Talk:Yugoslavs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

1913 manifesto by Slovene Yugoslavists declaring a Yugoslav nation

In 1913, Slovene intellectuals published a manifesto recognizing the existence of a Yugoslav nation and calling for its independence, declaring:

"As it is a fact that we Slovenes, Croats and Serbs constitute a compact linguistic and ethnic group with similar economic conditions, and so indissolubly linked by a common fate on a common territory that no one of the three can aspire to a separate future, and in consideration of the fact that among the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs, the Jugoslav thought is even today strongly developed, we have extended our national sentiments beyond our frontier to the Croats and Serbs…By this we all become members of one united Jugo-slav nation."

--R-41 (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New people to be included in infobox - sources provided

• Ivan Meštrovic
  • Famous Croat sculptor Ivan Meštrovic became a supporter of Yugoslavism and Yugoslav identity after he traveled to Serbia and became impressed with Serb culture. Meštrovic created a sculpture of Serbian folk-legend hero Prince Marko at the International Exhibition in Rome in 1911, when asked about the statue, Meštrovic replied "This Marko is our Yugoslav people with its gigantic and noble heart". Meštrovic wrote poetry speaking of a "Yugoslav race". Those who knew Meštrovic's views referred to Meštrovic as "The Prophet of Yugoslavism".--R-41 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, political ideology. You need source wich states - He was Yugoslav. However, it's stated he is Croat sculptor. Also, Banac (not Banač!) mentions him as Croat, in the book "The national question in Yugoslavia: origins, history, politics. (p. 203) - "Ivan Meštrović was the first modern Croat artist..." "...born Dalmatinian Croat..." --Wustenfuchs 19:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Jovan Cvijić
  • Serb geographer who supported Yugoslavism on the basis that a Yugoslav civilization would result in a neccessary merging of Croat, Serb, and other cultures would merge into a single Yugoslav culture where he believed the benefits of Croat culture, Serb culture, and others would be united while the disadvantages of the individual cultures would be elliminated through this unified hybrid culture. Cvijić spoke in quasi-eugenics terms that Yugoslav civilization would result in the creation of a "perfect Yugoslav type" that would in his words "not merely a new person but a person of better physical quality, with more stamina, healthier, economically more progressive, with more material goods, and even more important, spiritually higher, marked by more noble motives and sensations, with better habits, a stronger will and ability to act, greater intelligence and enlightenment." [1] Though his ambition was not achieved, it shows that he supported Yugoslav identity.--R-41 (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Vladimir Dvorniković
  • He supported and advocated the claim that there was a single "Yugoslav race", and that even though there was some differences between Yugoslavs, be claimed that there was a "racial unity".[2]. Again, regardless of whether his science was accurate or not, it shows that he ascribes to being a Yugoslav. A picture needs to be found of this man.--R-41 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Aleksandar Stamboliyski
  • Aleksandar Stamboliyski was a Bulgarian politician, he was questioned in the Bulgarian assembly as to his allegiances in 1914 and was asked if he was a Bulgarian or not, he shouted back "I am a Yugoslav!".[3]. He was Prime Minister of Bulgaria and sought to form a federation of Bulgaria with Yugoslavia.--R-41 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Until sources are found for Strossmeyer and Racki explicitly stating that they considered themselves as part of a Yugoslav nation, I support them being left out.--R-41 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What about Tito who claimed he is Croat by his nationality? [4] "In first such statement, in conversation with student delegation in March 1969, he stated he is Yugoslav, but that doesn't mean he forgot that he was born in Zagorje and that he is, by his nationality, a Croat."

I say for my self: I'm a Yugoslav, and I can't be anything else. I'm a Yugoslav by my obligations, position, and spirit. But I never withhold that I was born in Croatia. Why should I emphasize that I'm a Croat. I grown up in Yugoslavia in a working class.

