'm having trouble understanding your posts again, please pay more attention to the grammar. I'll be blunt: but your posts, when hasty, are barely comprehensible.

• (1) That's your opinion. No, it shouldn't be everywhere because it is unnecessary, obscure, and POV.
• (2) Your proposal makes little sense, and we all know beforehand that you won't agree to anything. I can't see how you figure "forcing" people into letting you have your way by threatening to "never agree" will work for your benefit. Official languages of the six constituent republics of the Yugoslav federation: #1 SR Bosnia and Herzegovina - Serbo-Croatian (both variants), #2 SR Croatia - Serbo-Croatian (Croatian variant), 3# SR Serbia - Serbo-Croatian (Serbian variant), 4# SR Montenegro - Serbo-Croatian (Serbian variant), #5 SR Slovenia - Slovene language, #6 SR Macedonia - Macedonian language. That makes three: Serbo-Croatian in four republics, Macedonian and Slovene in one each. No standardized Croatian or Serbian language, no Hungarian and no Albanian on the federal level. Your insistence on including four more imaginary languages (making the total seven!) is absurd, and only makes sense if one assumes you're acting out of POV (trying to prove Croatian was somehow "official" and in existence).
• (3) That's just nonsense. It was one language with two variants. The military used the Serbian variant of this same language predominantly, which caused controversies.
• (4) Further nonsense... A simply wrong statement, most of it. It was the anthem for more than three years... more like 46 years.
• (5) Easiest for you, because you'd rather have the whole article stripped to nothing than entertain the notion that you may be wrong.
• (6) Czech, Slovak? What?
• (7) Legal nitpicking. It was used all the way from 1945 to 1991.

Just an opinion: User:Imbris has never, and will never, budge on any issue. He will never agree to let the other guy have his way in even the slightest detail. He will likely continue the edit-war in some capacity after all this unless the conclusion of this discussion is comprehensive and binding in some way. Forgive my prophetic digression, and lets hope reverse psychology does its part... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading the arguments, it would appear, as a neutral observer, Imbris, you are going to need to start agreeing with the points here. Unfortunately for you, the points made against yours are the much more functional & neutral than yours. If you can't agree with anything & constantly try to push your view, we won't get anywhere & then the issue will need to go to a higher authority. The point of informal mediation is that it's informal, I cannot impose a solution on you, but if we can't come to a solution, then you will need to take this to somebody who can & they are very likely to be saying the same thing as me, which won't get you anywhere. Please try & agree with some of the points. Thanks! Dotty••|☎ 07:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok... looks like we lost User:Imbris. "Fading out" of a losing debate is his trademark. There's a possibility he'll wait until all this blows over and then try to reintroduce his edits. (I'd hate to have to do all this again...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left him a message on his talkpage, so we'll give him a few more days, otherwise we'll continue without him. Dotty••|☎ 10:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

• (1) I can agree with No such user that the dual name should be mentioned only twice (in this article). But using only the Serbo-Croatian text (playing favourites) against using at least Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian – this is highly POV and biased. The dual name should be mentioned once in the lede and the second time under the Yugoslav anthem section
• (2) I did not say that I will never agree, but that we are going to never agree (on the four languages). Also, I said that I will definitely not agree to your insisting that Serbo-Croatian would be placed between bos and hrv (or in some other controversial fashion). I will agree to the alphabetical order or the order of Template:Slavic languages.
  • (2a) Please do not misinform: SR Bosnia and Herzegovina formally styled the official language (as every other socialist republic, in the Constitution (very formal and legal text, that by your approach should be used when it suits you, otherwise it is legal nitpicking), so #1 Bosnia and Herzegovina used Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian (not Serbo-Croatian both variants what you misconstrued), #2 SR Croatia used the Croatian literary language (defined by two separate articles in the constitution – the Article 138 and the Article 293, + the fact that SR Croatia never used Serbo-Croatian in its Constitution), #3 SR Serbia did use Serbo-Croatian all the way up to 2006, officially, but what is the factual condition, the real fact is that in Serbia they always used just Serbian language, (sometimes calling it Serbo-Croatian, but it was just a formal name), #4 SR Montenegro in the 1974–Constitution did not name their official language, not by any name, they just proclaimed that a one exists, #5 SR Slovenia had Slovene language but up to 1990 the pupils and students had a subject called – Serbo-Croatian. #6 SR Macedonia used the Macedonian language. Your discussion is led to show that there were only one unitary South Slavic language (except the Slovene and Macedonian), this can not be proven, and this is just your fabrication of the past.
  • (2b) Stop this pretending and mentioning the "standardized" language. The theory on Standard languages is part of the sociolinguistics, there are many languages that are not completely standardized. Ask your friend Štambuk, whom you canvassed to this discussion, are the English languages completely standardized. From the 1944 – Croatian – Macedonian – Serbian – Slovene were proclaimed official and in 1970. Albanian and Hungarian were listed among the big four as equal in the Official Gazette of the SFRY. All federal laws, bylaws and other legal norms were from that year officially translated to Albanian language and the Hungarian language. Albanians in SAP Kosovo and Hungarians (and others) in SAP Vojvodina were members of the federation (not just via the membership of the SR Serbia) but also in their own right.
  • (2c) DIREKTOR needs to calm down with his accusations of POV. I have presented sources in the Talk:Hey, Slavs#Too much translations? (That weren't answered by DIREKTOR). Mr. DIREKTOR cannot prove that Serbo-Croatian was official through the entire history of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (latter Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia).
  • (2d) To conclude, by using WP:ENGLISH and WP:UNDUE we should use only English, all other should be wikisourced out. If the campaign led by Mr. DIREKTOR against facts (that are sourced, and not rebutted) is to continue, the most principal way of solving this mess is using just English.
• (3) From the so much adored linguists, we can find opinions that Serbo-Croatian did not in fact exist, that it was a politically construed "title/name" and that it was not accepted by its designated speakers who continued to use their personal idiom (if I am not mistaken for linguists, every speaker is called an idiolect :-)
  • (3a) The dual Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian existed as a Constitutional norm in Croatia between 1963 and 1972
  • (3b) In the Yugoslav People's Army (a highly Marxist and ideological Communist Army) as the "official" Serbo-Croatian was from 1963 to 1974
• (4) The anthem existed as the constitutionally sanctioned from 1988-1991, and from 1943 to 1945 it was a partisan song, and then used as an honoured song, but not as an official anthem. So again, you use formalizations when it suits, but in general you do not like the law. It is a sad thing that a person who regard the law so much, cannot admit that even at best the listing of just the name of the anthem in that 1977 law was temporary, because the search for a better candidate continued up to mid-1980.
• (5) The article will not be stripped to nothing, as Mr. DIREKTOR exaggerates, lots of "entertaining" facts will remain.
• (6) The song was first written in Slovak language in Prague, this is why these two should definitely remain, and the English translation that can be wikisourced.
  • (6a) There will not be 4 million translations as Dotty indicated, and the attempt of shrinking the article "a bit" could be good if not discriminatory to the main languages of the central South Slavic diasystem (Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian)
• (7) Mr DIREKTOR did not answer to a counter claim about his Google statistics Talk:Hey, Slavs#Answer to DIREKTOR.

Answer to three points of Dotty (and some other):

1. No such user granted two occurrences of the dual name ([[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croatian]] or [[Croato-Serbian language|Croato-Serbian]])
2. Did DIREKTOR ever answer on the sources that indicate both Serbian and also Croatian existed officially as two languages (translations between the two) from 1944, repeated in 1945 to the school year 1953/54, and again in 1990. (at least in Croatia), and 1993 in Montenegro.
3. The anthem was last used as the anthem of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, so the conclusion that Montenegro did not use the anthem is void. All the Constitutions of the former Yugoslav socialist republic' contained the provision that allowed an anthem (with an exception of SR Bosnia and Herzegovina), so before 1977 all constitutive parts of SFR Yugoslavia used the "song" as its anthem also.
4. Removing what "the rest", dear Dotty, please do not assume on this discussion, none of us all (that discuss) do not want any language removed, except DIREKTOR wants to remove both Serbian and also Croatian to make room for his double listing Serbo-Croatian under the Yugoslav anthem section and under the South Slavic languages section. Even if this is cherry picking and biased he is utterly convinced that Serbs and Croats is one nation (with two names) and that it speak one singular and unitary language.

