Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"including predecessor teams"[edit]

I figure this awkward part of the title, and in turn the confusing part of the article, was probably deemed a necessary compromise in order to have the article verifiable at reprezentacija.rs. It is nevertheless strange, and in conflict with common sense - if we want a list of Yugoslavia international footballers, then we can and should create a normal article called like that. Otherwise Serbia's role is given undue weight, because Yugoslavia was not succeeded only by Serbia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the .yu topic, we actually have a decent amount of articles already:

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Joy, but I beleave that Serbia is regarded by FIFA and UEFA as the only direct successor of K.Yugoslavia, SFRY, FRY and SCG. With regard of the other articles you mention (coincidentally I created and mostly keep updated the last one as well), I see no connection to this one, as none of them lists all players with international caps, which is the point of this list. Anyway, what is that you sugest? FkpCascais (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That's a valid point that has been raised but also disputed in the past. Even if the two organizations did accept new FSJ (now FSS) as successor to old FSJ, that still doesn't mean that they dictate common sense in general - dissolution of Yugoslavia did happen, as did United Nations Security Council Resolution 777 etc, so I still think it's wrong to list Yugoslav football information under a Serbian title. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
But Joy, this is strictly football we are refering here. FIFA and UEFA had access to all documents and know the events, and at the end they decided this way. I had the article for some time as sandbox because I wanted to weight all possibilities. If we include Yugoslavia in title, then we should FRY and SCG as well, and all three are basically direct predecessors only of current day Serbian FA. I understand the possible dissatisfaction some non-Serb former-Yugoslavs may have, but the title is actually correct. Anyway, suggestions are allways welcomed. FkpCascais (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
So they made a decision - why do you think it binds us with regard to this kind of an article? Besides, now that I think about it, we wouldn't be saying anything contrary to any such decision, we'd be simply saying the most clear and direct truth - if someone was an international player for "Yugoslavia", they were that. Calling such a person an international player of "Serbia", regardless of whether you add "(including predecessor teams)", is anachronistic and wrong. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is not wrong in a sense that they all played for the same Federation, it is just that the federation changed name troughout time being th current Serbia (the view why FIFA and UEFA had for taking the decition). I made an effort to make the inclusion criterium explicit in the lead, mentioning the different names. Anyway, I would definitely favour any fair siggestion I couldn´t find until here. What would you suggest? Title change? Some way of indicating next to a player name the exact period and NT he represented? Other ideas? FkpCascais (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Well that's just it, even if we throw common sense out the window and just call it a federation rename - they still did not play for the federation under the new name, but under the old one. They weren't clairvoyant so they couldn't know what could happen in 1991 and accept it as such, so we shouldn't pretend they were and not force their names to appear under the contentious new name. My fair suggestion stands - there should be a separate list of Yugoslavia international footballers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, but we have two different issues here:
The first is that what you call common sense is not what had become accepted by the ruling powers. FIFA and UEFA actually recognise the current Serbian FA as being the same as YFA, just renamed, and that the other Federations left and created their own ones, with no effect to the "Belgrade-based" one. If I remember, Croatia protested back then, but it made no difference in the final decition, so that is why perhaps what you consider common sense may differ from the other common senses. Basically for us in Serbia it doesn´t make sense having the large ammount of players separated in two lists as they in our view played allways for the same selection, and we receved the support of FIFA and UEFA for this view. It would also make no sense removing the Croatian or other players that played in it, as they, after all, also played for this same NT.
The second is that this list doesn´t prevent the creation of another one specifically for the pre-1992 period. If you notece I didn´t pretended nowhere to use this list to present it as the Yugoslav list, even if it may had been very usefull in the "See also" section of Yugo NT for exemple. I even thought in some future to make the Yugo list with statistics and such data, but I still didn´t found time for it. FkpCascais (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem easy to create the additional lists if required, and still have the larger list. Presumably the lists would be useful for different purposes. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC).