— Broz

It's not important really, but this bothers me because he is also on the Croats infobox. --Wustenfuchs 19:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. If it's not one thing it's another. R-41 has provided sources for the inclusion of the people above that includes Mestrovic do not remove him. Now your pushing for the removal of Tito?-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. I just think it's one or another. He is on both infoboxes, he was either Croat or Yugoslav. --Wustenfuchs 21:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"This Marko is our Yugoslav people with its gigantic and noble heart". Ivan Meštrovic, 1911 (prior to Yugoslavia being created).--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I can disprove Wustenfuchs black and white thinking conception that "it's one or another. He is on both infoboxes, he was either Croat or Yugoslav" - that a person can have only one identity. My partner is a part-Ojibwe person, but as an Ojibwe she is part of the Anishinaabe people - that includes the Odawa, the Ojibwe, Algonquin tribal peoples. She acknowledges being both Ojibwe and Anishinaabe. Just as we have quoted in the article, Yugoslavist Jovan Cvijić in his article "The Bases of Yugoslav Civilization", spoke of a Yugoslav nation and its tribes, saying "our three tribes [Serbs, Croats, Slovenes]", of course Macedonians, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, and others such as Bulgarians were identified by other Yugoslavists, especially later. Here is a statement from the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in 1919 denouncing rivaling ethnic hatreds of the "tribal" sects of Yugoslavs, saying "Tribal chauvinisms are becoming more and more open...Raise your voice against all these tribal chauvinisms" and the book states that "it was believed that Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes were one nation", see here: [5]. And here is another book that describes the Yugoslav state's goal of diminishing existing sectarian identities (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes as identified at that time) that it considered as having fostered "tribal separateness" into a united identity of Yugoslavs, see here: [6].--R-41 (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Racki, but Strossmayer was a Yugoslavist no question. The no.1 opponent of Ante Starcevic (its kind of ironic that the latter was an atheist while the former was a clergyman). He was a Yugoslavist, a clergyman, and a person of German roots (a walking contradiction one might say :)). It would be hard to present him as a Croat alone. -- Director (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Ivan Meštrovic was a Slavophile, but there is a huge difference between being a Slavophile and belonging to a "Yugoslav" ethnicity. The fact that you've had to resort to Ivo Banac as a reference (who in 1984 was still an avowed Yugoslav himself, and later entered politics joining a short-lived and marginal political party that sought to keep Yugoslavia together) is telling that your point is moot. The chief biographical references on Meštrović remain the works by Duško Kečkemet, while Meštrović's biography and his childrens' writings are supremely valuable as primary references. They simply do not paint the picture that you are attempting to show.

To be honest, I'm not really interested about what your original research into your partner states. You're attempting to promote some bizarre POV using a few fringe sources - we can literally find hundreds of sources that counter someone like Djokic. For example, the sentence containing the reference to "tribal separateness" goes like this: The constitutional structure of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was constructed to help the transition of identities from tribal separateness to Yugoslavism. That is totally POV and is literally laughable in light of dozens (if not hundreds) of other works. The constitution was boycotted by all Croat parties and the Communists (who also had a Croat following), thus being accepted mostly by Serb representatives on the very anniversary of their national battle on Kosovo. The constitution contained no references to the word Yugoslav(ia), nor anything remotely similar to it, although it was a centrist constitution that virtually all Croats opposed and Meštrović himself speaks extremely negatively of in his works.

One must also look at the linguistics to fully understand the situation. As previously mentioned Meštrović was definitely a Slavophile in the early part of his life. But there were also Germanophiles and even Italophiles among the Croatian population during this period. Does that make these people Germans or Italians? Certainly not. The linguistic problem which arises is this: in Croatian the term for South Slav (which also includes the Bulgarians) is technically južni slaven, but this term has never been used presently or historically in the singular. The word jugoslaven is preferable as a single-word compound. What your above discussion about ethnicity, nationality, politics, etc has totally disregarded is that jugoslaven is also a regional term. In Croatian: jugoslaven = South Slav or "Yugoslav". Therefore, it's a huge leap to assume that the word is being used in an ethnic or even national sense, when it has a much more obvious regional connotation (Croats are South Slavs by definition of the term, but they are not likewise Yugoslavs).--Thewanderer (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There's always the problem of Serbian numbers... Simply by virtue of that fact, Serbs were always more disposed towards a union than any other ethnic group. Eventually the union itself comes to depend on the Serbs for support. Since Serbian nationalism and Yugoslavism are compatible to a significant degree (though by no means entirely), there is always the tendency (on the part of this largest pillar of Yugoslavist support) to lean towards "Serboslavism", as it is called. When that happens, the other nations immediately react and ethnic hatred is revived.