Imbris (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry I have been gone! It seems my router was fried, so I had a few days wait before I could get another one. Sorry about that, and it's good to be back! Renaissancee (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on Imbris' section please? Dotty••|☎ 07:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the edit is huge, please try to express yourself without writing an entire article about your beliefs. Although, this time the post is at least better organized.

(1) And then there were two? In all fairness, why should we mention "Croato-Serbian" at all? There are other alt. names that just as equally warrant inclusion in the article (such as "Croatian or Serbian language", "Serbian or Croatian language"), and yet we do not list them. We only seem to be "forced" to compromise on the one alt. name insisted upon by User:Imbris (because of his nationalist POV).(The name of the language is mentioned only a couple of times in the article, the goal is apparently to have it in all noticeable spots, so as to make any concessions on Imbris' part minor and irrelevant.)

I repeat, MoS does not require of us to list alternative names in any way, least of all to select which will be included on the basis of sheer stubbornness and POV on the part of one user. Despite all this however, I'm exhausted with this, frankly, petty affair and I agree to the inclusion of the alt. name in the lede. Just for the sake of ending all this. However, I'm also not deceived by Imbris' "compromise".

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hej, Slovenci

So, the Slovenian Wikipedia has no problem mentioning, that the original Slovenian version was Hej, Slovenci, and not Hej, Slovani, but yet, when I tried to put that here, I kept getting my edits rejected, because of another editor's POV. Granted, Hervardi aren't the most reliable source, but I still seriously doubt, that they made it up. They clearly reference their statement with the old Slovanian litterary magazine Slovenska grlica, and the Slovenian Wikipedia also references it with Jakob Aljaž's Slovenska pesmarica song book, so there must be something to it. That's, why I just can't understand, why we need to follow one single editor's POV, and reject information, just because he doesn't like it. It clearly violates Wikipedia's NPOV guide-lines. Honestly, if sourcing is a problem, let's just add a "citation needed" tag, but still leave it in the article, rather, than deleting it. It would be much more NPOV. ;) - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a while, all versions will be included once this current dispute is resolved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The lede

The article should consist of the appropriate content and not of the texts (of the song)

Group of languages	Name of the language	Title of the song
West Slavic	Czech	Hej, Slované
	Polish	Hej, Słowianie
	Slovak	Hej, Slovania
	Sorbian, Lower	Hej, Słowjany
	Sorbian, Upper	Hej, Słowjenjo
East Slavic	Belarusian	Гэй, Славяне
	Russian	Гей, Славяне
	Rusyn	Гий, Славляне
	Ukrainian	Гей, Слов’яни
South Slavic	Bosnian	Hej, Slaveni
	Bulgarian	Хей, Славяни
	Croatian	Hej, Slaveni
	Macedonian	Еј, Словени
	Montenegrin	Hej, Sloveni / Хеј, Словени
	Serbian	Хеј, Словени (Hej, Sloveni)
	Slovene	Hej, Slovani
Other (Slavic)	Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian	Hej, Slaveni or Hej, Sloveni (Хеј, Словени)
Other languages (non-Slavic)	Albanian	Hej, Sllavët
	Hungarian	Hej, Szlávok
	Turkish	Hey, Slavlar

Imbris (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So you think that we should have both Serbo-Croatian and B/C/S, as if they're four "different languages" ? Absurd.. What's wrong with the current formulation in the lead (that I edited just when article was about the get protected), which states: In Serbo-Croatian it is known as Hej, Slaveni (Croatian and Bosnian variety) or Hej, Sloveni/Хеј Словени (Serbian variety) ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's wrong because it doesn't have Montenegrin :-). Rave92^(talk) 09:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We'll add Montenegrin as soon as Pravopis crnogorskog jezika, Gramatika crnogorskog jezika and Rječnik crnogorskog jezika get published and blessed by the Montengrin Ministry of Education.. ;) BTW, did anything come out of this? The article it'll be over until the beginning of the next school year, and that's in mere 3 months.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Decision

OK, having read all the arguments & as I have posted on Imbris' talk page, I believe that Ivan & Direktor's viewpoint is the most neutral & least POV & therefore should be implemented. To that end, I believe that Serbo-Croation(with its two variations), Slovene & Macedonian should be the only languages in there & the differences betwen Serbo-Croation & Croato-Serbian clarified neutrally. I have asked Imbris to respect the decision & not to revert, & so I'll wait a day or two for him to chat to me if he wants to about something specific-but this does not include retelling me his arguments. Dotty••|☎ 12:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should be as specific as possible with regard to the exact way the term "Croato-Serbian" is to be included in the lede. Any room for "interpretations" may be a cause of edit-warring. More to the point, User:Imbris may feel that "Croato-Serbian" should be spelled something like "CROATO-SERBIAN!!", instead of "(also known as Croato-Serbian)".

If we "must" include it, I propose we simply put the alt. name in brackets relieving strain from the already-overstretched sentence listing all Slavic names. "(also known as Croato-Serbian)" or simply "(Croato-Serbian)". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not OK. (1) there was no RfC on the matter, so the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-2/Hey, Slavs is out of procedure. (2) It was started by DIREKTOR without conformity to the WP:DR. (3) Dotty addressed the assignment 11:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC) and declared it decided on 12:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) – a period of mere 7 days in between.

(4) If all arguments have been read, Dotty would have learned that the name of Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian is not spelled with using Croation as part of this macro language's name.

(5) Ivan Štambuk is not an expert in general linguistics – but a student of computer science.

(6) DIREKTOR is not an expert in general or any linguistics – but a medical student.

(7) For the duration of this nonprocedural mediation Mr. DIREKTOR and Ivan Štambuk did not rebute the sourced fact that Croatian and Serbian were among the four separate languages of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia and the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, as well after the 1974–Constitutions and most definitely in the year 1990. Yugoslavia ended in 1991/1992.

(8) For the duration of this nonprocedural mediation I was the only user pushed by Dotty to abandon sourced statements in favour of pleasing Mr. DIREKTOR

(9) Mr. Ivan Štambuk did not express his opinion clearly, we do not know what he in fact advocates, deletion of Croatian, Serbian, or the deletion of only Montenegrin, Bosnian. I belive that this article serves him as a testing ground for his POV ideas. Why doesn't he include his ideas in the articles that are "watched" by a greater number of editors: Like the Slavic languages article?

(10) "What is the dispute?" doesn't list deletion of any text, doesn't address the real issue of double listing of the texts in both Yugoslav anthem section and the South Slavic languages section of the Hey, Slavs (the article).

(10a) First point of "What is the dispute?" might be construed to as regarding the Yugoslav anthem section of the article, but not the entire article.

(10b) Montenegrin language or not

(10c) Mentioning Croato-Serbian language

(10d) "Serbo-Croatian" – macrolanguage or language? It was only formally a "language", and DIREKTOR is against formalizations.

(11) Rave92 was not called into the discussion by the mediator.

Imbris (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, your ad hominems are not appreciated. I'm no "expert" by means of having a piece of paper telling I've managed to collect 180/300 ECTS points in some obsolete Austro-Hungarian-style curriculum of Croatian Studies at the Faculty of Philosophy, as my interest in language-related content of Wikipedia is of purely amateurish intentions (and I never claimed or pretended otherwise), but you and I very well know that I'm by far the most competent person around here, at least from the perspetive historical/dialectal linguistics :p So please, do not try to belittle persons advocating particular opinions, but the arguments they're propounding.

You again reinstate your refuted arguments of SC being a "macrolanguage", even tho I've explained to you that there is no such thing as "macrolanguage" in general linguistics/dialectology, only in SIL's cladistic nomenclature. Why are you trying to confuse an independent observer Dottydotdot ? You know, it's really of no problem to ask some sysop linguist to come and comment on this whole issue. Or perhaps some fellow South Slavic (Slovenian or Bulgarian or Macedonian) Wikipedian to comment on the "differences" of those "four languages".

I have indeed edited some high-profile general linguistics/Slavic article with Serbo-Croatian terminology. Check out e.g. Pitch_accent#Serbo-Croatian. I have no intention of tracking down every single wikilink to the articles on Croatian and/or Serbian and replacing it with "Serbo-Croatian" tho - only when it makes sense to group them do I do it.

Montengerin has been discussed here in case you haven't noticed..the problem is that the language is still unstandardized and exists only "virtually" (by constitution and self-declaration of the speakers), not standardologically (dialectally it does, as part of Štokavian system).

