Talk:Serbia and Montenegro/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Serbia and Montenegro (the State) still exists...it's Serbia

If you look at the article on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, you will see this is the lede:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom during the period when what is now the Republic of Ireland formed a part of it."

A similar lede is needed here. The position is identical. "State Union of Serbia and Monenegro" was the name of the "Republic of Serbia" before Monegro's independence; just as the present day United Kingdom still exists, so too does the State Union - albeit under a new name: the "Republic of Serbia". The Republic of Serbia is not a new State established in 2006. By way of further source, just see here on the UN website the notes accompanying the entry for the "Republic of Serbia" - Quote:

*The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was an original Member of the United Nations, the Charter having been signed on its behalf on 26 June 1945 and ratified 19 October 1945, until its dissolution following the establishment and subsequent admission as new Members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/46/237 of 22 May 1992. The Republic of Croatia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/46/238 of 22 May 1992. The Republic of Slovenia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/46/236 of 22 May 1992. By resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/12 of 1 November 2000. On 4 February 2003, following the adoption and promulgation of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro by the Assembly of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the official name of " Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was changed to Serbia and Montenegro.

In a letter dated 3 June 2006, the President of the Republic of Serbia informed the Secretary-General that the membership of Serbia and Montenegro was being continued by the Republic of Serbia, following Montenegro's declaration of independence.

Note from the above: the Republic of Serbia continued on the membership of Serbia and Montenegro - it was not required to reapply as a new member of the UN as it was not considered a new state, merely a continuation of Serbia and Montenegro (Serbia and Montenegro itself having been a continutation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (not to be confused with the former socialist Yugoslavia).

I have amended the lede along these lines. 86.45.48.69 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The catch is, nobody uses the same phrasing as you, therefore you're engaging in the original research. For example, BBC says that With the short-lived Union of Serbia and Montenegro declared defunct by both republics in June 2006, the two, remnants of the ex-communist Yugoslav federation, are going it alone as separate and sovereign republics. Not even Serbian or Montenegrin media claim that this is the same country as before, so why should Wikipedia do?

You're making an analogy with United Kingdom, which does not hold, (and we don't work by analogy anyway). In the UK case, that the remainder of the country continued to be a union of multiple kingdoms, after Ireland's secession, and the remainder of the world continued to refer to it as the "United Kingdom". Serbia and Montenegro were the only members of the union, and when they split, the union ceased to exist. It is certainly not true that "Serbia and Montenegro was the old name for Serbia", just as Czechoslovakia was not the "old name for Czech Republic", nor Soviet Union was the "old name for Russia". Just as in USSR/Russian case, the greatest member of the union continued to be member of the UN and other organizations, but it does not mean it was the same country: it had different name, constitution, and political system (just by the mere fact that it was not a federation anymore). No such user (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ISO 3166- FR Yugoslavia entry

There is something that confuses me. FR Yugoslavia was declared by a rump parliament of SFR Yugoslavia on April 27, 1992. Meanwhile, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and eventually Macedonia became member states of UN. United Nations Security Council Resolution 777 de facto "deleted" SFR Yugoslavia from world organization membership, whose place was claimed by FRY, which was extinguished. In further 8 years, FRY refused to apply for a membership as a new state, claiming that it is a successor of previous Yugoslavia. However, its ISO-3166-1 alpha 2 and alpha 3 codes remained undeleted, and ISO-3166-1 numeric was changed in 1993 from 890 to 891. If Yugoslavia was not UN member, how was that possible? I also read this in previous article: "From 1992 to 2000, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia declined to re-apply for membership in the United Nations and the United Nations Secretariat allowed the mission from the SFRY to continue to operate and accredited representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the SFRY mission, continuing work in various United Nations organs"- so, the state that was previously "deleted" from UN membership was allowed to participate in certain missions? And most of all, I did not find online any ISO bulletin or newsletter that would confirm that official name of state was changed from SFR Yugoslavia to FR Yugoslavia, as I found that in 2003 it was changed from FR Yugoslavia to Serbia and Montenegro. And of course- I know that UN membership is main criteria for ISO entry... --DustBGD89-3 (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Right, I found something here, page 252, footnote 1123: http://books.google.rs/books?id=Ty7NAG1Jl-8C&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=EU+recognized+Yugoslavia+1996&source=bl&ots=KecrNlnLNM&sig=9a_xVUL0mLCkyfMy9B_UHhGSXQ0&hl=sr&sa=X&ei=dwBMT7f6MM7PsgaP-ZWUDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=EU%20recognized%20Yugoslavia%201996&f=false Unlike Iran, Belarus and some others, Yugoslavia never designated its full official name in UN system. --DustBGD89-3 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Other language wikipedias