King Alexander, for example, was certainly no Serbian nationalist, and genuinely wanted to create a Yugoslav nation by force. There were even talks about moving the King's throne to Zagreb. All this was resented by Serbian nationalists (the Radicals), and since the King almost exclusively relied on the ethnic Serbian group for support, the "Yugoslav nation" started to look more like an enlarged Serbian nation. The Titoist communists as well were no Serb nationalists and had no aspirations towards assimilating the other nations. However, they too, when nationalism was revived, came to rely almost exclusively on Serbs.. and thus (almost "perforce") morphed into supporting "Serboslavism" instead of pan-Yugoslavism (I'm speaking here primarily of the JNA, which was throughout the history of the SFRY the main bastion of communism, pan-Yugoslavism, and anti-nationalism).

Its in essence the same story both times. While a certain degree of Yugoslav nationalism was (and perhaps is) present in all six ethnic groups, the problem is that its only compatible with ethnic Serbian nationalism as far as individual nationalist aspirations are concerned, and thus has twice gotten mixed-up with the former into the "Serboslavia" concept. -- Director (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just one thing though, it cannot be said "Serbs were always more disposed to a union" when everything is down to each individual. There were those who favoured a union and others who favoured a Serbian entity per se. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Then what to do with Strossmayer or Meštrović? Both of them are in the Croats infobox, Tito is also in the Croats infobox. And after this someone will add they are not nation, they are ethnic group, other will claim they are ethnic group not nation, and more problems comes from WP's articles, since nation, nationality and ethnic groups articles give dobious definistions of those three. Also, we found users who add persons in the infobox because of their political ideology, and according to that you can add all Yugoslav Partisans and Chetniks in the infobox, since more or less they supported Yugoslav nation (if you see nation as a state/country). --Wustenfuchs 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said before but what was ignored. As I said Wustenfuchs has a black and white thinking conception that "it's one or another. He is on both infoboxes, he was either Croat or Yugoslav" - that a person can have only one identity, and second of all Wustenfuchs said this about Tito, but Tito was part Croat and part Slovene. For a example from personal experience to refute the claim "it's one or another": my partner is a part-Ojibwe person, but as an Ojibwe she is part of the Anishinaabe people - that includes the Odawa, the Ojibwe, Algonquin tribal peoples. She acknowledges being both Ojibwe and Anishinaabe. Just as we have quoted in the article, Yugoslavist Jovan Cvijić in his article "The Bases of Yugoslav Civilization", spoke of a Yugoslav nation and its tribes, saying "our three tribes [Serbs, Croats, Slovenes]", of course Macedonians, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, and others such as Bulgarians were identified by other Yugoslavists, especially later. Here is a statement from the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in 1919 denouncing rivaling ethnic hatreds of the "tribal" sects of Yugoslavs, saying "Tribal chauvinisms are becoming more and more open...Raise your voice against all these tribal chauvinisms" and the book states that "it was believed that Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes were one nation", see here: [7]. And here is another book that describes the Yugoslav state's goal of diminishing existing sectarian identities (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes as identified at that time) that it considered as having fostered "tribal separateness" into a united identity of Yugoslavs, see here: [8].--R-41 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you mix South Slavs and Yugoslavs... it's realy not the same thing. And, no, you can't be Croat and Yugoslav at the same time, but you are Croat and South Slav at the same time. --Wustenfuchs 15:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, is the only reason this debate is still going because this article should be turned into a disambiguation page that links to Yugoslavians (citizens), Yugoslavs (nation) for those identifying as part of a Yugoslav nation, and for the supra-ethnic family, a redirect to South Slavs (who are also called "Yugoslavs" by Serbo-Croatian dialects). Perhaps all sides of this argument could be resolved by turning this into a disambiguation page to the three articles, that I proposed here.--R-41 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we call the Yugoslavs - Jugoslaveni and South Slavs - Južni Slaveni. It's different. One can't be Croat and Yugoslav at the same time, but one can be Croat and South Slav at the same time, cause you can't be Croat if you aren't South Slav. South Slav is fammily of ethnic groups, a branch of Slavs, while Yugoslavs are people who declare them selfs, that is, who identify them slefs with Yugoslavia. --Wustenfuchs 15:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Source do the talking. Not our personal philosophies. Again R-41 has provided references for the individuals above and scholars are aware of the differences between "South Slavs" and "Yugoslavs". Wanderer, Banac was not "resorted" to. He meets all the criteria for a reliable source and quite frankly one of the best was have available on this topic. He will not be thrown on a whim because of political differences that you may have with him. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs is being hypocritical, he says one cannot be a Croat and a Yugoslav at the same time, yet Wustenfuchs himself added the quote of Tito that says "I say for my self: I'm a Yugoslav, and I can't be anything else. I'm a Yugoslav by my obligations, position, and spirit. But I never withhold that I was born in Croatia. Why should I emphasize that I'm a Croat. I grown up in Yugoslavia in a working class.". So therefore he is identifying as both. As the user Thewanderer noted: "In Croatian: jugoslaven [sic] = South Slav or "Yugoslav"." [sic] means a spelling error - I presume he meant jugoslaveni.--R-41 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to see Tito's passport and see what was he - Croat or Yugoslav. I'm not hypocritical, I quoted Tito. But you can't have two nations or ethnic groups, just think. Different is with South Slavs who are composed of several ethnic groups that is nations. --Wustenfuchs 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This last remark cannot be serious!!!! You know that the passport one holds pertains to his country of legal status! It has nothing to do with ethnicity. People from Turkey hold Turkish documentation even if they are Kurdish, but they are still Kurds if that's what they declare. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No matter, any document wich containst "nacionalnost" section. I checked out and Yugoslav passports don't have "nationality". But the point is, you can't state in one document you are "Yugoslav and Croat" it can only be either, Croat or Yugoslav. R-41 thinks it's same as South Slavs, but still he claims Yugoslavs are nation not fammily of ethnic groups/nations (wich South Slavs are and Yugoslavs aren't).