So once again Imbris, what is exactly the problem with current formulation in the lead of the article? Why introduce needless redundancy and confusion, when it can all be elegantly resolved by using the term Serb-Croatian as common dialectal base for all 3 standard languages, that didn't even exist 20 years ago? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't presumed on your competence to participate in this discussion, but said that your opinion on the issues that are part of this "procedings" is not clear. But you are not a general linguist. Your In Serbo-Croatian it is known as Hej, Slaveni (Croatian and Bosnian variety) or Hej, Sloveni/Хеј Словени (Serbian variety) is a fabrication, defamation, controversial and contradictory statement aimed at recreating Serbo-Croatian as a valid language, it is a historical abomination and political construct that has never lived, it is the true unborn (born and died simultaneously). What makes sense? Omitting the fact that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are languages? You and Mr. DIREKTOR should address sources that say that there were four languages in times of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia and the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, also you should stop pretending that AVNOJ (by your account) did not proclaim those four equal.

Imbris (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

a fabrication, defamation, controversial and contradictory statement aimed at recreating Serbo-Croatian as a valid language, it is a historical abomination and political construct that has never lived, it is the true unborn (born and died simultaneously) - lol ^_^ I don't think we have anything further to discuss, Imbris. BTW, what do you say on the 2001 official Croatian census, language questionnaire [7], which had both hrvatsko-srpski and srpsko- hrvatski (beside hrvatski, srpski and bošnjački) for participant to choose their mother tongue from? ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This means nothing, + "hrvatsko-srpski" is listed after hrvatski, while "srpsko-hrvatski" is listed after srpski, and there is also crnogorski. It only shows how Croatia is a democratic society where it is allowed to call one's language by non-existing terms and abbreviations. What can you say to Template:Slavic languages and your latest contribution to it [8]. As you put it move SC to "other" section as it's deprecated, not spoken and disputed -- Imbris (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk did not clarify what he wants with the article. -- Imbris (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, apart from the first two, the other ones are sorted alphabetically so the sequencing order means exactly nothing. Curious is that they grouped hrvatski and hrvatsko-srpski next to one another...perhaps someone at DZS thinks that these two are identical?! ^_^ The only thing the census questionnaire shows, of having 6 "languages" options for one language (Serbo-Croatian), is how the state institutions are governed by brain-damaged nationalists who don't have a clue what thay're talking about. Anyhow, the reason why I mention official censi data is to mock your above claim of Serbo-Croatian being "historical abomination and political construct that has never lived", when obviously they are people claiming to speak it, and it's recognized by official Croatian state institutions. Historically, Serbo-Croatian has some 3-4 orders of magnitude more usage prior to the invention of "Croatian language" in the 1990s. You should read Croatian Baroque and Renaissance writers, and look for the language appellative they use..it's always some type of generic "Illyrian" (and "Illyrian lands" encompassed also Bosnia!), "Slavic"...extremely rarely national one.

I don't see the relevance of that edit for this discussion. Please stick to the discussion for know, and which is why on earth should we waste space mentioning identical text in several places. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) You should have asked some statistician to help you, because what all census honorary temporary collector knows is that the form contains only two options, the Croatian language and the other language. These two are depicted as a small box that the census interviewer checks in. Then in cases that a interviewee declines to answer the question, the interviewer will either check unknown, or make a note – in which language did the interviewee responded to questions (or in which language did the interviewee greet the interviewer).

(2) The State Institute for Statistics of the Republic of Croatia (DZS.HR) groups the data, for instance Bosnian language speakers are grouped with Bosniak language speakers.

(3) Stop making fun of the statisticians, Mr. DIREKTOR might get hurt :) The DZS.HR allows the interviewee to say whatever he/she wants, this is very democratic of them, don't you think so? And then we have Mr. Ivan Štambuk to interpret what they thought. Your interpretations are null and void. The questionnaire do not have listed any languages but the Croatian and Other, then the interviewee has absolute freedom to answer.

(4) The Census data do not merit for your interpretation that the language is recognized by the official Croatian state institutions

(5) In the 2011 Census the official Croatian state institutions will again allow every interviewee to express what his maternal language is, but the scr and also scc will not be present in the publications, not on the Internet. Those speakers would be listed as other languages.

(6) Your attempts to show the speakers of sh (now deprecated) as a official language in Croatia is null and void (thanks Mr. Jeremić) and those speakers call their maternal language this way because of mixed marriages and the policy of creating a new nation of Yugoslavs. If you defend their freedom to speak sh you should also defend the native speakers of me, bs, hr, and also sr

(7) Please stop misleading the mediators with your "statistical knowledge".

Imbris (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear lord...Imbris, methinks you're on the verge of getting ignored by everyone, this whole case going on Cabal/Arbcom, and someone with more buttons making fun of you and your interpretations of "different languages" (not to mention the perverse tactics of replying on some irrelevant details, completely ignoring the core arguments). If I read one more time of you speaking of Serbo-Croatian as of "macrolanguage" or "deprecated" (deprecated ISO 639-3 code and deprecated language are not exactly the same thing, but you wouldn't know that would you) or "historical abomination", I think I'm going to seriously wiki-puke.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all your points have either been answered above, are irrelevant, or are nonsensical in themselves. What else is there to say? I believe consensus has generally been reached, and every effort has been made to try and convince User:Imbris of the possibility that he just may be wrong. Stubbornness is not an argument. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered a single point, just re-iterated your ideological misconceptions. Dotty should really re-read the arguments, particularly the fact that you did not include Rave92 into this ordeal (he reverted you also if you remember). Also Dotty should ask herself/himself whether it was prudent to engage into Mediation Cabal if RfC had not been filled. You have not asked in the "What is the dispute?" for any content to be deleted, nor answered to why there should be exactly the same text in the Yugoslav anthem section and the South Slavic languages section, nor answered why the order of Template:Slavic languages should not be used, nor looked at the Slavic languages (the article). The "Serbo-Croatian" should only be present in the Yugoslav anthem section of the Hey, Slavs article and not in the South Slavic languages section of the article. A subsection named "Other" could be formed in the section Slavic languages to accomodate for the "Serbo-Croatian"

Imbris (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All I can say Imbris is that there is no need for any RFC before some mediation-this is informal mediation as agreed to by all the participants. Please do not dispute my neutrality because I made a misspelling accidentally whilst typing-an easy error to make as I'm very sure you know. With regard to the time taken, 7 days is plenty when I believe I have heard all the arguments & there is very little more to add without the same stuff being rehashed over & over again. Am I to assume that you are going to continue to refuse to agree amicably & will attempt to revert any/all edits? Dotty••|☎ 13:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you all still have not come to consensus and have not decided on what to do, I would suggest that you submit a request to the Mediation Committee. I think Dotty has done enough here, and he can't help you any more now. Renaissancee (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

With regret I was about to suggest what Renaissancee has suggested. The Mediation Committee will be able to impose a binding resolution & hopefully the decision will be relatively quick because all the info is here. It's a shame that we couldn't come to a consensus between everyone & unfortunately informal mediation requires that. Feel free to give me a shout on my talk page if you want to talk about it. Dotty••|☎ 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is still protected & so I'm interested what the next step you are taking Imbris? Dotty••|☎ 11:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No such user allowed the term Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian to be used twice, I plan to utilize that agreement. It will be listed in the lede, after the Serbian language entry – this means that Ivan Štambuk's maximalist approach should be replaced by what was there previously (all except Montenegrin, which is sad, but what can we do). The lede will contain Lower Sorbian and Upper Sorbian, Belarusian and other missing Slavic languages.

The Yugoslav anthem section could contain just Serbo-Croatian text (also called Croato-Serbian) (the second time the dual listing should occur) and also English, but then those two will not be in the sections South Slavic languages and Other languages.

Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian will remain in the South Slavic languages section.

This is preety much it.

I do not know what was the big deal about these compromises.

Imbris (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Imbris, because the informal mediation failed it needs to go somewhere higher that can impose a decision-this is likely to go against you as the informal mediation did, but you refused that. Dotty••|☎ 07:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there will be no alternative but to trouble more people with this idiotic dispute... As soon as I have the time, I'll do my best to end this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Swedish site

{{editprotected|Hey, Slavs}}

Please add that there is a Swedish version of the article called: Hej sloveni. --Litany (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the admin looking at this request: that would be the sv:Hej sloveni interwiki, or, in code, " [[sv:Hej sloveni]] " BalkanFever 11:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring by Ivan Štambuk

This is getting ridiculous. Dear, Imbris, care to illuminate me what language this is (the last two stanzas):

Nek se sada i nad nama

Burom sve raznese

Stijena puca, dub se lama

Zemlja nek se trese

Mi stojimo postojano

Kano klisurine

Proklet bio izdajica

Svoje domovine!

