Talk:Socialist Republic of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

I think

I think this article should also include the People's Republic of Montenegro, as it's just a rename of a state (we don't have a separate FPRY from SFRY article).

AFAIK I don't think that this subject deserves a separate article. It's not a historical entity (like the ol' Princedom/Kingdom of Montenegro), but practically the same state that it is today... they just replaced "People's" with "Socialist", removed it altogether and had numerous minor structures in the government (from one-party to just de facto one-party, so duh nothing in reality changed as the Communist successors are still in power and were continuously; from an Executive Council to modern-day Government, and gaining a Presidency that evolved to a single President - as the republic became more and more independent over time). --PaxEquilibrium 08:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Which prior flag?

This page has gone back and forth several times in the past couple days between Image:Flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (state).svg and Image:Flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (civil).svg, with no reason behind either for any of the edits. Can some reasons for each be given so a flag can be picked and left there, rather than a slow, long-lasting edit war-type situation continuing? -Bbik^★ 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New title for article: "Serbia in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"

The change in the dates does not coincide with the constitutional end of the Socialist Republic of Serbia, it became the Republic of Serbia in 1990 bringing major changes - including ending the one-party communist government institutions, thus a more appropriate title is needed. The 1990 constitution involved massive changes to the very basis of the government - it was not just a petty name change of the polity. The discussion on Republic of Serbia (1992–2006) reveals that the person who proposed the change to the title says that the real basis of the articles in the issue of inclusion in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, not the constitutional change in 1990 that ended the official communist one-party government basis of the government in exchange for a multiparty system. Thus the title of this article should be "Serbia in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.95.115 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No go. This is the COMMONNAME for this state. -- Director (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with IP user. The discussion at Talk:Republic of Serbia (1992–2006) reveals that a couple of editors decided that the subject of this article is not Serbia as defined by 1990 constitution but Serbia as constituent republic of FRY and later Serbia and Montenegro. Although this position was opposed by the majority of editors who participated in the discussion the scope was unilaterally changed which created a problem with the title of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I could list about fifteen entirely separate reasons why such a move would be against WP:NAME, Antid. "1990" to "1992" is one thing, this is entirely another. -- Director (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Serbia after 1990 was not the "Socialist Republic of Serbia" - it was not a mere name change, there was massive change to the very basis of the government. The current title combined with a timeline that goes to 1992 falsely gives the impression that the Socialist Republic existed for two more years than it did, that presents inaccurate history. Please answer the following question: what evidence is there that the Republic of Serbia from 1990 to 1992 has the common name of the "Socialist Republic of Serbia"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.95.247 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

These are not two countries we are talking about. Its the same Yugoslav republic with several names. Names like Federal State of Serbia and People's Republic of Serbia, and yes, "Republic of Serbia". The point is that this is a country article about one Yugoslav republic, the WP:COMMONNAME for which is "Socialist Republic of Serbia". There is also consistency with other Yugoslav republic articles to consider (see WP:CRITERIA)... like I said, I could list a dozen reasons why this is a bad idea. -- Director (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You have not yet presented evidence that would confirm that the Republic of Serbia from 1990 to 1992 had the "common name" of the "Socialist Republic of Serbia". Would you please present this evidence that it was commonly known by this name during that time period, for confirmation?--174.93.95.247 (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how common names are determined on Wikipedia? -- Director (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that is supposed to be a common name unless no common name is available for a specific and single topic. There is a question here and on the other talk page of whether this even is a single topic. The Republic of Serbia had major changes in the basis of government, it was no longer a socialist state, it was not just a name change, it created a completely different basis of government. Thus the question is very reasonable: is there evidence that the Republic of Serbia should be considered the same entity as the Socialist Republic of Serbia from 1990 to 1992? And if it is the same entity, why are we not merging the whole Socialist Republic of Serbia article with the Republic of Serbia (1992-2006) or Serbia articles?--174.93.95.247 (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. This is really about scope, not commonname: this article is what we call a "country article" (a political entity article) about a subdivision of Yugoslavia. What you are suggesting is a title that would be appropriate for an article with a different scope and organization: a period article, discussing a period of history of a country or region.

What I am saying is: this article is about a country. The most common name of that country, whichever it may be, is certainly not "Serbia in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". -- Director (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I offered that as an alternative to justify inclusion of the SRS and RS from 1990-1992 into one article. The fact remains that the Republic of Serbia that had a massively different political system than the Socialist Republic of Serbia. And if the SRS and RS from 1990-1992, 1992-2006, 2006-present, etc. are to be considered here the same entity that went through various constitutional changes, then there is no logical purpose for the articles existing, they should be merged into the Serbia article that is about the most current manifestation of the previous incarnations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.95.247 (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the fundamental misunderstanding here is this: article scopes are not determined by the title, but rather its the scope that determines the title. So if the scope of this article is to describe a constituent republic of Yugoslavia, we search out the most common name for that republic - and use it (and this is it, of course). Your suggestion is a title for a period article about Serbia in the SFRY, not for a country article about the constituent republic. -- Director (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)