Jump to content

Talk:Breakup of Yugoslavia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Essay

Egad, another essay... salvageable? --Joy [shallot] 1 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

I guess we just had to salvage it. :) --Joy [shallot] 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo polje

Here, Milošević spoke not only of history and nationalism, but "greater Serbia," and the persecution suffered by Serbs in the Croatian and Bosnian territory.

False. (Of course, it would be easy to provide a citation and prove me wrong.) If you go after Milosevic, at least do it correctly, without confabulations. It should not be that hard. GregorB 20:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Modern State

Bosnia never was an independent, modern state until breaking away from Yugoslavia. In response to Alkalad's question here, the kingdom of Bosnia was not a modern state. Also changing statistics without providing a source is vandalism, so I have reverted. —KingIvan 07:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again to Alkalada, a kingdom from hundreds of years ago, is not a modern state. Also you have not supported the changing of those statistics with a reliable source, or any source for that matter. You must state (and if possible, provide a link to) where you have gotten those numbers from beofe making that change. —KingIvan 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If bosnia werent a modern state then Croatia and Slovenia werent it neither.

Anyways, evidence of Bosnia beeing a independent state. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107349.html

We were independent in 260 years, while Croatia for example were occupied during that 260 years. Alkalada 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided speaks nothing of Bosnia being an independent modern state until 1992, so it proves nothing. And you won't find any source claiming it, simply because it never has been an independent modern state. —KingIvan 08:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeas it was, have you ever heard about king Tvrtko? King of the Kingdom of Bosnia? Alkalada 11:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I've fucking heard of them you stupid idiot, but that is not a modern state! When saying modern state, people are reffering to states from the 19th century forward. —KingIvan 11:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, I will report you for personal attacks.

Btw... if Bosnia never been a modern state, then Croatia wasnt it neither. Alkalada 11:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats! I sure love it when good, upstanding, unbiased, completely rational editors like yourself congratulate others! Keep up the great work!

Btw...irrelevant. —KingIvan 11:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag

There's a lot of overlap with Yugoslav wars article; I'm not sure how to proceed: see Talk:Yugoslav wars#Merge tag. Duja► 15:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A decision has already been made on the War in Yugoslavia page to keep both. The Yugoslav War entry will focus on the military events of the conflict, while the Breakup of Yugoslavia article will deal with the socio-economic issues. I will remove the tag.

Edits by 77.46.243.41

I removed most of the edits by 77.46.243.41 on the grounds that at the least, they are out of scope for the section Structural Problems. While the copy may be good and of interest, detailed information about the industrial importance of one province of one republic is probably beyond the reach of this article. I believe this article serves best to give users a "wild sense" of the circumstances regarding the breakup, and more detailed aspects of the breakup (such as Kosovo's economic value) should be reserved for the more specific articles. The point of this is to not duplicate information,especially since this article is already under consideration for merging with another. I realize that many of the Kosovo articles are locked but I don't think that's reason to bring information belonging to those pages elsewhere. I think it's best to reserve these edits beause some portions may be a good addition to the Kosovo war articles, and add them where appropriate once those dispute(s) are resolved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matches10 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Ethnic cleansing

I removed the section about how Albanians were ethnically cleansing Serbs from the Kosovo. The only source provided for this statement is The Migration of Serbs and Montenegrins from Kosovo and Metohija [1] by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. I don't see how this could possibly be a reliable source. If there is another source that asserts this information, fine; perhaps we could remove references to ethnic cleansing instead. But I don't think we should write anything with SANU as the single source, as they have a well-deserved reputation for a lack of objectivity. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 14:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how could this possibly not be a reliable source. Your claim that SANU has "a well-deserved reputation for a lack of objectivity" is completely devoid of any connection with reality. Nikola (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring mostly to this. I know we're not talking about the same document, but it seems like the content isn't too different. Since this discussion page seems mostly dead and I don't think we can agree on this issue, would you agree to get a third opinion? // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I never had that work :( This particular study was reviewed by a Western researcher, Audrey Helfant Budding[2], in her expert report given to the ICTY[3] and she found that:
Yet it is one-sided to ignore economic factors in discussing Slavic emigration from Kosovo, it is also inaccurate to present them as the only reason for emigration. In 1985-86, the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences conducted a survey [the one we are talking about] [...] This study must be treated with some caution [...] Nevertheless, a review of the SANU survey and a consideration of other more anecdotal evidence suggests that inter-ethnic tensions - and in some cases acts of intimidation or violence - played a role in many emigration decisions.231
I hope that this makes use of the study as a reference acceptable. Nikola (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