Is it

1. Bosnian
2. Croatian
3. Ijekavian Serbian (Serbian is standardized on both Ijekavian and Ekavian varieties, let's not forget!)
4. Serbo-Croatian?

You know, we can laugh on such questions all day long, making arguments on how made when the mention of the phrase Croatian language, or Serbo-Croatian language - but if this gets to some formal Wikipedia arbitration body I assure you that you're not gonna be the one who'd be laughing the last. Somehow strangers don't have much understanding for these Balkanic "languages" that differ among each other every 20th word or so..

Essentially, it's pointless to pretend that B/C/S/SC are all "different languages", and group them inside the article semi-randomly (in both mentioning in the lead and the hymn text). It would be deliberately misleading. We simply must group them collectively, and mention that originally there was officially only one language in 2 varieties, and only in the 1990s these new national standard varieties emerging. There is no point in denying them either, but it would be wrong to treat all of them separately as if they have nothing to do with one another. It's like when you're reading the article Hrvatski jezik on Croatian Wikipedia, which is BTW article of the week at the moment - if you were total ignorant you'd be under impression that Croatian and Serbian are 2 completely different languages, that have nothing to do with one another, having 99% identical grammar simply by incidental "parallel development" or something.

I found it extremely ironic that you cite Robert Greenberg's book on the AVNOJ decision on "Croatian literary language" - you are aware that the entire book deals with the "disintegration" of Serbo-Croatian throughout the 1990s, and basically makes fun of these petty national "languages" no one in the world is able to draw a line among? :)

Also, why are you removing Macedonian and Slovene version? Both of them were official languages in SFRJ and deserve mentioning per NPOV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous when expecting that even the editors of this wiki would not see through your futile attempt at making this anthemic song article a testing ground for your POV.

This encyclopaedia has articles on all of the languages mentioned here. A language do not consist on mere words but context, technical terms, administrative, judicial, scientifical, etc. use. The language is use.

The question may seem ridiculous to you but it is important to quote sources, not to delete them. DIREKTOR deletes sources, even formating of the tables, he deleted the name of the song in some Slavonic languages while keeps the ones he like. This is completely POV.

Macedonian and Slovene version are included in the list titled South Slavic languages, didn't you notice that.

All version should be deleted and presented at wikisource(s).

Please stop drawing into this discussion those issues that are not pertaining to the topic.

Imbris (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But you didn't answer my question - what language are those 2 stanzas in? :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is irrelevant. You often insert dubious discussions into non-related topics, like listing some Serbian authors that used Croatian words or vice versa to prove that the two languages are the same. Please stop. The main question is whether the DIREKTOR would compromise in order to save your precious fantasy language in the article, naturally among others. Or we shall delete all of the versions and provide the end user (the reader) links to pertaining wikipedias in all neccessary languages. The new introduction is far better than using some linguistic methods to reduce the number of languages. Should not the linguist do the very opposite?

Imbris (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is not "irrelevant" but quintessential to dismiss those fabricated fantasy-languages. The fact that you cannot answer it (as it is "simultaneously" all of them, as all of them are one language) proves it trivially. DIREKTOR doesn't need to compromise with nothing, it is you that is inserting PoV edits that try to "prove" that Serbo-Croatian (the "abomination", as you called it once ^_^) is somehow completely different from Croatian and Serbian, which OTOH don't have absolutely nothing to do with one another..

The new introduction is against the Wikipedia Manual-of-style, and those wikilinks must be removed as they do not point to English-language content. The only reason why you're advocating it is because it would somehow better support separatistic views on the language, which is so silly and transparent. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A person who belives that Croatian language is a neo-ustashian fabrication, or whatever - such person(s) should cease to edit on Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and also Serbian language, alltogether. Bias is sipping from you. -- Imbris (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ivan is correct. Next, every bloody sello will have its own official language Hxseek (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Of for goodness' sake! Everybody agrees except that guy. When he gets an idea it takes 10 people and two months to get an article stabilized and back to normal... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I removed the tags No such user added on Ibris' version. I believe I'm right in assuming they were added because of Imbris' "version" being on at the time? The current text is really not disputed as it is agreed upon by nearly all involved users (except one, that is). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I still dislike the number of translations (I'm inclined to violate the MOS and provide direct links to other language wikis or wikisource, instead of killing the reader with umpteen translations in strange langauges). However, since I admittedly didn't make the effort to actually improve the article (had other priorities, and didn't quite like the atmosphere here), I suppose restoring them would be sort of dickish. Maybe latter. No such user (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's really a "dispute", is it? :) I mean, I certainly wouldn't mind... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop the silliness

I can't believe that you people wrote this much text on the talk page over such a silly dispute. If you invested this much time into actually improving the article, it would have been FA by now.

The article obviously can't be all lyrics, so the lyrics in umpteen languages need to go to WikiSource. We should either have the original, Slovak, text and the English translation, or no lyrics at all. --Zocky | picture popups 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we're all stupid :). What you suggest would probably make Yugoslavia the only significant European country without an anthem article. The amount of text you can see here is not because there's some massive dispute (obviously), its simply the standard load necessary to counter any Imbris-edit. Its pretty much the same in any such given situation (believe me, I know). The dispute is virtually non-existent - everyone is essentially in agreement... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I, and several users up the page, are in a disagreement with the article being made up mainly of lyrics. And who said anything about not having an article for the Yugoslav anthem? Zocky | picture popups 07:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

When I said "everyone is essentially in agreement", I meant that the loads of text you mentioned above refer to a dispute in which nearly all users are in agreement.

When I said "What you suggest would probably make Yugoslavia the only significant European country without an anthem article", I meant that we can't remove the Yugoslav anthem (three languages) as it is quite significant. The Slovak version is also significant, as it is the original (as you say), but the rest we may move to WikiSource I suppose. Though I'm not 100% convinced. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the three official languages of Yugoslavia (Slovenian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian) are the only ones that merit inclusion. All the anthem articles on Wikipedia have the official language version. The Slovak version is the least important. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Slovak version should definitely remain, as it is the original. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with DIREKTOR that the Slovak should remain, but not with Ivan Štambuk who deleted the four languages of Yugoslavia. There were four, in some periods, that being Croatian, Macedonian, Serbian, and also, Slovene.

If Serbian is to be represented in both Latin and Cyrillic versions, then Croatian should be presented in both versions, during the WWII and after the war in Democratic Federal Yugoslavia.

Štambuk also deleted some Slavic languages from the lede, which is not a good way of doing anything. The wikilinks to diff wikipedias are neccessary because the versions are presented there (now), in the future, when the text will be wikisourced that would be not needed, but then it would be wikilinked to wikisource(s).

Imbris (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, four... #1 Serbo-Croatian (with two variants), #2 Slovene, #3 Macedonian... nope, just three. :) What's all this now Imbris? I thought Yugoslavia had 6 or 7 official languages or whatnot? Aren't we forgetting Albanian, Hungarian, etc...? And that's "Mr. Štambuk" to you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Our dear friend DIREKTOR is deeply biased as well as Mr. Ivan Štambuk. Why not let Zocky have a go with cutting the material. DIREKTOR should stop misconstruing compromises from before. No such user and Rave92 expressed oppinion on allowing Croato-Serbian be mentioned twice. DIREKTOR should stop his biased editing on such articles as this one. -- Imbris (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No... I think I'll remain active in this discussion. The only mediator we (may) need is MEDCOM. Among other reasons because you've already shown you don't care about the decisions of impartial mediators (unless they can make you care, that is). My objectivity is not at all compromised, but even if I were "biased", what difference does it make to you? Was Dotty "biased" too? Seems to me you're pretty much indifferent to the alleged "bias" of editors opposing you... maybe because you're biased, hm? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh LoL, good one there :) Trying to sneak your edit-pushing behind an opposition to the removal of the lyrics? Strange how the POV you've been trying to push (in spite of the mediator's recommendation and everyone else's opposition) reappeared somehow in your latest revert of this ghastly "undiscussed edit". Nice... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The only sneaky thing I can see, is the POV that had been inserted by Ivan Štambuk right before the article was protected.

Everyone can see what Dotty and No such user, as well as Rave92 suggested. That was not your cup of tea, but instead allowing for all languages to co-exist in the lede. Also the previous extraordinary and informal mediation was initiated by you (Mr. DIREKTOR), and was initiated out of procedure (3O, then RfC, then informal whatever).

