Talk:Timeline of the breakup of Yugoslavia

Start

If we start to edit events after April 1992 timeline will become to long.--Rjecina (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors should (in fact, they must) use quotations marks here, when citing someone's words. Kubura (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~mercerb/chyugo.html

The Former Yugoslavia: Chronology.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been proclaimed on 28 April 1992. With this proclamation timeline is ending because new state has not been internationaly accepted to be successor of SFRY. About this there is sort of agreement with Serbian users which are controling creation of timeline. For latter events somebody need to create Federal Republic of Yugoslavia timeline (or something similar).--Rjecina (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

References

This article is doomed to low quality unless you start adding references. It's easiest to add references as you're adding the info - some of this stuff may be hard to track down later. Especially pressing are quotations. While certain events are well-known enough to be pretty self-evident, quotes and other claims need citations. For example, "This has seen by Serbia like act of hostility" (apart from the grammatical problems) is unacceptable without references, whose addition would hopefully show that Serbia doesn't have opinions, the Serbian leadership or citizens do.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My original source is here --Rjecina (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Than it would be better to complete the article with this reference on due places. Davin7 (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Split up after april 1992

The name of the article is "Timeline of Yugoslavian breakup" (not socialist Yugoslavia) and for that reason I don't understand why it should end then. The breakup of Yugoslavia ends factually with the declaration of independence of Kosovo, because it is still part of the same process. For at least, that is my opinion. Can you please explain, why it should end in april 1992? Davin7 (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has not been recognized under that name very long time. For example UN declarations in 1992,93,94 are speaking about Serbia and Montenegro and not about Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If there is need for another example we are having BBC documentary, called the Death of Yugoslavia which is ending with 1995. With all that I only want to show that Yugoslavia has been dead in 1992.

Maybe is possible to change article name to Timeline of Socialist Yugoslavia breakup and if you want to move to that name there is no problem (in my thinking).--Rjecina (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not the name the article has. Maybe it would be better to revert the action and start a new article. Don't you think? Davin7 (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please write propositions for new article or rewriting of this ?

My problem is that article is too long and I want to show with timeline how/why Yugoslav Wars has started (first incident, second, 3rd ..... start of war). --Rjecina (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article is too long. Actually how it was, is about the length it always will have I guess, maybe 25% more but not much more than that. I will offer two propositions to you:

1. In case you agree that the length is actually all right and that a complete article offers a complete overview of the events that happened, my proposition is to revert the action of deleting the events after 1992. You can make another article which can be referred to from the article Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
2. If the length of the article is really a problem to you, my proposition would be to make a template of all the relevant time-line articles.

Is this something you can work with? Davin7 (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that we are having "controversial" article and users from all ex Yugoslav countries has looked timeline and being OK (or not very much against). There has been little agreement that timeline must end in april 1992 and I am afraid to change that. Only possible solution is to call this article Timeline of Yugoslav Wars but then we will have questions why time period 1980-1990 (I will really hate to loose raise of nationalism in Yugoslavia)? Your thinking about that ?--Rjecina (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a controversial article indeed, but please know that I don't have Yugoslav roots or bias into some direction. For me it is more important to have a correct presentation of the facts and clear overview of what happened.

I think that the current article name with 'breakup' is all right. Now you can desciper how it came that Yugoslavia broke up.

Is it all right with you to bring back the information later than 1992? I think that is the best way. Davin7 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have called editor with which there has been agreement that timeline need to end in April 1992. If he agree with your proposition please restore timeline for events after April 1992 because there will be new consensus about this article.--Rjecina (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, here how it goes. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia declared itself the successor of SFRY - it hurt some legal standards doing so, but used the same principle. But was it recognized until November 2000 by the international community during the early 1990s? No it wasn't. Actually, in all of them it does say "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)" pointing out its lack of recognition. Next of all, the 1991 Badinter Commission concluded that one cannot legally draw successorship from Serbia - but all 6 Republics. SFRY was a signatory of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. Today, it is as if all of those countries are signatory states.

The main truth is that, yes, the Serbo-Montenegrin union called itself "Yugoslavia". But was it Yugoslavia? No, it was not. It misses half of its population and most of its territory. The process of Yugoslav disintegration itself had ended in 1992, the modern processes regarding Montenegro and Kosovo are totally unrelated - in their own problems and all else - to "the other" disintegration. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree that the real existence of Yugoslavia ended in 1992. However, if you look at the breakup from the federation into all the peaces that are left now, I think you need to conclude Montenegro and Kosovo as well. Namely, they were part of Yugoslavia as well and the reason should be found in one and the same chain reaction. Davin7 (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of former Yugoslavia was once a part of the Roman Empire. Why not add this into its Fall?

That is not the same chain reaction, that is the very point. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I undid this split because it made the article incoherent. The other article was not simply a timeline of Serbia and Montenegro, because it continued to talk in the same context of SFRY of the war in Croatia and Bosnia. I appreciate the intent, but it was WP:POINTy to say the least. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I restored a separation in context using sections. This should appease both standpoints. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dinamo Zagreb–Red Star Belgrade riot

Dinamo Zagreb–Red Star Belgrade riot (May 13, 1990) This match was important! Böri (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Also: Yugoslavia v Netherlands (1990). GregorB (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Srebrenica

How come this page does not mention the Srebrenica massacre at all? Netherian (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)