This is what Croatian dictionary states what "Yugoslav (Jugoslaven)" means: "historicaly; a) inhabitant or citizen of Yugoslavia, b) inhabitant or citizen of SFR Yugoslavia; the one who declared him self as member of the Yugoslav nation in censuses until 1991; the one who agrees with ideas of Yugoslavism, a) supporter of the idea of Yugoslavia as country of South Slavic nations, b) supporter of the cultural unity of South Slavic nations.

On the other hand, dictionary states for "Južni Slaveni" that this is a term used for Slavs who live on the Balkans.

From this we can see you can't be Yugoslav by nation and Croat by nation at the same time, while you can be, by political ideology, a Yugoslav (and such people aren't subject of this article) and Croat by nation at the same time. We won't include all the citizens of former Yugoslavia in this article, but only those persons who still declare as Yugoslavs by nation or those persons who died as Yugoslavs by nation, wich means Meštrović as Yugoslav by his political ideology doesn't fit for the infobox. Being Croat means being South Slav at the same time, not Yugoslav. I hope you understand.

Here what Oxford dictionary states [9] for "Yugoslav". --Wustenfuchs 18:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it's true you cannot be both Yugoslav and something else at the same time but that's precisely why you'd declare yourself by that designation. If one has chosen Yugoslav he cannot be a Slovene or Bosniak at the same time. But the absence of a definition in standard dictionaries doesn't provide the springboard to deny the title used by a few thousand people which is evident from census publications. Future dictionaries may very well include Yugoslavs as an ethnicity but it is not the job of its authors to do so. A dictionary is not an encyclopaedia but its job is to simplify nevertheless. Of course, when talking about historical figures it is possible that one may have declared himself Serb or Croat at one stage in his life and Yugoslav at another, that's the other point about ethnicity - not just choosing for yourself but not even having to stick to the same choice your whole life. I think the problem is that we take it upon ourselves to appoint people their ethnicities. Two Macedonian parents must make the child Macedonian - but not if the child wishes to call himself Croatian. Nobody can stop him, and by the same token, he can be Yugoslav too. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Plus Tito was part-Croat and part-Slovene.--R-41 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute the existence of a Yugoslav designation later in the 20th century (at least in the general - in the particular we are showing how difficult, perhaps even impossible, this is to prove). However, the concept of the South Slav ethnographical branch and the existence of a Yugoslav national/ethnic designation are two vastly separate things. Again, Banac is no expert on Meštrović - it is entirely his decision whether to translate jugoslaven as South Slav or Yugoslav, and unsurprisingly he always chooses the latter. This does not in any way signify Meštrović belonging to or self-identifying with this designation. Meštrović's main biographer, his autobiography, and his childrens' writings all attest to this. A journal article on the sculptor has phrased it like this: Meštrović was always and remained a Croat from Dalmatia, desiring for Croatia a better life in freedom and collaboration with the other South Slavs. (Mladinić, Norka Machiedo (2007). "Prilog proučavanju djelovanja Ivana Meštrovića u Jugoslavenskom odboru". Časopis za suvremenu povijest. 39 (1): 133–156.).--Thewanderer (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Meštović could of have supported the idea of Yugoslav state, but he was never Yugoslav. He was Croat patriot, attending Croatian meetings in USA, then protesting because of sentence for Aloysius Stepinac etc. He was Croat, who once supported idea of Yugoslav state. Also Banac in the other book states he was Croat few times. --Wustenfuchs 11:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution: turn this article into disambiguation page