31 wikipedias:

Aragonés Български Bosanski Català Čeština Español Euskara Français Galego 한국어 Hrvatski Bahasa Indonesia Italiano Lietuvių मराठी Nederlands 日本語 Norsk bokmål Norsk nynorsk Polski Português Română Русский Slovenščina Српски / srpski Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски Svenska தமிழ் Türkçe Українська 中文,

already have a FRY article seperate from Serbia and Montenegro,Wikipedia is neutral,and needs to stay away from politics.If there is no FRY article,then does that mean that Wikipedia does not recognize FRY? In a neutral ground,all opinions UN , USA ,or otherwise are irrelevant.Take a look at this: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom between 1801 and 1927, reflecting the fact that until 1922, all of Ireland was a part of the Union." This is the first sentence of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article. So government structure of UK was not changed in 1927 but its name was? Then why is this article seperate from main UK article? Pre-1927 UK and post-1927 UK are a same state.History of FRY is much longer than history of Serbia and Montenegro. We should make a FRY article seperate from Serbia and Montenegro. If anyone decides to write it,they will have my full support. Please take a look at serbia's FRY article. If you don"t understand,use Google Translator. Belgrade1302, 9:23, 27 March 2012 (CET)

Liberland, really?

Liberland removed in the info box under "today part of" because it absolutely ridiculous to include a micronation along Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo, especially considering the fact that Kosovo has a special footnote specifying its limited recognition while Liberland had none.

Is Wikipedia a US foreign policy propaganda outlet ?

From 1992 - 2003 There WAS ON THE GROUND a state called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This is a historical FACT
From 2003 - 2006 That state was reconstituted as "Serbia and Montenegro". Another historical FACT
But yet, for an already ridiculous amount of time now, there have been no separate pages for those historical entities under whatever dubious excuse (that has never ever been proven to be neutral).
Putting separate page should be a no brainier since Wikipedia has a separate page for all kind of things like separate page for the entity consisting of England and Scotland before and after 1707 (not to mention and other times). Likewise the reconstitution of the various French republics have separate Wikipedia pages as they should! But guess what? So should FRY be a separate page and "Serbia and Montenegro" be a separate page. The alleged claim that the US federal government had supposedly regarded or named the 1992-2003 entity with the same name as the 2003-2006 entity is not a paramount matter and so should NOT be dictating what Wikipedia does!
And no, this is not an opinion issue but a fact issue. And as such Wikipedia should follow it's own rules that apply to matters of fact and stop fraudulently acting like as if the existence if FRY is a matter of opinion that should be decided by votes. Loginnigol (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight

The merging of this two entities in one page is actually a breach of Wikipedia's own neutrality policy Wikipedia's own neutrality policy. It basically gives more weight to the US State Department's opinion above and over established, historical FACT. Needless to say it is preposterous of an encyclopedia claiming to be neutral, to overrule facts with opinions. Loginnigol (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it is not directly speaking a U.S. foreign policy outpost but the sources deemed reliable are those that normally favour the global outlook. On this occasion, editors have taken the position of the institutions which had always recognised Serbia and Montenegro right from 1992. So in sport, the country did participate as FRY, as in musical events, and other arts. With diplomatic affairs, politics is the unofficial legislature and here it is more influential. I admit that I favour the return of FRY on the opening line with an indication that this was its constitutional name 1992-2003 and the country was referred to as this most frequently - on news, in travel guides etc.. In the U.N. though, it was SCG and this tends to be the agency that most editors look to when verifying ambiguous matters. As such, I cannot see the return of a separate article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. In any case I'm NOT talking about sports or any kind of one narrow topic. I'm talking about a historical fact: the FRY existed, period. That's enough. Wikipedia itself is acting like a diplomat or a politician by pretending that it didn't' exist (which is the implication of not giving it a page). My contention is that Wikipedia should not be in "State recognition business" (thereby be a de-facto government foreign policy propaganda outlet) but be in the academic business: the neutral DOCUMENTING of facts. Loginnigol (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• @Loginnigol. There's no place for such accusations here. The sources treat this state as one and make no distinction between the FRY and SM. Yugoslavia had changed its name three times through constitutional reforms, but its still the same state. The same is true here. It would be a monumental error to create a separate article for the two-year period near the end of this state's history, simply because it happened to change its name through constitutional reforms. Instead of one half-decent article, we'd confuse the subject matter and create two pointless ones. -- Director (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You are being dishonest. The "FRY" existed between from 1992 - 2003! That is not two years. It is in fact "Serbia and Montenegro" that existed for three years (2003-2006)!!! And in light of the repetitive scandals in the news involving crooked US government politicians, employees and others who frequently indulge in fraudulent editing of all sorts of Wikipedia pages, I say editors cannot be trusted to have a neutral academic point of view on this State-departmetnt-sensitive issue and therefore Wikipedia HQ/Jimmy Wales & co. should take over this issue away from them. Loginnigol (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This state officially held the name Serbia and Montenegro for precisely 2 years and 4 months, hence its more accurate to say "2 years" than "3 years". But let me be perfectly clear: I will report you should you again characterize other contributors here as "dishonest" or "fraudulent", when it is in fact you who lack understanding of the subject matter (and/or did not read the other user's post). If you don't care, I assure you: I care even less. Please keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. The composition of this article has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with US foreign policy of all things, and had you participated here for more than a day you'd know that. -- Director (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not characterized other contributors here as "fraudulent". That was a reference to US government editors of other Wikipedia articles, so I have no "theory" but "fact". My fundamental point is that since this FRY-issue is seemingly so sensitive to US government opinion, the decision to split and create an FRY page should be made not by editors but by Wikipedia HQ and let they at HQ deal with it (the same way they dealt with another US-govt. sensitive issue earlier this week). Loginnigol (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm sure Hillary Clinton looses sleep every night over how we here cover a defunct country. And what "Wikipedia HQ", what are you talking about? There is no such thing (or is there?? *ominous music*) and Jimmy Wales does not dictate Wikipedia content. For the record, you can equally keep your "conspiracy facts" to yourself. -- Director (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And you can keep your musical taste and Hillary Clinton bedroom fantasy to yourself. You are obviously not interested in any serious discussion on the core issue of splitting this page so I'm done/finished talking with you. Loginnigol (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Loginnigol that this two entities (FRY and SCG) should not be merged into one page. Both of them are notable and should be covered within separate articles. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stating the oh so obvious fact. A serious fact that Wikipedia should deal with (not in a transparent govt.-propagandistic way but) according to academic/scholarly standards. Loginnigol (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, you're just pushing some strange "anti-American/anti-government" POV. "Academic/scholarly standards"? What sources have you listed?? It has already been established that scholars do not cover this historical country as two separate states, in fact the very idea is absurd. This is the same country under a different name. Yugoslavia itself changed its name through constitutional amendments three times:

• Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (1943-45)
• Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (1945-63)
• Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1963-92)

And each name change was accompanied with absolutely fundamental reforms in the structure of the union. And then there were even greater constitutional reforms (such as in 1974) that weren't accompanied with a corresponding name change. Should we have fifteen articles on various Balkans states because the US called the FRY "Serbia and Montenegro" for the first couple of years?