The larger list could continue exist to appease the Serbian POV, I guess, but it would still seem like a gross duplication, putting it at odds with the basic principles of WP:MERGE. I went looking for the exact UEFA POV, and found current Serbia member profile where they don't seem to make any effort to explain their decision to dis the dissolution of Yugoslavia (heh), they just consistently classify member countries under member federations. This is probably fine under their own bylaws, but in general, players are widely considered to represent their respective countries; I've never seen anyone in football refer to some player as someone who primarily plays for or represents their federation. Clearly federations are very much involved in the player-country relationship, but they in turn are primarily thought of as representatives of the countries themselves, not vice versa. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your thought of country/FA (football association) I disagree, as actually mostly, but not allways, countries and FA´s coincide (UK exemple). The FA´s are the ones competing and forming national teams, so players are selected by them, not the country. Anyway, important websites for this matter, as EU-Football.info (complementary website of the official UEFA one for historical purposes) clearly lists data that way as well (notece how former countries like Saar and others are listed at the left column, but Yugoslavia is not and it is included within Serbian NT). This is not "Serbian POV" against "common sense", but the official view that recognised things as such and FIFA and UEFA certailnly had their reasons to decide that way. That is why Serbian FA also lists players like that. FkpCascais (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You're using the wrong term for the UK example - countries do match, independent states don't. And my basic point stands - we say a player plays for Wales, which is a country, not just their federation. But in this case we don't have an analogy with any of that - it's not like the Serbian or Croatian federation existed as a separate FIFA/UEFA member during Yugoslavia - they were all voluntarily joined in a single federation, and this single federation was not the Serbian federation, it was the Yugoslav federation. Well, at least one would like to think that none of this was outright federation misappropriation, but given the events of 1929 and this situation today, it's not hard to reach an opposite conclusion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Joy, sorry I had some off-wiki issues and I was completely abscent for weeks, so that is why I didn´t answered to you.
Regarding the issue in question, well, yes Joy, I am well aware of the football history of the region (I´m really passionate about it) and I am fully aware that football at the very beggining was more developed in Croatia than in Serbia. But soon the two matched eachother, and whatever the reasons behind the events of 1929 (maybe a bit of possesivness mixed with the logic of having a federation headquarters in the country capital) the entire perspective nowadays is a bit different. It is a fact that Yugoslav football lived allways in this Serbo-Croat antagonism and rivalry, but also the fact that Serbia tried to keep together the illed Yugoslavia, while Croatia was the first, along Slovenia, to leave it in 1991. Croatia also basically left in 1941 to return in 1945... All this makes somehow Serbia the one that kept that Federation going and alive calling others to stay when others were turning their backs and proudly building something of their own. To make it a bit pinturesque, Serbia was the one allways asking "Who is with us?" and keeping the house open... I suspect that was possibly this attitude one of the possible reasons for FIFA and UEFA to declare Serbia as the only successor of the old Yugoslavia. Anyway, this list is for Serbs a complete list of the kind "Tu su svi" ("They are all here"), so if adequatly sourced, presented and explained, there should be no problem in my view. That is why I indeed want you to help me with this, although in reality we don´t have much room for major explanations, as the list is already quite long, so that is why I limited myself to a short lead with links to the related articles where all is explained (I would even appreciate to have a History section where all this issues would be expanded, but that doesn´t seem possible because of the lenght of the list, so even if we make one it has to be concise). FkpCascais (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you want to put it that way, I'm fine with "They are all here", but for the time before 1992, "here" is defined as "Yugoslavia", not as "Serbia". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Technically you are not correct as "after 1992" was still not "Serbia" but "FR Yugoslavia"... FkpCascais (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Joy, the entire problem for you here is that FIFA and UEFA actually acknolledged Serbia to be the direct and only successor of all Belgrade-based federations, which include Yugoslavia since its creation. Once they acknolledged that, it is technically correct that they are all "predecessor teams of Serbia". Either you challenge this or otherwise you are basing your opinions just on geographical units, which is random... You are entitled to make all the sorts of inclusion criteriums for the lists that WP policies allow, and so am I, and I made this one which is the one that sources support. Also, I kindly asked you suggest to me a better name if you feel uncomfortable with the title for some reason (as seems evident), however until a fair and correct suggestion isn´t made and subsequently accepted, I will keep this version as it is the one which is technically correct. FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I made an effort to adress your concerns: how about renaming this article into - List of international footballers of Serbia and its predecessors? Will this fix the ambiguity to which you refered earlier about the title? Any other suggestions? FkpCascais (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In conclusion, I've created list of Yugoslavia international footballers and made the content of both articles consistent with the rest of the relevant related articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