Since there is division on what this article should even be about I suggest that it be turned into a disambiguation page like the Québécois disambiguation page. There should be three articles that the disambiguation page redirects users to:

• Yugoslavians (an article for the citizens of Yugoslavia, Yugoslavians is appropriate because not all citizens were Yugoslavs, such as Albanian Yugoslavians and Hungarian Yugoslavians.)
• South Slavs (this article is appropriate because aside from people identifying as Yugoslavians, many when they said they were "Yugoslavs" were saying they were South Slavs. Jugoslaveni literally means "South Slav", but since the 1920s it took on association with being Yugoslavian. For instance there were Bulgarians from Bulgaria who said they were "Yugoslav" - they are referring to being South Slav and not a citizen of Yugoslavia.
• Yugoslavs (nation) (this is where much of the content shown here should be transferred to.)

This is my proposal for solving the problems here.--R-41 (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am all right with something along those lines, modified perhaps here and there. As long as a page acknowledging the ethnicity exists, I am happy. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy.. Disagree for numerous reasons.

• "Yugoslavians" is not a word. The correct demonym is "Yugoslavs" regardless of its use. And do we really need an article for citizens of Yugoslavia?
• "Jugoslaveni" (Yugoslavs) is a term derived from "Južni Slaveni" (South Slavs), but it is by no means its synonym. Noone stating he was a "Yugoslav" ("Jugoslaven") could possibly mean that in the sense that he's a South Slav. Everyone in Yugoslavia acknowledged they are South Slavs, a minority considered themselves Yugoslavs.
• That's what this article is about.

-- Director (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The article will not lose its pride of place if it moves to Yugoslavs (nation). It's true that we don't need a citizens' article but Yugoslavs per se can be confusing for some. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a disambiguation title, and I do not quite understand why disambiguation is necessary? -- Director (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How often someone uses word "Yugoslavians"? Yugoslavs means nationality, it's not the same as South Slavs. English-language readers can't confuse on that one. --Wustenfuchs 12:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

In essence all inhabitants of Yugoslavia were "Yugoslavs", but the policy of the Communist Party was that there are six Yugoslav nations. People who did not wish to identify with any particular nation simply defaulted to the more general term "Yugoslav". Now these were folks who were in the military (which was the strongest anti-nationalist institution in the country), or people from "mixed" marriages, or people who simply did not subscribe to the communists' notion of separate Yugoslav nations (the latter were generally perceived to be mostly, but by no means exclusively, ethnic Serbs).

In addition, any citizen during the period of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a "Yugoslav" and nothing more ("one Nation, one King.." etc.). All national symbolism (Serbian included!) was banned. So that's the pre-WWII definition.