Under no circumstances will the POV of Ivan Štambuk be presented in this article, despite your biasness, and following Ivan Štambuk's word.

Leave all the languages in the lede, as well as the tag that must be on the top of the article until we finish.

Imbris (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Look Imbris, your edits are essentially opposed by every editor that even casually came in and had a look at the matter, including the mediator. You came here, you made your edit, you were reverted, you proceeded to edit-war to push your edit, and your "ideas" were rejected on the talkpage as imaginary. What are you still doing here??? Why are you so stubborn that you cannot admit you're wrong and just stop pushing that utterly ridiculous edit??!

No offense to Zocky, but since you completely ignored and dismissed the previous "biased" Wikipedia mediator, and since you continue to push your edit with edit-warring, I'm afraid MEDCOM is the only mediation we'll get. And anyway, it is the proper next step in the dispute resolution process. (Zocky probably doesn't care, and probably does not want to get involved in this ridiculous and meaningless farce - I know I wouldn't.) Now, it may seem I've been repeating the word "MEDCOM" overmuch lately, but take my word on it: I'm logging off tonight, and if you continue to edit-war yet again this evening - MEDCOM will be asked to step in, while you will be reported (again). Don't take this as a "threat", if I don't end this matter soon I'll throw-up the next time I see this article on my watchlist. Reporting this is by now a physical necessity. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I have never said Dotty was biased. I said that you went outside procedure to start an informal mediation before 3O, RfC, and other ways of WP:DR. You did not contact the WP dedicated to anthems, other WPs, etc.

You deliberately misinterpreted facts and also falsely expose the sittuation to the fellow editors, as if you are the side with majority support. Not true, dear DIREKTOR.

I will not consent to MEDCOM with you and editors that do not care about the issues.

Imbris (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's high time we issue a MEDCOM case. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that no lyrics is a serious proposal by Zocky if the disruptive editing by Ivan Štambuk to force his POV persist. The major problem is this edit of Ivan Štambuk made with a comment: "remove pointless redundancy in the lead". The edit is proposterously biased. No MEDCOM can help if Ivan Štambuk and DIREKTOR continue to deffer the constructive suggestions by No such user and Rave92.

Imbris (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think MEDCOM can still help. If you have your way with the "main problem" in the article, would you finally leave this matter to rest (peace with honor)? (Bear in mind, Croatian and Serbian can be reintroduced, but Serbo-Croatian cannot be removed nor will it be placed at the end of the list just because of your POV no matter what.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I will arange the Slavic languages by alphabeticall order, Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian will be listed accordingly, and after Serbian. In the lyrics, Serbo-Croatian should not go first. -- Imbris (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Until you give up on the non-existent "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" term I can't agree. In English its just plain imaginary. I can agree on Croatian and Serbian being introduced, and I can agree on alphabetical order in general. However, I believe alphabetic order should only be applied once the language groups are separated, otherwise we'd have a huge mess (even bigger than now).
I also can't agree on Serbo-Croatian being listed last. Serbo-Croatian should be listed first as it was the language of the national anthem this article is about (one of, if not the main topic this article is about). Second should be Slovak, the original language, and then the faaar less significant Slavic language groups (which might even be removed as well altogether, but fine). Within each group, the languages should be organized alphabetically, with Serbian and Croatian mentioned upon your insistence. You have listed their omission as the main problem you see in the article, I'm prepared to compromise there and we can fix that, but the rest of the article is to be left alone as before, and the insignificant lyrics moved to WikiSource (Zocky is probably not going to get seriously involved here, he's not stupid). This is a final desperate plea for a compromise deal. Acceptable? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the song, which had been used as an anthem in former Yugoslavia. This is past tense, water under the bridge. The song had also been used as the anthem of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. By your logic these languages should be first for some non-encyclopaedical reasons. I cannot accept that, even if Slovak would be listed as second, which I find proposterous, that Serbian should be listed as third. This logic cannot withstand any reasonable debate. Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian is a valid name, found in at least 10% of books, it is used only twice in the article as agreed upon by No such user and Rave92. The list of Slavic languages should not be re-aranged, the alphabeticall order is the main order everywhere (on this wiki). By the alphabeticall order, and the application of grouping, like in Template:Slavic languages, Serbo-Croatian comes last, listed under other.

The song had been used (maybe it still is) as the unofficial anthem of all Slavs, and their historic movements, Pan-Slavism and Neo-Slavism. This is far more important than its usage in SFRY, but still, the majority of the article describes the song as the former anthem of former entities in the Balkans. Why do you insist we delete the name of the anthem in all Slavic languages that are not Yugoslav? This is simply wrong, since it belongs to all Slavs.

Croatian, Serbian, and other languages of the Central Balkans, were listed before I started editing on this article, so those languages are not introduced on my insistence, but re-introduced after long deliberation why they must be included.

Imbris (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

found in at least 10% of books, - what 10% of books? 99% of English literature I've read uses the term Serbo-Croat(ian) exclusively.

Again, it's pointless to have B/C/S/SC all listed as "different languages". They must be grouped. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh well... had to give it one last try. Agreed, then, Ivan: the languages should be grouped. And yes, Imbris, any objective person can see that Serbian should either be listed second or third, or not at all as it is included in the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage. It was their damn national anthem, Imbris. Slovak can maybe be listed first, but those are details. I will make sure that your biased "choice" is replaced by the predominant English term for the language. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Other-language versions of the poem

Here there are, if sb wants to transfer them to WikiSource or somewhere, they cannot stay in the article anymore:

West Slavic languages

---

Slovak Hej, Slováci, ešte naša slovenská reč žije, Dokiaľ naše verné srdce za náš národ bije. Žije, žije, duch slovenský, bude žiť na veky, Hrom a peklo, márne vaše proti nám sú vzteky! Jazyka dar sveril nám Boh, Boh náš hromovládny, Nesmie nám ho teda vyrvať na tom svete žiadny; I nechže je koľko ľudí, toľko čertov v svete; Boh je s nami: kto proti nám, toho parom zmetie. I nechže sa aj nad nami hrozná búrka vznesie, Skala puká, dub sa láme a zem nech sa trasie; My stojíme stále pevne, ako múry hradné Čierna zem pohltí toho, kto odstúpi zradne!

Czech Hej Slované, ještě naše slovanská řeč žije, pokud naše věrné srdce pro náš národ bije. Žije, žije duch slovanský, bude žít na věky. Hrom a peklo, marné vaše, proti nám jsou vzteky. Jazyka dar svěřil nám Bůh, Bůh náš hromovládný. Nesmí nám ho tedy vyrvat na tom světě žádný. I nechať je tolik lidí, kolik čertů v světě. Bůh je s námi, kdo proti nám, toho Perun smete. I nechať se též nad námi, hrozná bouře vznese. Skála puká, dub se láme. Země ať se třese ! My stojíme stále pevně, jako stěny hradné. Černá zem pohltí toho, kdo odstoupí zrádně ...

Polish Hej Słowianie, jeszcze nasza Słowian mowa żyje, póki nasze wierne serce za nasz naród bije. Żyje, żyje duch słowiański, i żyć będzie wiecznie, Gromy, piekło - złości waszej ujdziem my bezpiecznie! wer.1: Mowę naszą ukochaną, Bóg nam zwierzył w darze. Wydrzeć nam ją - nikt na świecie tego nie dokaże. wer.2: Dar języka zwierzył nam Bóg, Bóg nasz gromowładny. Nie śmie go nam tedy wyrwać na świecie człek żadny. wer.1: Ilu ludzi, tylu wrogów, możem mieć na świecie, Bóg jest z nami, kto nam wrogiem, tego Bóg nasz zmiecie! wer.2: Ilu ludzi, tylu wrogów, możem mieć na świecie, Bóg jest z nami, kto nam wrogiem, tego Piorun zmiecie! I niechaj się ponad nami groźna burza wzniesie, skała pęka, dąb się łamie, ziemia niech się trzęsie. My stoimy stale, pewnie, jako mury grodu. Czarna ziemio, pochłoń tego, kto zdrajcą narodu!