...and you did it on your own ignoring the opinion of Rich Farmbrough and myself.
Please feel free to have the list you created having an inclusion criterium of your choice, however please don´t make major changes of the kind you did in this one. FkpCascais (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see Rich Farmbrough actually objecting to the new layout. The current list layout is fair and accurate according to all definitions. If you want to haggle about it some more, please get a third opinion that explicitly supports your POV. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and of all the dickish moves I've seen, your behavior here just trumped them all. You did "Rv change without consensus", which is a baseless claim of WP:CONSENSUS, and then made a flurry of new changes. So I can't simply revert you again without either looking like a jerk myself (by making an outright revert that drops your new changes) or making another painstaking effort to weed out KoY and SFRY players. Despite the fact I've explained my position at length in advance and the fact the proper layout sat there from April 10 to May 25 untouched, IOW no readers saw it as against consensus. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
First you came opening a thread. Then what you asked failed to have even one support (please read Rich Farmbrough post and don´t distort his meaning), and then you simply reverted on your wish knowing you were opposed. Sorry Joy, but this is the plain trouth. FkpCascais (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't occur to you that few people actually care enough about the discussion to participate? :) I answered Rich, and he stayed silent - so how are we to conclude anything? I gave it a prod with an explicit separation of lists, and now readers should see my point more clearly, maybe someone notices the new RFC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplication with List of Yugoslavia international footballers[edit]

Should List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams) duplicate the content of the List of Yugoslavia international footballers by listing all the players who ever played under the Yugoslav Football Association?

The contention of User:FkpCascais is apparently that because FIFA/UEFA think that the Football Association of Serbia is the sole official successor of the Yugoslav Football Association (and the extent of this opinion is moot), that it's also the sole official successor of the national team of Yugoslavia. However, that country does not have a sole official successor since 1991, see breakup of Yugoslavia, and we can't magically separate the national team from the country it represents.

I don't think it's appropriate to list Yugoslav players from the 1920s or the 1950s as "Serbia international footballers", because that's simply factually incorrect. They played for "Yugoslavia", not for "Serbia". Some of them can be said to have played for their individual republics, but the common denominator is Yugoslavia, not Serbia.