IMF Killed The Reddio Star

The section "Reasons for the breakup - Economic collapse and the international climate", with statements like

is closer to a conspiracy theory than to a neutral point of view. For starters, Yugoslavian economy was in shambles quite some time before the "disintegration, war, boycott, and embargo", not because of mysterious "economic ministrations" but because of the fact that as a centrally planned economy it was doomed from the beginning. The brief respites of (relative) prosperity were brought out by the government cleverly exploiting the "Cold War premium", i.e. straddling the fence between East and West and borrowing from both sides like there was no tomorrow. But surprise surprise, tomorrow came, reports of the existence of free lunches turned out to be greatly exaggerated, and the rest, as they say, is history. I am adding a template to the section, hopefully someone will feel like editing it into a less biased story. Cheers -- Bmucha 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslavia did not have a centrally planned economy. It had what is called "market socialism", which, as the name implies, is a market economy. 24.36.78.185 (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo on the map

from File_talk:Breakup_of_Yugoslavia.gif

I realize that Kosovo is not recognized by the UN or most countries in the world, but surely some sort of recognition should be given to its change in status (even if only insofar as its own self-conception) in 2008. Especially, since the article here but mentions it!

This map should reflect the situation on the ground, not the political controversies surrounding them. After all, it dates Croatia as independent since 1991, even though the UN didn't recognize them 'til '92...

LSD (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Redundancies

This article has a big problem with sentences and paragraphs being repeated over and over. I don't have time to fix it, but someone should definitely look into it, as it makes it hard to understand the text. —Admiral Norton (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo situation

I've inserted a new section re Kosovo. Please let me know what you think.

2007apm (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the necessary changes 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

infobox historical event

Why don't we add the Infobox historical event in the article? Radudiscussion 17:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, could you just help out with the legend templates, they shouldn't be centered? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well they are centred because the parameter Image_Caption is set to show the text in center; so it also affects the legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radu Gherasim (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm I understand that, I just wish there was some way to fix this problem... html? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've tried using the following code but doesn't work: <div style="float:left;">''templates''</div> Radudiscussion 17:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a real problem. Perhaps a custom template then? Slightly altered? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
If we can't fix this problem, the I suggest we use another image map. Radudiscussion 18:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's say use the same image the ro.wiki uses Radudiscussion 18:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That one's no good, really. It does not depict the breakup of Yugoslavia... :( --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I figured out how the problem can be solved. The {{Legend}} must have this tag text-align:left;. The problem is the template is protected. At ro.wiki the problem was solved. Radudiscussion 21:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Created Template:Leftlegend to fix the issue. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Colors in the animated GIF

The colors on lead animated GIF are way off:

  • Yugoslavia's red is slightly too bright (it should be #dd0000)
  • Croatia's weird navy blue should be switched to light red, derived from the coat of arms, which is usually used to depict Croatia
  • Slovenia yellow? Only if there's no alternative
  • Bosnia should be white or light grey, as in the flag of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Green implies pro-Bosniak (Muslim) bias
  • Serbia and Montenegro (i.e. FR Yugoslavia) should be blue (preferably as in the blue from the Serbian flag, but darker)
  • Serbia should be blue, as in the blue from the Serbian flag (why red, ffs?)
  • Montenegro grey? Macedonia purple? There's no alternative so fine, however Montenegro should probably be light blue as in the blue from the Republic of Montenegro (federal) flag. Denoting also the close affiliation with Serbia.
  • (Kosovo's color should continue to be similar to Serbia's, for NPOV purposes)

Lets try to make this image as perfect as we can? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you but this suggestion should be discussed at here.Radudiscussion 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Participants

in the parameter ″Participants″ shouldn't we modify and name the states? Radu Gherasim (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo

This needs updating to reflect Kosovo and I've done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter2010 2 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the "banned" remark; I saw the user:Peter 2009 userpage and misread the banner there.
Well, I doubt you are a new user, since you're obviously aware how to restore a version from history, but I will assume good faith for the moment.
I also mistakenly thought there was a compromise not to include Kosovo war in this article, but I don't see it at the talk page. Not having a particular opinion either way, I will not revert further. No such user (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reinstated the section re Kosovo. Please feel free to edit it, but please don't just delete it. 2007apm (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You need to show that a majority of sources consider the Kosovo War a part of the breakup of SFR Yugoslavia. Please cease re-instating it. As things stand the very idea that the breakup of SFR Yugoslavia (1943-1992) ends in "2008" or something is absurd. A solely Albanian nationalist point of view. Please realize that Serbia and Montenegro is not somehow magically "equivalent" with SFR Yugoslavia, and is not the sole successor to SFR Yugoslavia. Most importantly, please stop edit-warring and achieve consensus on the talkpage through discussion prior to re-inserting opposed edits0 (who's alleged inclusion in the scope of this article is as silly as it is unsourced). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Here you go, a 2 year old article "How Yugoslavia vanished from maps" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7251376.stm
Incidendly this wiki article is not about the breakup of SFRY, but Yugoslavia. Please note that Serbia and Montenegro was called "Yugoslavia" until 20022007apm (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't edit-war, both of you. 2007apm, so shortly after returning from a block, you definitely ought to abstain from making repeated reverts while a contentious discussion is ongoing. Direktor, you need to tone down your rhetoric. While I can see where you're coming from with your view of the definition of the topic, there is nothing "silly" about treating the whole process of disintegration (including Montenegrin secession and Kosovo) as part of a single topic – that's certainly covered by an everyday normal-language understanding of what "breakup" means. Incidentally, our own graphics at the top of the article does just that, and I myself am witness to the feeling of an entirely naive outside reader coming to the article and wondering "why on earth is this not covered?" So, this needs to be sorted out peacefully and calmly here on talk, and people are strongly advised to stop reverting while doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin notice

