Talk:Prime Minister of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

File:Mirko Cvetkovic left.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mirko Cvetkovic left.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Mirko Cvetkovic

..is not from the DS, he's independent. --AVNOJist (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• NikolaSainovic.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Bad version

Why did someone cut down this brilliant version, along with most of the content from it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page was moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Prime Ministers of Serbia → Prime Minister of Serbia — This is not just the list, but is also the article about the office of the Prime Minister; and there is no separate article about Prime Minister. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Vanja, if you ask me, just do it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

{subst:RM bottom}}

PMs who were also officers of the military

If it is necessary to somehow mark those prime ministers who were also officers of the military, that can be easily marked by, get this - writing that they were also officers in the military. They do not need the childish khaki color, and writing "Military" under the "Political party" column is so obviously nonsensical and misleading I can't believe someone is actually edit-warring to push that in. Not least because a person can be a military officer and a member of the political party. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, there is countless lists of heads of state and heads of government on Wikipedia in which Military leaders are marked with khaki color and with Military named as their party. So, why this list should be different? Military PMs must be marked somehow, not left blank like non-partisans. I see no better way than this. I also can't believe that someone can wage an edit war because of this! LOL --Sundostund (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

While "countless" may be a bit of an exaggeration, you must see that this is not a good way to mark people as military men. What do we do with people who were military officers and members of political parties (as was surely the case on more than one occasion)? This is what the "Notes" column is usually for. Generally speaking, this list is in serious need of a "Notes" column: we've got "(Second time)" notes squeezed in with people's names, and source reference templates used for notes. I'll see about fixing this article up a bit, see if you like it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I've been meaning to do some work here for a while now. The article could also use portraits of the PMs. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I like how you improved this article. Although I still think that Military PMs should have their khaki color (as in many other lists on Wikipedia), this solution is also fine by me. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, DIREKTOR, you should restore section of Serbian PMs in the period 1941-1944 (Acimovic and Nedic). Although we may oppose their policies (I know I do), they should find their place on this list. After all, Nedic and his Nazi allies controlled Serbia for whole three years, right? --Sundostund (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you approve of the edits, if it wasn't for you I probably would never have gotten 'round to it. :) As for Nedic, I'm not sure... Croatia does not list Pavelic and Mandic [1] on the grounds that the "Independent State of Croatia" is not "Croatia". I'd say its really very debatable whether the "Nedić regime" = "Serbia". His government does not constitute a state hence he is not "Prime Minister of Serbia" any more than Pavelić is "Prime Minister of Croatia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Acimovic and Nedic can be removed from this list (like Pavelic and Mandic on Croatian PMs list), but I'm really not sure. We should think about that. Their names were added on this list several years earlier, so maybe it's not appropriate to remove them just like that. --Sundostund (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Party colors

Liberal parties should be generally yellow, conservative ones in various shades of blue, socialists in red, fascists in gray. However, I would like to know if there are any particular party colors I should be aware of? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

When I added party colors on this list last year, I looked on other similar lists (especially on the List of Prime Ministers of Bulgaria), and I used copy-paste to post some colors from that list here (Liberal parties color, for instance). So, I really can say that other examples are very helpful here. --Sundostund (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Portraits

Portraits of any one of these politicians from before the 1930s should be public domain under PD-old. If you know of a portrait on Commons or on the Serbian Wikipedia please post it or let me know. Equally, if you find any portrait of any of these prime ministers on the internet, please post it on Commons (preferably making sure the template "{{pd-old}}" is included), or post a link to such an image so I can upload it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Parties

Questions for knowledgeable Wikipedians concerning Serbian parties.

• Progressive Party, what is it? Is it closer to the liberals or the conservatives?
• Serbian Progressive Party. Is it closer to the liberals or the conservatives? Or is it something third? What is the difference from the "Progressive Party", is it the same party under a new name?
• Independent Radical Party. Is it more conservative or more liberal than the People's Radical Party?
• Democratic Party (a modern party). Is it a liberal or social-democratic party?
• Democratic Alternative (a modern party). What is its official color? Was it a liberal or conservative or socialist party?

Thank you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally confused.

• The People's Radical Party seems to have been a liberal party, but later became generally conservative by the time Yugoslavia was formed.
• The Progressives seem to have been liberals(?), but also the Liberal Party and the People's Radical Party?

Am I getting this right? Were all parties in pre-WWI Serbia liberals apart from the Conservative party? Hope someone can clear all this up. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Progressive party was court party, they defended interest of monarchs, so they were conservatives. -- Bojan  Talk  21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Serbian Progressive Party (historical) article lead states

"The Serbian Progressive Party was a liberal political party in Serbia that existed from 1881 to 1919."

It also does not follow that a party which supported the court was necessarily conservative because of that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between the "Progressive Party" and the "Serbian Progressive Party"? Is it the same party? Was there a name change? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The were economically liberal, defending interests of king and young Serbian bourgeoisie (while the Radical party had its basis among peasants). But socially, they were conservatives. -- Bojan  Talk  14:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• The "Progressive Party" and the "Serbian Progressive Party". Are they the same party???? If they were the court party, I'll give them the grey color of the Yugoslav National Party.
• What about the radicals, were they (at the time!) social conservatives too, or social liberals?
• Was the Independent radical Party more conservative or liberal that the Radical Party?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Progressive party and Serbian progressive party (historical) are one. Nikola Pašić was influenced by ideas of Svetozar Marković. Independent radicals were formed from the Radicals disappointed in Pašić after he plead for liberty (or life) after Ivandan attempt and made deal with king Alexander and ex-king Milan. -- Bojan  Talk  21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the first one, but could you explain the other two more accurately.