Listing them as "international footballers of predecessor teams to the Serbia team" is similarly problematic, because it leads to a slippery slope - all of the six former Yugoslav republics could then get a list of their own, and each of them could include the whole list of Yugoslav players with the same rationale - it was their predecessor team, too. This would be against common sense and the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • This is actually a duplication of the previous discussion where the same user failed to receve support for his edits. Everyone should read the previous discussion where all this was explained in detail. The only thing that changed since then was that Joy created the List of Yugoslavia international footballers (where he basically copy/pasted this list and removed some players) so he could claim duplication now. The inclusion criteriums are different and official sources back the fact that all players which have played for the Belgrade-based Football Federation are list together despite the name changes of the country that occured. FIFA and UEFA recognise Serbia as the only official successor of all of this state entities: Kingdom of Yugoslavia, SFR Yugoslavia, FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. Serbia kept the national team affiliation in these organisations during all the time, with the rest of the counties separating appart and forming their own national teams. Also, during all the periods Serbian players formed the majority of the national team, and many played during different periods, thus not making much sense to have a separate list for each one of the periods. This list is a complete list of players that represented the same Football Association which during time had some territorial and name changes, only that. Joy seems to have missunderstood the purpose of the list, and he seems to ignore the official position of the ruling bodies over this issue. FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, Joy describes as my opinion and being moot the fact that Serbia national football team is the sole official successor of the Yugoslavia national football team, however this is a well known fact in the region (it was disputed by Croatia but rejected by the ruling bodies). We can see in the FIFA official website that Serbian national team keeps the affiliation date in 1923 (the year the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was affiliated) as the affiliation year, honours (1930 and 1962 World Cup 4th place) and all related statistics and data by including Yugoslavia history and results, please see: fifa.com.
  • Also, in order to adress Joy´s concerns, I already asked him several times to make suggestions for a more appropriate title for this article, but now I find Joy´s attitude to be ambiguos, as he is not present in order to improve this article, but rather to acomplish the separation of the list into different periods, something which is not supported by the official stand of the ruling bodies neither by any reliable sources. I already made a proposal of a title change in order to make it less ambiguos and more "supportable" for editors with Joy´s POV, however that is a good-faith suggestion on my behalve as the title is still correct the way it is. FkpCascais (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not claiming new duplication - it existed before, it just wasn't as apparent.
The bottom line is still the same - the readers don't and shouldn't care for the intricate details of what constitutes the relation between "Serbia" and a player. Either the player played for Serbia, or they didn't. Or Yugoslavia. Or whatever other country.
The road you're proposing inevitably leads to tagging all of those players and teams as "Serbia", which has actually been tried recently by Lukabeograd (talk · contribs), and reverted on the spot not just by myself but by other editors as well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
But Joy, that is why I proposed to you a change in the title if you find it so ambiguos and I am still open to accept any reasonable proposals that would help to fix your concerns. However, the fact is that these intricate details are fundamental, and the list complies with the fact that all this players played for one same national team, a view that is supported by FIFA. I think you are missing the point that FIFA and all related organisms considers Yugoslavia and Serbia to be the same football association and national team, while the other counties secceded from it and formed their own football associations and national teams. That is why in fact all this players did represented the Serbian football association (named Yugoslav back then) and did played for the Serbian national team (named Yugoslavia back then). This is the official position, and as I told you, Croatia complained but its complain was rejected. I am willing to adress your concerns, but I am not willing to make changes which are not supported by this facts I just mentioned. FkpCascais (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Where exactly does FIFA say that in the context of this list? It doesn't. Ivica Horvat played for Yugoslavia. As did Vladimir Durković. FIFA is not listing these players under "Serbia predecessor team", it's listing them under "Yugoslavia", with the Flag of SFR Yugoslavia. I fail to see how you can misinterpret that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC on "including predecessor teams"[edit]

There's no clear consensus on whether predecessor teams should be included in this article. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the inclusion of predecessor teams here the best possible course of action here given the existence of articles about football in Yugoslavia?

The previous discussions failed to attract the attention of anyone other than myself and the article primary author User:FkpCascais. I'm hoping that after many years, third time's the charm - to at least get someone else to voice an opinion. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - I knew sooner or later you were coming for it. First you tried at talk but you failed to get support, then you created a parallel List of Yugoslavia international footballers by copy/pasting this list and excluding the players that played after 1992, and now we will finally discuss it and settle it.

Here is the thing. Croatian FA was the one that objected FIFA and UEFA recognition of FR Yugoslavia becoming the sole successor of Yugoslavia. Croatian objections were disregarded and today Serbia is considered the direct successor of Yugoslavia, FR Yugoslavia and Serbia&Montenegro national teams. Lets talk straight and honest, Joy is a Croatian-based Wikipedian and he is trying in this article to implement the Croatian objection of the FIFA and UEFA recognitions of successorship. The case is the following: the Yugoslav Football Association was formed in 1919 and gained admittance to FIFA and UEFA in 1921 and 1954 respectively. FIFA and UEFA are the, respectively World and European, ruling bodies of football (for the ones unfamiliarised with football). In 1991 the players of Slovenia and Croatia left the Yugoslav national team and formed their own respective ones. In 1992 Bosnian and Macedonian players left the Yugoslav national team and formed their own ones. In 2003 Yugoslavia national football team was renamed to Serbia and Montenegro national team. And, finally, in 2006 Montenegrin players left the national team and formed their own one, and the Serbia and Montenegro national football team was renamed to Serbia national football team. So, because of this different names the national tam had troughout its history, if one makes a list of all players that played in it it has to name it the way the list it is named now. If anyone has sugestions, they are welcome.