It turns out the Peter2010 2 (talk · contribs) account was in fact technically a sock, created by 2007apm (talk · contribs) while blocked, in a good-faith but misguided attempt to make a "fresh start" while simultaneously appealing the original block. It has now been determined that the original block of 2007apm, as a suspected sock of Emperordarius (talk · contribs), was probably in error. At this point, 2007apm has been unblocked and is cleared from the socking charge and rehabilitated as a Wikipedian. Other editors are requested to welcome him back as a legitimate editor and discuss his proposed additions on their merits.

(That said, personally I really can't see a good reason why the Kosovo war and secession isn't handled on this page. Some coverage is clearly appropriate.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"personally I really can't see a good reason why the Kosovo war and secession isn't handled on this page."
  • Well, that's because DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) says that Yugoslavia was dissolved in 1992 (while it existed until 2003 even that it only included Serbia and Montenegro) while Kosovo War happened in 1999; and I also don't agree with that assumption. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 01:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


The Yugoslav state formally dissolved into five countries in 1992. Serbia and Montenegro, regardless of its name at the time, was no more a successor to the Yugoslav state than Slovenia or Croatia or Macedonia. While Milošević did request that his country be considered the sole successor to Yugoslavia, this was not recognized by the international community. Serbia and Montenegro is not "Yugoslavia". The bottom line is that the term "breakup of Yugoslavia" naturally does not include the Kosovo War. If some authors do include it, they are a notable minority. If I had the time I could theoretically list an almost infinite number of publications to that effect.

Please do not edit war over the inclusion of your new edits, 2007apm. You were already warned, if I'm not mistaken. Please read WP:BRD: you were bold, you were reverted, now please discuss. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparison: the old map putting the members outside of the European context vs. the proposed map putting them back

Dissolution of the Yugoslav state, five new states emerge.
Old, not shown as part of the Europe
 Shown as part of Europe
"And if all over Eastern Europe people proclaimed their love for "Europe" (i.e. meaning the West, democracy etc.), ... the Serbs developed a hostile attitude toward the same Europe or West, turning instead toward Russia." (http://www.psychohistory.com/yugoslav/yugoslav.htm#9) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.237.16 (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing against context, however the blue map is just plain awful.
  • Nobody "left Serbia", they left Yugoslavia, stating that is factually inaccurate. Croatia and Slovenia, for example, when seceding "left" Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, and Macedonia. Bosnia left Montenegro and Serbia, etc. "leaving Serbia" is just nonsense.
  • The map is low quality, the borders are far to wide, the resolution low, and in general badly done.
  • The borders of Yugoslavia do not change accordingly with secessions.
  • Its going backwards... :P
  • Slovenia and Croatia left simultaneously, they are depicted as leaving separately. I have not even checked the dates...
  • Current EU members are in blue but they do not follow historical progression (for example, it looks like Slovenia was in the EU in 1991 while still within Yugoslavia etc.)
I could go on like this forever. Its a bad piece of work. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI: commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Animated_GIF_of_members_of_ex-Yugoslavia_leaving_Serbia.gif. DancingPhilosopher apparently likes this meme. Me not. FFD? {{db-g4}}? No such user (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I mean the current map could be improved. Particularly the colors are off (Croatia should be red, Serbia blue, Bosnia white instead of green, etc.), and it needs context - but this is not the answer. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"Croatia should be red, Serbia blue..." (?) FkpCascais (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Why yes, Fkp. Croatian national colours are red/white from the chequy coat of arms. For example, the first ties (or cravats) were worn by Croatian mercenaries in the Thirty Years War - they were light red to denote their origin. The Serbian colour is usually depicted as blue, if I'm not mistaken. In particular I am annoyed by the use of green to depict the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is some serious pro-Muslim nationalist POV there. The color of RBiH was white. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