South Slavic languages

---

Serbo-Croatian Croatian variant Hej Slaveni, jošte živi Riječ (duh) naših djedova Dok za narod srce bije Njihovih sinova Živi, živi duh slavenski Živjet će vjekov'ma Zalud prijeti ponor pakla Zalud vatra groma Nek se sada i nad nama Burom sve raznese Stijena puca, dub se lama Zemlja nek se trese Mi stojimo postojano Kano klisurine Proklet bio izdajica Svoje domovine!	Serbian variant Hej Sloveni, jošte živi Duh (reč) naših dedova Dok za narod srce bije Njihovih sinova Živi, živi duh slovenski Živeće vekov'ma Zalud preti ponor pakla Zalud vatra groma Nek se sada i nad nama Burom sve raznese Stena puca, dub se lama Zemlja nek se trese Mi stojimo postojano Kano klisurine Proklet bio izdajica Svoje domovine!	Croatian Hej Slaveni, jošte živi Riječ naših djedova Dok za narod srce bije Njihovih sinova Živi, živi duh slavenski Živjet će vjekov'ma Zalud prijeti ponor pakla Zalud vatra groma Nek se sada i nad nama Burom sve raznese Stijena puca, dub se lama Zemlja nek se trese Mi stojimo postojano Kano klisurine Proklet bio izdajica Svoje domovine!	Croatian (Partisan version) Oj Slaveni, zemlja tutnji s Volge do Triglava; istim glasom huče Visla, Jadran, Timok, Sava. Živi, živi duh slavenski, živjet ćeš vjekovma; zalud ponor prijeti pakla, zalud vatra groma! Gromko kliče drug nam Staljin iz ruskih nizina, odzivlje se drug mu Tito s bosanskih planina: Mi stojimo postojano kano klisurine, proklet bio izdajica svoje domovine! Za slobodu na braniku uvijek ćemo biti, naše zemlje neće nikad dušman pokoriti. Makar na nas navalile cijelog svijeta čete, mi smo složni, tko prot nama, s njime hajd pod pete!	Serbian (Latin script) Hej Sloveni, jošte živi Duh (reč) naših dedova Dok za narod srce bije Njihovih sinova Živi, živi duh slovenski Živeće vekov'ma Zalud preti ponor pakla Zalud vatra groma Nek se sada i nad nama Burom sve raznese Stena puca, dub se lama Zemlja nek se trese Mi stojimo postojano Kano klisurine Proklet bio izdajica Svoje domovine!	Serbian (Cyrillic script) Хеј Словени, јоште живи Дух наших дедова Док за народ срце бије Њихових синова Живи, живи дух словенски Живеће веков'ма Залуд прети понор пакла, Залуд ватра грома Нек' се сада и над нама Буром све разнесе Стена пуца, дуб се лама, Земља нек' се тресе Ми стојимо постојано Кано клисурине, Проклет био издајица Своје домовине!
Bosnian Hej Slaveni, jošte živi Duh naših djedova Dok za narod srce bije Njihovih sinova Živi, živi duh slavenski Živjeće vjekov'ma Zalud prijeti ponor pakla Zalud vatra groma Nek se sada i nad nama Burom sve raznese Stijena puca, dub se lama Zemlja nek se trese Mi stojimo postojano Kano klisurine Proklet bio izdajica Svoje domovine!	Macedonian Еј, Словени, жив е тука зборот свет на родот штом за народ срце чука преку син во внукот! Жив е вечно, жив е духот словенски во слога. Не нè плашат адски бездни ниту громов оган! Пустошејќи, нека бура и над нас се втурне! Пука даб и карпа сура, тлото ќе се урне: Стоиме на стамен-прагот - клисури и бедем! Проклет да е тој што предал Родина на врагот!	Slovene Hej Slovani, naša reč slovanska živo klije dokler naše verno srce za naš narod bije Živi, živi, duh slovanski, bodi živ na veke, grom in peklo, prazne vaše proti nam so steke Naj tedaj nad nami strašna burja se le znese, skala poka, dob se lomi, zemlja naj se strese Bratje, mi stojimo trdno kakor zidi grada, črna zemlja naj pogrezne tega, kdor odpada!	Slovene (pre-Yugoslav version) Hej Slovani, naša reč slovanska živo klije, Dokler naše verno srce za naš narod bije. Živi, živi, duh slovanski, bodi živ na veke! Grom in peklo, prazne vaše proti nam so steke. Bog pa gromo-vladni nam podal je dar jezika, Da pa nihče na tem svetu, nič nam ne podtika, Bo naj kolikor ljudi, tolikanj Čertov na sveti, Bog je z nami, kdor prot' nam, ga če Belin podreti. Naj tedaj nad nami strašna burja naj se znese, Skala poka, dob se lomi, zemlja naj se trese. Bratje! Mi stojimo trdno, kakor zidi grada; Črna zemlja naj pogrezne tega kdor odpada!	Bulgarian Хей славяни, все още жив е духът на нашите предци. Докато сърцето за народа бие на техните следовници. Жив е, жив е духът славянски ще живее с векове. Не ни плашат ни бездните адски, нито огнените гръмове. Нека сега и над нас със буря всичко да се разнесе. Скала се пука, дъбът се цепи, земята нек се разтресе. Ние стоим твърдо като крепост. Проклет да е предателят на своето отечество!

East Slavic languages

---

Ukrainian Гей, слов’яни,наше слово Піснею лунає І не стихне, поки серце За народ страждає Наше слово дав Господь нам На те Його воля Хто примусить нашу пісню Змовкнути у полі? Дух слов’янський живе вічно В нас він не погасне Злої сили біснування Проти нас завчасне Проти нас хоч світ повстане Але нам те марно З нами Бог, а хто не знами- Згине той безславно.

Russian Эй, славяне, наше слово Песней звонкой льётся, И не смолкнет, пока сердце За народ свой бьётся. Дух Славянский жив на веки, В нас он не угаснет, Беснованье силы вражьей Против нас напрасно. Наше слово дал нам Бог, На то Его воля! Кто заставит нашу песню Смолкнуть в чистом поле? Против нас хоть весь мир, что нам! Восставай задорно. С нами Бог наш, кто не с нами – Тот умрёт позорно.

Russian (alternate version) Эй, славяне, эй, славяне! Будет вам свобода, если только ваше сердце бьётся для народа. Гром и ад! Что ваша злоба, что все ваши ковы, коли жив наш дух славянский! Коль мы в бой готовы! Дал нам бог язык особый – враг то разумеет: языка у нас вовеки вырвать не посмеет. Пусть нечистой силы будет более сторицей! Бог за нас и нас покроет мощною десницей. Пусть играет ветер, буря, с неба грозы сводит, треснет дуб, земля под ними ходенём заходит! Устоим одни мы крепко, что градские стены, проклят будь, кто в это время мыслит про измены!

Rusyn Гий Славляне, ищи жиє дух нашых дїдôв ! Кой за нарôд сирцё биє йих вірных сынôв  ! Живи, живи дух Славляньскый живи лем вікамы ! Нам нестрашны бездны адьскы прокляты бісамы ! Нич ся трафит кой над намы ся буря рознесе, Стїна пукне, дуб ся зломлит зимля ся розтресе Стойиме сьме, постояны гикой йсї скалины ! Проклят буде, уддаватиль своєй утцюзнины !

Other languages

English Hey, Slavs, our Slavic spirit is still alive As long as our faithful heart beats for our nation. Lives, lives the Slavic spirit, It will live forever! The thunder and the hell And your anger against us are useless. God to us our language entrusted, God, who sways the thunder; Who on earth then shall presume this gift from us to sunder! Though the earth were filled with demons, our rights assailing, We defy them. God is with us, His strong arm prevailing. Let all above us now be shattered by a storm. Cliffs crack, oaks break, Let the earth quake. We're standing firmly like mountains, Damned be the traitor of his homeland!

Turkish Hey, Slavlar, Slav ruhumuz hala yaşıyor ! İnançlı kalbimiz hala milletimiz için çarptıkça. Yaşıyor, Slav ruhu yaşıyor, Ve sonsuza dek yaşayacak! Gök gürültüsü ve cehennem bize olan öfken işe yaramaz. Tanrı, bize dilimizi emanet etti; Tanrı, şimşekleri çaktıran; Bu dünyada kim cesaret edebilir bu emanetimizi bizden alıp parçalamaya! Gerçi dünya iblislerle dolu, haklarımıza saldıran, Onlara meydan okuyoruz. Tanrı bizimledir, O'nun güçlü eli hakim. Şimdi herşeye izin ver fırtınayla kırılsınlar. Uçurumlar yarılsın, meşeler kırılsın, izin ver yeryüzü sallansın. Dayanacağız kesinlikle dağlar gibi, Lanetlenen hainidir kendi anayurdunun!