• Does the Radical Party represent social conservatism or social liberalism.
• Are the independent radicals more conservative or liberal than the readicals? What exactly was their political platform as opposed to that of the radicals proper.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure.
• Independent radicals were more bitter opponent to king Milan. I ate few words so my previous reply hasn't have much sense. Rest of their platform is probably same.

-- Bojan  Talk  23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ok.
• Was King Milan more conservative or liberal? Or do these categories not apply to this issue?

Thanks for your help, btw. I'm really learning a lot about Serbian history with this project. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Who would know. King Milan was an autocrat ruler, near the end of his rule he adopted more liberal constitution, then abdicated in favor of his son. Later he advised his son to suspend the constitution and restore to power Constitution of 1869, that gave more power to monarch.

Another question: what was the political platform of the Democratic Alternative political party? Conservatives? Liberals? Social-Democrats? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Social democrats -- Bojan  Talk  04:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

Would you know what party of the socialist political spectre they represented? In other words, were they more "socialist" or more "democrat" than the Social Democratic Party? I.e. were they more to the left than the Social Democratic Party?

I usually work on articles where I am fully familiar with the political situation and can depict each party appropriately. This is not the case here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Serbian Progressive Party was conservative originally, but it drifted into liberalism while becoming politically marginal and irrelevant, becoming ideologically indifferent to its coalition partners - the Independent Radical Party and the Liberals themselves - save for very few isolated social questions.

The Democratic Alternative was created out of Milosevic's party by ex Communists / members of the Socialist Party of Serbia, who could no longer tolerate Milosevic's corruption, in precise the reason that caused the momentum was electoral fraud. So yeah, they were typical social-reformists. --AVNOJist (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The DS had had an undefined policy, originally starting as undefined, but closer to liberal. Now, under President Boris Tadic, they have aligned their political ideology as Social Democracy in definite.

And as for the Independent Radicals, yes, they were liberals. --AVNOJist (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested table reorganization / extra notes

Would be nice to add in the notes which prime ministers also held simultaneously with their PM position other ministerial positions. For example, Mirko Cvetkovic's government was "reconstructed" (cabinet reshuffle) about a year ago and he is now also Minister of Finance concurrent with his PM spot. Also several 19th century PMs were simultaneously for example ministers of foreign affairs.

Also, a suggestion to reorganize the table titled "Republic" into three:

1. Single-party Republic within Communist Yugoslavia (Democratic Federal/People's Republic of/Socialist Republic of Serbia) This table would end with the list of Presidents of the Executive Council, with Stanko Radmilovic. It would start from the beginning of the current "Republic" table. Serbia was under Communist rule during this period, only the Communist Party could hold such high offices (theoretically in some periods independents, but with party support), there were no multi-party elections. Also, Serbia was not independent.

2. Multi-party Republic within Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro (Republic of Serbia) This would start with the current "Prime Ministers" section of the "Republic" table (with Dragutin Zelenovic) and end with Vojislav Kostunica with the end date put as 5th June 2006 (dissolution of Serbia and Montenegro). In this table I'd remove "twice" from after Kostunica's name.

In this period Serbia held multi-party elections, but was not independent. It was part first (briefly) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (until 27th April 1992) then of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992-2003) then of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006).

3. Independent Republic

Here again Serbian PMs became heads of internationally recognized sovereign governments (not the case since 1918) and so the character of the position changed. Therefore it should be a separate table. I'd start with Vojislav Kostunica (twice) with start date 5 June 2006, numbering him as 1 (93). Followed by Cvetkovic, numbered as 2 (94).

Also, would be nice to add a section to the table listing the head of state under which each prime minister served. For the monarchy period, this would be the name of the Prince/King, for the republic period the name of the president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrijapfc (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a table of Prime Ministers that held office since the Bulldozer Revolution, with the full table at the List of Prime Ministers of Serbia.--Zoupan 12:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The list

Shouldn't we make the list of Prime Ministers go the other-way-round? Couldn't the list start with the current PM, and end with the first Prime Minister who started his term in 1805? I think it would look better that way.--WikiNameBaks (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't do that at all. As you can see on all the other lists of PMs (and other officeholders) on WP, all of them start with the first PM and end with the last (current) PM. Just look at the list of PMs of the United Kingdom, which starts at 1721, not at 2010. Starting the list with the current PM wouldn't look good at all, it would be rather confusing. The list should always start with the first officeholder. --Sundostund (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I know what other lists look like, I've seen them all. I just said that it would perhaps look better, because we hardly ever have images of those first office holders (not just PMs). I just thought that it would look better if we started the list with people for whom we have all the data (images, bith dates, exact time spent in the office...).--WikiNameBaks (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't look better. As I said, I'm convinced it would be utter confusing. "We hardly ever have images of those first office holders"? Definitely not. Because of copyright issues, its much more easier to find images of officeholders who served 80, 100 or 150 years ago than of those who served several decades ago... We should always start the list with people who served at the beginning, when the office was founded, and to gradually move down to the present period. Just historiographical accuracy, nothing extravagant. Can you imagine the list of US Presidents with George Washington at the bottom? Not really. Its much better to keep the list as it is now. --Sundostund (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, difference of opinion, I thought it would look better, you though it wouldn't. No reason to be rude. --WikiNameBaks (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I truly don't think that I was rude. I just stated my opinion and mentioned some facts, without any intention to be rude. --Sundostund (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Zoran Zivkovic MC Cropped.jpg
• Žarko Korać Cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)