New states

There is definitely something 'catching' in article sentence: The five countries created from the former parts of Yugoslavia were at the time: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia? DIREKTOR, in your edit summary when you reverted me, you have said: "This article is about a process that ended in 1992". How can "Breakup of Yugoslavia" be done by 1992, if Yugoslav Wars lasted longer? Kebeta (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslav Wars ≠ Breakup of Yugoslavia (hence the two articles). This article describes how the Yugoslav state ceased to exist. At best the scope can be stretched to include a brief account of the Bosnian War, but it too took place after Yugoslavia ceased to exist. The fact that Kosovo seceded from Serbia or Montenegro from the State Union, has nothing at all to do with the dissolution of Yugoslavia. This is one obvious fact I've had to repeat far too often. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
So, by your opinion, Kosovo from 1986 to 1990, Anti-bureaucratic revolution, Abolition of Kosovo autonomy (1990–1996) which all started before 1992 don't have anything to do with Breakup of Yugoslavia? This set off a chain of events that led to Breakup of Yugoslavia. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how you got that impression. I actually wrote-up a lot of the material on those events in this article. Quite simply all events causing the breakup are part of the breakup, those events that took place after the breakup - are not part of the breakup. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, but every article has 'Aftermath' section. In this particular article, Montenegro and Kosovo as separate countries should be mentioned. Montenegro and Kosovo are direct consequence of all events causing the breakup (the material in this article that you wrote about), and they should be mentioned here. A final line, Montenegro and Kosovo wouldn't exist without a 'Breakup of Yugoslavia' - those states were a part of Yugoslavia before the breakup (which you certainly know). Kebeta (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I suppose, if we were to create a proper "Aftermath" section...? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not, it doesn't have to be a long one. Several sentences about current situation (how many counrties finally did came out from Yugoslavia and 'Breakup' refletction to local / global political situation). Kebeta (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Breakup of Yugoslavia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==January 2013==

Assessment as a part of 2012/2013 WP:CRO drive, performed on 19 January 2013:

  • B1 (referencing) - criterion not met: The article has significant shortcomings in terms of referencing. There are substantial parts of prose without any references. It is absolutely necessary that each paragraph contains at least one reference to a WP:RS, hence the criterion is not met.
  • B2 (comprehensiveness and accuracy) - criterion not met: This is not that much to do with accuracy and comprehensiveness per se, but lack of context in spite of massive background dished out in the Causes, Constitutional dispute, Rise of nationalism, Final political crisis sections. "History of ethnic animosity" subsection seems somewhat out of context - the information presented there is not problematic, but the article should say how did that play in the breakup during the 1990s - Serbs, Croats etc knew what happened in the WWII back in the 1960s or 1970s, but that knowledge came into different "application" in the 1990s. The most significant drawback in this department is role of the Yugoslav Army (JNA) (up to 1992). The former is discussed piecemeal in various areas of the article, but given the critical role of the JNA, I feel it should be given due weight in the article per WP:DUE. Similarly, role of FR Yugoslavia should be given due weight, but that largely depends on what time span the article covers.
  • B3 (article structure) - criterion not met: The article has a structure per se, but it is very confusing. Information pertaining to Slovenia and Croatia is found two sections, actually in "Independence of Slovenia and Croatia" subsection of the "Final crisis section" and in "War in Slovenia"/"War in Croatia" subsections of the "The beginning of the Yugoslav wars". I found this rather confusing, especially since the war subsections largely contain information on events preceding the respective wars, and the independence subsection contains information largely preceding the independence of the two countries (in addition to material unrelated to the stated topic, such as Kosovo and Vojvodina representatives to federal presidency). Maybe title changes would fix the problem, maybe some copyediting would clarify and streamline information - but as such these parts of the article come off as awkward. Information on Slovenia and Croatia is grouped in one section (plus a subsection of another section), on Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia in another section altogether - which is quite puzzling. Even though there is justification to group the Slovene and Croatian independence movements, I see no such relation between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia therefore the grouping appears to be random. The four sections forming a "background" (Causes, Constitutional dispute, Rise of nationalism, Final political crisis) seem likewise confusing. "Structural problems" subsection and the subsequent "Constitutional dispute and nationalism (1974–87)" section seem to largely overlap and should be merged one way or the other. The year span in the "Final political crisis (1990–1992)" title is debatable - should it be 1990-1991? I'd shorten it to "Final political crisis" to avoid the problem. There are apparently misplaced pieces of information - for instance, what is the Dayton Agreement doing in "Aftermath in Serbia and Montenegro" section is beyond me.
  • B4 (reasonably well-written prose) - criterion met.
  • B5 (supporting materials) - criterion met.
  • B6 (appropriately understandable presentation) - criterion not met. This criterion is largely failed because of the B3 criterion issues - fixing one will likely cure the other.
A lot of work went into this article, but it still falls short of the B-class considerably. Consequently downgraded to C-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 14:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breakup_of_Yugoslavia/Archive_1&oldid=1142553912"