Montenegrin

How does the poem look like in the Montenegrin language ? Can sb please translate it? :-) We already have Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian...if we're gonna add all of those imaginary languages, there's really no point in omitting Montenegrin. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Crnogorski jezik

Hej Sloveni, jošte živi,
Duh naših djedova,
Dok za narod srce bije
Njihovih sinova.

Živi, živi duh slovenski
Živjeće vjekov'ma
Zalud prijeti ponor pakla
Zalud vatra groma.

Nek se sada i nad nama
Burom sve raznese,
Stijena puca, dub se lama,
Zemlja nek se trese.

Mi stojimo postojano
Kano klisurine,
Proklet bio izdajica
Svoje domovine.

.

from Croatian wikipedia

Rave92^(talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks dude, I've added it to the article :) I've acquired a PDF version of the recently-published Pravopis crnogorskog jezika and and am perusing it now with utmost care, so I might fix a thing or two if I notice something erroneous :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, your welcome, and thanks for adding it. Rave92^(talk) 18:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hej Slováci definitely was anthem of first Slovak Republic

Read the Slovak laws from 1939 or get the evidence in the youtube. But don´t wrote lies. There are many authentic videos with official Slovak anthem "Hej Slováci" during abroad diplomatic visits. "Nad Tatrou sa blýska" was readopted after war when Czechoslovakia was recreated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.34.174 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

English translation

English translation is a bit bad, did you do a google translate or something? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian version

Let's get this show back on the road, what do you say Imbris? :)

• The two variants of the Serbo-Croatian language version should be on top of the section due to the fact that the Serbo-Croatian language version, unlike the Serbian and Croatian language versions, was the primarily (most used) version of national anthem of a country.
• The name "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language" is not used on the English Wikipedia, or in the English speaking world. Rather the term "Serbo-Croatian language" is overwhelmingly in use then and today throughout the world in all languages. WP:COMMONAME applies, I think (though, since it deals primarily with article titles, I suppose we can ask MEDCOM).

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) "Common name" applies to titles of articles.

(2) Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian is used in around 10% of all cases. The practice of such usage in this article was agreed by User:No such user, User:Rave92 and myself.

(3) Alphabet is always the best choice, Serbo-Croatian goes after Serbian and before Slovene.

(4) I will not ask for a Medcom, because the informal mediation was "out of procedure", since no 3O or RfC was asked. And let me remind you that you asked admins for that "informal mediation", before reaching to the community for WP:DR.

Imbris (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no four points of discussion. Only two, as there are only two disputed edits of yours in the article - a) the location of the Serbo-Croatina entry, and b) the term "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" (lets try and keep this from the usual seventy discussion points). As for the agreement between you and No such user, it is not user consensus as it does not include all involved parties. Either way, you completely ignored an actual proper User consensus when it was against you, so its kind of weird you're bringing up some partial "agreement". ;)

• a) Location of Serbo-Croatian. The alphabet is usually the best choice. It is not the best choice when the significance of a given text vastly outweighs the other. One choice is a national anthem of a country of 25,000,000 people, and the others are just a poems. No competition.
• b) "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian". Ok, so we agree? "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" is used in only 10% of cases. I thought it might be somewhere around there. Anyway, by far the common term in English is "Serbo-Croatian". WP:COMMONAME does apply primarily to titles, but it is a general guideline in article text as well. Like I said, we can ask people (admins) on whether or not it is recommended to use the common name or not.

Don't worry, we're going all the way by the book this time :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything you wrote on the subject shows that you are not able to compromise, and that you falsely present the issue. (a) You insist on "your" points, shows agenda. (b) Your provocational use of wikilinks shows that you are not able to admit that users have the right to use all correct forms and all wikilinks. (Listed in the archive, that Mr. DIREKTOR created to hide his POV). (c) Usage of Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian shows that users/editors have the right to use Croato-Serbian, Croato-Serbian language.

Serbo-Croatian was in exclusive usage by the Yugoslav People's Army, and only by that institution, and that usage was allowed between 1963-1974. As for the languages of particular socialist republic'. SR Croatia used that apelation from 1963-1972 and only in that, constitutionaly speaking, period.

You are going against logic by hiding the obvious, Commonname is not about the content of articles, but for the titles of articles only.

Imbris (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh LoL... shall we forget about me, Imbris? xD There you have the two main points of discussion, kindly address them and present your arguments, pls. "Comment on Content, not the Contributor."

• a) Location of Serbo-Croatian. You did not comment on this issue at all... See my above post for my argument.
• b) "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian". "Right"? Are you defending your rights as a Yugoslav citizen? ;) Lets just keep to the stuff that actually matters on Wikipedia, like WP:COMMONAME? I was the first to admit up there that WP:COMMONAME does apply primarily to titles. I also said that we can ask around whether a dispute should be settled by using a name that is used 10% of the time, or a name that is used 80% of the time. Shall you adhere to a neutral opinion on that question this time (or will you defend the rights of Croats in Yugoslavia ;)? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But what's the problem mentioning Croato-Serbian? I mean, you all got in half year fight because of that. Rave92^(talk) 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(To Rave92, Imbris please see my above response to your post.) You just answered your own question. The issue is so significant we got into a half-year fight over it. That's why its a problem. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

@ DIREKTOR. The phrase Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian is used at the lede of the article presented under the title of Serbo-Croatian. I see that Mr. DIREKTOR is still mislead to belive that this issue will affect any other article other than this one only.

I will not limit my discussion to your two issues, because you deliberately archived to limit the data that future 3Os should be subjected to.

The phrase Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian is used only once in the entire article.

Stop this nonsense.

Imbris (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Aaah, we've switched from my biography and traits to your classic descriptions of my sinister plots? :) Moving on... These are the only two points of discussion since those are the only two article edits you reverted just a while ago, not because of my secret plan. But feel free to continue and ignore that simple logic out of spite...

• a) Location of Serbo-Croatian. You are still completely ignoring my post on this, and yet you reverted. Why are you ignoring the issue of placement? If you do not want to discuss, why did you revert this?
• b) "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian". The fact that alternative names for the language are mentioned in its article (Serbo-Croatian language) is commendable and proper. I just don't see what all that has to do with using obscure names. I do not see how that changes the fact that the term "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" is (reportedly) known by a mere 10% of English language speakers. I asked you whether or not you would be willing to submit to a neutral opinion on the "80% vs 10% issue" (we first both agree on the mediator, of course)?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You might belive that your beliefs on what I think have any merit on the discussion is what is proposterous. Your comments on the Yugoslav citizen, and not on sinister plots are unfounded and harmful. Then you turn to pure nationalistic BS, by questioning motives in a particulary sinister way (discussing who is defending whom). But I am not going to play along and "retaliate". Any user who comes along would see for themself.

(1) Location – Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian lyrics cannot be by any criteria considered to be placed in front of any other official version. The lyrics are ordailed by the name of the language, and as a second criteria by the historical time-line (earlier version first)

(2) The name of the language: Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian was official, and bearing in mind this is English wikipedia, we do not use it always, but only in certain cases, where the issue/topic concerns symbols (anthem, flag, motto, coat of arms, etc.)

(2a) In this article we use the apelation Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian only once, and we can show that in cases when both "variant(s)" are used there is a need to clarify in more detail why both "variant(s)" are presented, and to ensure the reader "feel" the dichotomy of the topic (since not all will read the Croato-Serbian language article.

(2b) Simmilarly we can use all: Hej Slaveni, Hej Slovani, Hej Sloveni or Hey, Slavs.