So in short, during the second Yugoslavia, you, as a Yugoslav, basically "picked" one of six Yugoslav nations. If you don't want to do that, you just default to the wider term "Yugoslav". There was never any question that a Croatian or Serbian person was a Yugoslav as well, in fact he was considered (and considered himself) a Yugoslav by virtue of the fact that he is a Serb or a Croat. Of course, censuses recorded people's national determination, and those who did not have a more specific preference (for whatever reason) almost exclusively listed themselves as "Yugoslavs" (what else?). We should by no means understand that to mean that these folks were "Yugoslavs" whereas Croats or Serbs or Montenegrins etc. were not considered to be Yugoslavs. -- Director (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be split into an article on the Yugoslav ethnicity and an article on Yugoslav citizenship

The problem currently with this article is that it is exclusively about the ethnicity - that a small number of citizens of Yugoslavia identified as. But most identified as "Yugoslavs" as referring to citizenship. Therefore I propose two options for a resolution:

• Option 1: Turn this article into a disambiguation page that links to two articles: Yugoslavs (citizenship) and Yugoslavs (ethnicity).
• Option 2: Turn this article into the article on Yugoslav citizenship - as more people identified as "Yugoslavs" as in citizens rather than "Yugoslavs" as in the ethnicity. A "see also" note should be at the top of the article that says "For the ethnicity of Yugoslavs, see Yugoslavs (ethnicity)".--R-41 (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What do others think about this?--R-41 (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Option 3: For the fifteenth time: there is no need for a "Yugoslavs (citizenship)" article. This article is about the Yugoslav ethnicity, and should not be moved. I'd swear you're more of a Yugoslavist than the most Yugoslavist Yugoslavs, R-41 :). -- Director (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Director, your post seems to be refusing to consider any changes to the article merely out of a conservative desire for things not to significantly change here, rather than addressing anything I said. The bottom line is that there were more people who identified as "Yugoslavs" as in citizenship than as the ethnicity. My previous proposal was not clear and I used inaccurate terms - as you said "Yugoslavians" is not a common term. This proposal is revised and clear. As for the issue of the name being related to the term "South Slavs", I would like clarification from you on what "Jugoslaveni" means if it does not mean "South Slavs".--R-41 (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, R-41, I just don't think the article should be split. I would support the expansion of this article to briefly cover each of the six Yugoslav nations, but I would not like to see it done in another article.

"Jugoslaveni" does mean "Southslavs", directly translated, but its not synonymous with "South Slavs" since it does not include Bulgarians. -- Director (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DIREKTOR here. Scope of those two subjects are too similar to split them. And, i would propose to expand the article, and then see is there any room for split. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Then the article needs to be internally divided into one part on the citizenship and another part on the ethnicity. The intro should say that "Yugoslavs" was a term developed to refer to a united South Slav people, but note that though not all South Slavs identify as Yugoslavs. Also remember that historically there were Bulgarians who identified as Yugoslavs and who sought the unification of Bulgaria with Yugoslavia - one of them is listed in the ethnicity infobox. Yugoslav citizens could include people outside of ethnically Slav people - Hungarians and Albanians were Yugoslav citizens. The intro then should mention that "Yugoslavs" refers to either the citizens of the former Yugoslavia or the Yugoslav ethnicity held by a minority of South Slav people.--R-41 (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference on total population requested?

Why is there a request for a reference for the total population when the individual numbers can simply be added to get an estimate, given that the listed numbers all have their own references? I suggest that the number be obtained by a simple sum and then stated, as it is, around 473,000 at this stage. Truthseeker43 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Aleksandar Stamboliyski was a self-declared Yugoslav