@Antidiskriminator, please cease WP:STALKING me. -- Director (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at archives of this talkpage you will notice that many editors don't agree with you. Including editors of 31 other wikipedias which have separate articles for FR Yugoslavia:

In order to determine if there is consensus to split this article the best way would be to propose splitting of the article within new section. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on whether there should be one article or two, but if there is one article, it seems fairly obvious it should be called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, not Serbia and Montenegro. john k (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd add, to take some comparable examples, that there's no particular rules for how to deal with name changes of this sort. We have articles on Democratic Kampuchea and Khmer Republic that are separate from Cambodia, although these two names (and state forms) lasted only briefly). We have separate articles on Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, although they were clearly the same state. Given the dramatic name change, and the fact that the state no longer exists, I don't see any particularly strong reason for not having two articles. john k (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, isn't it funny? The FRY existed from 1992-2003 that is 11 or so years, yet the title of this article is named after the one that existed for 2 years! That tells you how blatant the scam is which clearly breaches multiple other rules:

• It blatantly breaches WP:NAMINGCRITERIA rules on Precision. The name of the country was Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the overwhelming amount of time (1992-2003) whereas "Serbia and Montenegro" was used for a fraction of that amount. So basically an 11 year long name dismissed in favor of a 2 year long name. That tells you how blatant the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA rule has been trashed. It is preposterous.
• It also breaches WP:NPOV rules by replacing a 10+ years long historical fact with a political/diplomatic/foreign-policy fiction (there was no state called Serbia and Montenegro from 1992-2003 except on pieces of paper and data that were originating and circulating from and inside US government offices - the rest of the world including all Western media was still addressing the country by the name of "Yugoslavia" with or without supplemental prefixes, suffixes, letters and/or words).
• It breaches WP:RSUW rules by giving US state department opinion undue weight above and over a neutral, academically sound, scholarly standard of maintaining accurate historical record of facts.

These blatant trashing of rules must be addressed before any voting. This is not a simple issue that can be resolved by voting (like for example when there is a debate and vote to split an article because it is getting too long). This is a more serious matter. Wikipedia rules are being blatantly trashed in order to facilitate and promote US government political opinion inside the very title of an article. Loginnigol (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Capital city

As I recall, yes it did have official capitals. Belgrade was de jure capital of FRY 1992-2003, and then there were joint capitals Belgrade and Podgorica: Belgrade commercial and administrative, Podgorica judicial. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Bah, it was Belgrade throughout.. D'you have a source? -- Director (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Državna zajednica nema glavni grad... (State union does not have the capital city...) - Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Mission to Serbia and Montenegro (p 15)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Right... sure, "no capital", but unless the legislature and government had themselves moved to the International Space Station - its "Belgrade (unofficial)". -- Director (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No. I.e. the supreme court was in Podgorica.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why I said, Belgrade AND Podgorica; I didn't say there was no capital. Belgrade was nevertheless a de facto capital for all practical purposes anyhow. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between having two capitals and having no capital. What exactly are you folks saying? -- Director (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are right Evlekis, Belgrade was "administrativni centar" of the union, and capital of Serbia. Podgorica was judicial center and capital of Montenegro. It should be clarified in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes we all know the supreme court was moved to Podgorica... But again: two capitals, or no capitals? Because you've shown us a source that says "no capitals". So if there were two, you'll need another source. The issue really is whether Podgorica at any time officially had the status of a "capital"? -- Director (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Main political functions were divided between two cities, with none of them being an official capital. They were capitals of their republics. Belgrade was capital of the Republic of Serbia while Podgorica was capital of Montenegro. State union did not have official capital. Belgrade was administrative center because seat of Ministry council and assembly was in Belgrade. Podgorica was judicial center because the seat of supreme court was in Podgorica. It can not be more simplified than that.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, nothing new then - no capital. Belgrade was the capital of the Republic of Serbia (1990–2006), Podgorica was the capital of the Republic of Montenegro (1992–2006). Neither were capitals of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. In that case it matters little where the various institutions were. -- Director (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