Imbris (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• a)/(1)/Alpha Location of Serbo-Croatian. Well, I just plain disagree. I believe that the Serbo-Croatian anthem lyrics should be given slight priority, considering the fact that they were a solemn anthem of a country (as opposed to being just another poem). I suppose there's no way to end this issue of the dispute other than WP:DS.
• b)/(2)/Beta "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian". The name of the language in English is "Serbo-Croatian", not "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian". The two variants were not called "Serbo-Croatian variant" and "Croato-Serbian variant" of the "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language". The whole language was sometimes called "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian", with Croatian and Serbian variants.
  • I request that you provide a source for your claim that "Serbo-Croatian" and "Croato-Serbian" were the names of the two variants. To my knowledge, "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" (not "Serbo-Croatian and Croato-Serbian") was just another name for the language, one that is very, very rarely used in English, and one that is added because of your stubbornness and nationalist POV :).
  • In the case that you do not have a source for the above, I'll ask you again would you simply agree on neutral mediation from a completely uninvolved User (admin)? I cannot see this dispute resolved any other way, but if you have other suggestions please... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that response notifications are necessary after all. Nevertheless, I intend to respect your talkpage rules. Imbris, are you there? Or are you conceding the discussion (LoL ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, may I ask why are you not discussing this particular issue? I'm proposing we agree on following the decisions of a neutral mediator (we both agree on), no matter what they turn out to be. I think, since this dispute lasted for months, that we are way beyond the first steps in WP:DR, but if you insist we can go through them. Though I warn you, the requests may well be ignored, in which case we move on. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Imbris - deleting other Serbo-Croatian varieties

Dear Imbris, it would be appreciated if you finally stopped deleting version in modern standard Bosnian and Montenegrin. Both of them are equal moderns standard Serbo-Croatian varieties. NPOV policy requires us to add them too, beside those in Croatian and Serbian. We cannot lie an pretend that they do not exist. Stop deleting them or you'll be reported to the administrator's noticeboard. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) Any administrator would see, that this is a content dispute, under heavy edit-waring by you and Mr. DIREKTOR. You should try WP:DR, and not the AN/I.

(2) This is just your interpretation of what NPOV should be. The modern languages called the Bosnian language, and also the Montenegrin language are not varieties of some defunct macrolanguage, but separate standard languages of Bosniaks, and of Montenegrins respectively.

(3) You should stop your biased editing, and restrict yourself to the monumental piece of WP:OWN you have going on at Croato-Serbian language.

(4) Under no circumstances will some un-official lyrics be supported by any admin, for the matter of fact any user, and you know that very well, so stop threatening (to the extent of criminal threatening).

Imbris (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What kind of content dispute. What on earth are you talking about?

This is common sense interpretation of NPOV. Yes they are separate standard languages, exactly the same way as modern standard Serbian and Croatian. None of those existed before the 1990s, and before the breakup of Yugoslavia. If we should include them, we should include them all, or none of them. Not selectively.

On that talkpage article I'm "fighting" with some bigoted Croatian nationalist who apparently makes lying claims that Croatian and Serbian are 2 totally differently languages, mutually unintelligible, that have no connection whatsoever with one another... Even you must admit that that's nonsense. Nevertheless, this has abs. nothing to do with this article and don't mention it because it discussing here is a waste of time.

What is "(un)official lyrics" ? Whether lyrics "translated" to particular Serbo-Croatian idiom are "official" or not should be of no concern.--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Never had the former National Anthem of the former Yugoslavia had lyrics in Bosnian, or in Montenegrin. It did have official lyrics in Serbian, and also in Croatian. You cannot claim officiality of lyrics in Bosnian, or in Montenegrin, you have no sources for such claims. -- Imbris (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey ho! Imbris, see the above section... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither did it have in "Croatian" or "Serbian", because those 2 didn't exist before the 1990s. If we're going to list all the modern languages, we must list them all, not selectively. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Oludeniz03.jpg

Please stop misusing this talk page for your blatant POV and biased phrasing. Languages exist and change in time, they have a time-line, just like history. We are talking about the history of the Anthem, and it was official in four languages hrv, mkd, slv and srp. The fact that those languages have these codes doesn't change the fact that they existed before the assignment of the codes. In former Yugoslavia there were no Bosnian language (in any historical form), nor the Montenegrin language. This is all. Please stop this simultaneous attacks. -- Imbris (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no "Croatian" and "Serbian" language either - these were different literary varieties of one official language called Serbo-Croatian. If we are to put modern-day standardized "descendants" of Serbo-Croatian, we must mention them all per NPOV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ivan, would you agree on seeking mediation? This time I'd like us all to agree to adhere to the mediator's conclusions, no matter what they may be. Or, alternatively, should we go all the way through WP:DS. I recommend you make the dispute very clear and straightforward for a possible 3O or mediator. Imbris appears to be avoiding this proposal of mine. I'm not sure why he's stalling, maybe he's just trying (in vane) to annoy me?

LoL, I'm so "Zen" these days... I may just change my username to "Zenanarh". I'm going to bed now, in the morning I'll have a nice long jog on Marjan, then maybe a swim... :)

I'd agree on the mediation, sure. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

interwiki link to ro.wiki.

Please add the interwiki link to ro.wiki. Here it is: ro:Hej Sloveni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radu Gherasim (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR is removing tags, which were inserted by User:No such user.

All the other editors concluded that the article could not be an example farm. -- Imbris (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

This is becoming ridiculous. Lyrics should be kept to the minimum. The page started out including several versions of the lyrics out of necessity, because they were all required to provide complete coverage. It has since turned into a contest in gathering more and more versions in various languages.

Here's what we're going to do:

• Keep the Slovakian original and its English translation, because it's the original, and because it was the official anthem of Slovakia at some point.
• Keep Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian and Macedonian lyrics and their English translation (one for all of them), because they were the officially/most commonly used versions. The names "Serbian" and "Croatian" are good enough for this purpose, AFAIC, though "Serbo-Croatian (Eastern)" and "Serbo-Croatian (Western)" are more accurate for most of the time when the song was used as the Yugoslav anthem.
• Move all the other lyrics to WikiSource or another appropriate place.

That way we will make a more useful article, and comply with Wikipedia policy. Zocky | picture popups 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This was "ridiculous" in July, now its just fun. :) I agree, its time to end this silliness. The other Slavic lyrics should be removed, with the exception of the Yugoslav anthem and Slovakian original. The Yugoslav anthem was written in Serbo-Croatian (i.e. Croatian and Serbian variants of that language), so Serbo-Croatian will be used.

The disruptive account User:Imbris, who's edits here fove months ago caused this farse and demolished the article, has been blocked for 72 hours and placed on probation for nationalist POV-pushing and edit-warring on seven different articles. Hopefully he will at last stop with the (ultra)nationalist rhetoric ("Serbo-Croatian never existed" and such) here. If not, I sincerely recommend avoiding involvement in any detailed discussion. Logic dictates that if five months of persuasion, mediations, protections, and warnings didn't do the trick - it is unlikely he will agree now. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, I went through with it and removed the additional lyrics (I naturally used Serbo-Croatian for the Yugoslav anthem). Two jobs still remain to put this issue to rest once and for all: 1) we need to move the old lyrics to Wikisource (if that hasn't already been done), and 2) we need to get an English translation for the Slovak original. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

@Zocky: I can agree with you that only Slovene, Slovak, Serbian, Macedonian and Croatian lyrics should remain. On the other hand I would consider allowing Slovene (pre-Yugoslav text) and Croatian (WWII text) to stay, in order for the reader to experience that the text included at some point, both God and Tito/Stalin elements. -- Imbris (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that Zocky would see this violent last editing of Mr. DIREKTOR. The mediation did not provide any time frame (or date) of the preffered version of the article. Mr. DIREKTOR is hoping to sneak-in his POV that was contained in earlier versions. -- Imbris (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiso's Slovakia

In recent days an anonymous user erroneously altered "Tiso's Slovakia" to "Tito's Slovakia". I have now changed the sub-heading to read simply "Slovakia": 1) to remove the mistaken reference to Josip Broz Tito (1892-1980); and 2) because, as the paragraph itself states, the song has been associated with Slovakia for much longer than solely during the period of its rule by Jozef Tiso (1887-1947). -- Picapica (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hey, Slavs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20011128160810/http%3A//www.iarelative.com/nss1946/slovaci.htm to http://www.iarelative.com/nss1946/slovaci.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

1991?

If this song was retired in 1991 and Yugoslavia broke up in 1992, what was the national anthem in that time period or did Yugoslavia not have one? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 19:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Illegitimate Barrister: It was, of course, not "retired" in 1991. It was only retired in 2006 when Serbia and Montenegro split up. After 1992, Serbia and Montenegro claimed to be legal successor of SFR Yugoslavia, so the anthem was kept. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It says in this paragraph that it was retired by the SFRY in '91, and the SFRY article says the state dissolved in '92. The way it reads to me is that there would've been a few months near the end of SFRY's existence when the state had no national anthem. Or, maybe I'm just reading it wrong. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That is wrong. The disintegration of Yugoslavia started in 1991, but Yugoslavia did officially exist up until April 1992, so the anthem was used til 1992. In this video, you can hear "Hey, Slavs" playing before the Netherlands-Yugoslavia football marcth in March 1992. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I had a feeling that was the case; I went ahead and fixed the wrong date on the article. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• "Hej, Slaveni", performed by the Simfonijski Orkestar Radio Televizije Beograd.oga

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)