Aleksandar Stamboliyski, in 1914 during World War I, Stamboliyski's patriotism was questioned when members of the Bulgarian parliament questioned whether he was Bulgarian or not, to which he shouted in response "I am Yugoslav!". (Source: Frederick B. Chary. The history of Bulgaria. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2011. Pp. 53.)--R-41 (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but it's not smart move to add Bulgarian as one of the Yugoslavs' language, as Bulgarians never accepted this shivery idea. --Wustenfuchs 14:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Bulgarians never accepted this shivery idea" - that sounds very POV - why in an NPOV manner would it be "shivery"? But to the point, it is inaccurate there was significant pressure in Bulgaria for the union of Bulgaria with Yugoslavia. There was the Bulgarian coup d'état of 1934 carried out by the Zveno military organization and the Military Union with the aid of the Bulgarian Army. It overthrew the government of the wide Popular Bloc coalition and replaced it with one under Kimon Georgiev. The coup supporters declared their intention to immediately form an alliance with France and to seek the unification of Bulgaria into an Integral Yugoslavia. (Source: Khristo Angelov Khristov. Bulgaria, 1300 years. Sofia, Bulgaria: Sofia Press, 1980. Pp. 192.)--R-41 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The confusion arises from Bulgaria not having formed part of the various Yugoslav states 1918-2006. But just as there was exisitng opposition to these unions from the nations to compose the union, there was support from other potential members outside for their own nation to be included. Whether this mean the sentiment among some Croatian or Slovene citizens post-1991 or Bulgarians throughout, anything qualified. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Reason

What kind of people declared themselves ethnic Yugoslavs rather than Serbs, Croatian or others? I have read somewhere that they were mainly communists who wanted to transcend nationalism. Is that true? Were they often the children of mixed marriages who didn't want to choose between their parents' ethnicities? --Error (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is strange. Obviously according to statistics, the ethnic identity did emerge during Communist times in light of personal freedoms granted, and yes, often one who declared Yugoslav did have parents identifying by separate ethnicities. All in all though none of this is the exact reason because there are no criteria for ethnic identity beyond individual choice. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that it was that often that one who declared Yugoslav did have "mixed ethnicity background" - rather it was more often that those who had mixed ethnicity background declared themselves Yugoslav. That leaves us having some people declaring themselves Yugoslav despite having "pure ethnicity background". --biblbroks (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest with you Biblbroks, nobody can speculate on this and to even suggest it on the main space is pure WP:OR. Around the world there have been tens of thousands of people declaring Yugoslav down the years so a case by case background study is unlikely. That said, it is certainly not the case that most with mixed background declared Yugosloav because the number with mixed background is huge. As a native from the diaspora, even I have been amazed at times to discover that people both in my life and famous who I always thought were one ethnicity were actually of mixed parentage. In the end of the day, when the census results of one Bosnian municipality tells you that it is 70% Muslim, 22% Croat and 8% Serb then this is simply what people have declared, they may all have identified differently in previous censa. And just as they can be fluid, so can their parents, and so could the grandparents and so on. Pure ethnicities are a myth and so are proto-nations; as time goes by people assimilate, and as time is examined in reverse, just as you arrive at a handful of communities which are to provide the springboard for a future major race, you find their similarities stem from increased contact and nurture and not common origin. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was commonly used by people who were of mixed Croat-Serb heritage or other mixed heritage commonly identified themselves as ethnic Yugoslavs. If you see historic maps of the ethnicities of Yugoslavia, you will see that the Yugoslav ethnicity historically appeared prominently in-between Croat and Serb-majority populated territories, as well as being historically common in culturally-mixed areas of Sarajevo. In response to biblbroks Also there is no such thing as "pure ethnicity" - ethnic groups evolve over time, assimilating groups while other groups break away - the common historical stereotype of "pure ethnicity" nonsense have been the Germans - they have had multiple ethno-cultural influence Germanic influence, Gaullic influence, Roman Latin influence, and Slavic influence amongst others. And even those influences themselves are amalgamations of other ethno-cultural influences.--R-41 (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not Princip's photo

Quoting from this 30 Aug 2013 article from The Telegraph (UK paper): 'Even the most famous photograph of Princip, showing him ‘‘under arrest’’ after the assassination, is problematic. It has been used by historians, newspapers and broadcasters, from AJP Taylor to Wikipedia, and they are all wrong. The man was an innocent bystander called Ferdinand Behr.' www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/inside-first-world-war/part-one/10273752/gavrilo-princip.html
--User:Brenont (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Dulić? Seriously?

Can the person who put Dulić's image next to Cvijić's, Andrić's, and Krleža's, please explain themselves? What does an irrelevant apparatchik has to do with people who actually achieved something? Please? 98.217.193.110 (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)