But of course it does matter. This is article about state. Its institutions are most important elements of the state.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. How about elaborating on said institutions in the article? What's your point? -- Director (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is that it is absurd to dedicate more space to football than to the topic of this article. The state and its institutions. What about Council of Ministers in SCG? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you asking me for? Add it if you think it should be in. Or (since it isn't arguing with me) would such activities run contrary to the purpose of your first-time involvement here on this article? -- Director (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You asked "How about elaborating on said institutions in the article?" and I replied to your question.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you didn't. "What's your point?" is the question you answered. You said nothing on the topic of you expanding the article; indeed, I ask again: if you think something should be in it - how about elaborating on that in the text? But this is getting kinda pointless, so.. -- Director (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that in light of the constitutional wording and the facts, and the discrepancies, this matter is dubious. It seems there could be any of three options: zero, one or two. I don't know where I stand. I will point out that states do not have to have capitals. The Pacific state of Nauru has no official capital though the Yaren district serves the factual purpose. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How about

Capital: Belgrade (administrative)/Podgorica (judicial)/(both unofficial)

(Or whatever variation is supported by reliable sources)?--Wikimedes (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually that was official. I think the "no official" business really means none "specified". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about it beyond what I've read in this section. If it was official, remove the (both unofficial) from my suggestion or change it to "neither officially specified" (and provide a reference to convince Direktor and Antidiskriminator).--Wikimedes (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And I don't know any more than you. I have uncovered only mixed answers to this question. To be honest, Serbia and Montenegro (that is the country that really was called that, 2003-06) was a short lived and somewhat mysterious country that not many people anywhere really knew anything about. People outside of the former SFRY and possibly Bulgaria would be baffled if they saw a vehicle with a 'SCG' country sticker on it and they'd scratch their heads, "what the heck is that?". And even locals of the state didn't seem to know much about this capital city point. Most just assumed Belgrade continued to be all out capital but did it? The subject is poorly sourced. We could resort to the safe "Belgrade (de facto)" but even that is inaccurate, Montenegro's assembly took full command of Montenegro and they operated from Podgorica. This is a hard call. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal

The topic of this article are two different entities. I think that it is wrong to merge them within one article. I also noticed in the archives of this talkpage that many other editors share my opinion. 31 other major wikipedias have separate articles for each of them. Therefore I propose to split this article into two separate articles:

1. FR Yugoslavia... for federation which name was FR Yugoslavia and which existed in period 1992—2003
2. Serbia and Montenegro... for state union which name was Serbia and Montenegro and which existed in period 2003—2006.

Both above mentioned entities are notable (WP:NOTABILITY) enough to have their own articles. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per my explanation above.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Caveat: I'd prefer the new article to be called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Given the dramatic name change and the fact that the constitutional arrangements were very different, I don't see any particularly strong reason to discuss these two entities under the same heading. It was perhaps different when Serbia and Montenegro was still a going concern, but that hasn't been the case for six years now. john k (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