Another aspect is that Joy is challenging the fact that Serbia is the sole official successor of Yugoslavia. Here are the offcial sources confirming it:

  • FIFA official website: we can see the "Foundation year: 1919" and the fact that they are putting in the statistics such as number of World Cup appearances them including the participations of Yugoslavia and Serbia&Montenegro along, thus clearly indicating they are considering Yugoslavia-Serbia&Montenegro-Serbia to be one and same national team.
  • UEFA official website: starts the page for Serbia by saying "The Football Association of Serbia (FSS) is the successor to the Yugoslav Football Association founded in 1919 and is staging their first final tournament in their current form." The entire article explains well all. We can also see how UEFA includes Yugoslav results as well in the Honors page, and again all confirmed that they treat all as one same national team at the Profile page.
  • Serbian Football Association official website we can read: " After the dissolution of the federation, and separation of Montenegro, on 28th June 2006, Football Association of Serbia became the national home of football, and was admitted to the membership of FIFA and UEFA, as legal successor to all the previous national associations whose part it was."

So resumingly, Joy is trying something Croatian FA already tried, which is to deny Serbian FA its recognition of sole successor of Yugoslav FA. He tried to convince us that Yugoslavia has separate articles from Serbia, but in matters of football statistics, for what matters, Yugoslavia-Serbia&Montenegro-Serbia they all go together. Serbs were the majority of players in Yugoslav NT and many continued playing after the change of names, so it is complicated to make separate statistics for each period, much better to have them listed all in one. To confirm it, I bring sources that do just the same:

  • Serbia at EU-football.info the major and most reliable world-wide website for national teams, we can clearly see how they list all players together and even add at top the explanation of the name changes of the national team I talked about. Just in case of doubt, see how for instance at Croatia page they dont include Yugoslavia.
  • reprezentacija.rs the national team website, that lists them all together from 1919 till nowadays just as well.

Football websites just follow the FIFA and UEFA decition and so should we. We should not engage in WP:OR neither support the POV of Croatia which had its objections turned down. FkpCascais (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I stopped reading at the point where you accused me of promoting some POV of some specific national organization in some specific dispute. That's, well, just plain false, and such an accusation is an assumption of bad faith. I'm not interested in a further baseless flaming with you, so I'll just leave it at that. I hope others won't be dissuaded from participating by your rant. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
But that is a fact. You exposed your arguments in the discussions above, they totally match the Croatian stance regarding the Serbian recognition as sole official successor of Yugoslav national team, and you are a Croatian Wikipedian, talk straight and open, dont try to disguise your real intentions with soft wording in this RfC if you clearly expressed your intentions in the previous discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
You're intentionally misrepresenting my position as some sort of a specific argument, whereas it's nothing of the sort. Our readers, as myself, do not actually care for any such discussion that took place in any football organization, because it's meaningless to them. They care about the undisguised facts such as the fact that some player represented "Yugoslavia" in football tournaments. The intricate successor issue is something only misguided people such as yourself care about. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
You are not going to convince no one that the decitions of FIFA and UEFA on this matter are irrelevant. They ruled out Yugoslavia-Serbia&Montenegro-Serbia are one and same national team and group all together their statistics. So do we here on this list, and so do numerous websites, so what is your problem exactly with this list? FkpCascais (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Yugoslavia international footballers should redirect to List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams). See FIFA and UEFA.--John, AF4JM (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

FIFA says on their own very website simply that Ivica Horvat played for Yugoslavia. As did Vladimir Durković. FIFA is not listing these players under "Serbia predecessor team", it's listing them under "Yugoslavia", with the Flag of SFR Yugoslavia. I wrote this almost three years ago, and nobody has put forward a coherent argument to explain this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
FIFA is listing Yugoslavia as predecessor team of Serbia, thus all Yugoslav players are by associaton players of the predecessor team of nowadays Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Notice "coherent". By association, all cumulus clouds are clouds, which doesn't mean we should go out of our way and merge their article into the cloud article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.