They're not two entities, they're one entity. If one wishes to show there is a separate country, one needs sources for that - not the reverse. If you prefer a rename (a far more reasonable course) than don't support this silly "revenge" venture. Antidiskriminator is simply pushing his POV as usual. Anything I advocate must be "anti-Serbian propaganda!" and therefore should be opposed. The fact that this would create two shabby articles where there was at least one decent one, has not crossed his mind. Nor that such a split would necessitate a large number of other articles to be pointlessly split in two. -- Director (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Serbia and Montenegro was the legal successor to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but you seem to be drawing some strange distinctions here that I don't fully understand. The Kingdom of Cambodia, the Khmer Republic, Democratic Kampuchea, and the People's Republic of Kampuchea were all the same country, too, but we still have separate articles about each regime. And I don't see why this split would require other splits. john k (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's just the point: it is absurd to suggest that was a separate state called Serbia and Montenegro that somehow "succeeded" the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, there was no "succession". All they did was change the name on the little plaque at the UN general assembly. -- Director (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding was that the name change was accompanied by significant constitutional changes that gave more power to the Serbian and Montenegrin governments at the expense of the central government. john k (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This was essentially another in a long line of constitutional reforms and amendments of that sort in Yugoslav history. Most name changes I've listed below were accompanied with exactly that sort of constitutional reform (more power to the federal units). It really doesn't warrant a split, not to mention a huge number of useless articles we'd have to create by splitting the support articles as well. -- Director (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Explain why the other articles would need to be split. john k (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, those "significant constitutional changes", as well as renaming, were just sanctioning of the existing relationships in the country: the two republics had been functioning almost independently for several years, and that process started in late 1990s. So "Serbia and Montenegro" was just the last phase of the state which was well into disintegration. Nothing substantial changed with that event: the two just continued to function separately, and soon thereafter just split. So it was all a process we should describe in this article, not any sort of revolutionary discontinuity which might warrant in a separate article. No such user (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If true, that's a pretty strong article for naming the article Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, isn't it, given that "Serbia and Montenegro" was just a decaying vestige of what had been a real state? john k (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Perhaps a rename might be justified (though there are good arguments against it) but a split is pure nonsense, without any support in sources. The last two years of this former state are not treated separately. And Wikipedia is not a source. Also: we'd have to pointlessly split a huge number of supporting articles (military, politicians, ranks, etc.), its a suggestion of the most absurd sort. In addition, you and WhiteWriter are WP:STALKING me, Antidiskriminator, and will be reported for it. This "split proposal" is nothing more than you carrying over grudges and conflicts from other articles. -- Director (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What on earth does "are not treated separately" mean? Why is a separate article "pure nonsense" any more than Khmer Republic or Democratic Kampuchea or Irish Free State, for that matter? Hell, we have a separate article for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. There are separate articles for Kingdom of Hungary, Hungarian Democratic Republic, Republic of Hungary (1946-1949), and People's Republic of Hungary. And saying "Wikipedia is not a source" doesn't have anything to do with it, because choosing to have a separate article or not is a matter of style, not content. Wikipedia is not a source - it is a model, and it's appropriate to look at what Wikipedia has chosen to do in similar circumstances for other countries as a model for what we should do here. And I think the precedents point fairly strongly towards having two separate articles. I also don't see why this would require splitting any other articles. Could you provide examples? john k (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • But we don't have separate articles (and these are practically identical examples) for the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We also don't have a separate article for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - and the reforms there were far more profound. This is the same country that underwent some reforms - and that is exactly how the sources treat it. Nobody considers that suddenly a new country was created two years before this thing fell apart, it was simply a last attempt to keep it together (which unfortunately did not work). -- Director (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay, so we have different precedents that point in different directions. But you keep on focusing on whether "a new country was created." My point is that this is obviously not the standard. The Kingdom of Hungary and the People's Republic of Hungary are obviously the same country, too. The point is that they are different constitutional regimes. john k (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it is a mistake to go into specifics of the examples, but the Kingdom of Hungary and the People's Republic of Hungary are obviously not the same country. That is an excellent example of where the line is usually drawn (monarchy -> communist state), and their territorial extent was different as well. This imo is an excellent example of the kind of reforms where its obvious we don't split articles for. -- Director (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Of course they are the same country. A country changing its form of government does not make it a new country. john k (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support There are no need to merge them together. That move is not founded in wiki rules. Split them, per Antidiskriminator's proposal. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, like I said, the Antidiskriminator/WhiteWriter WP:STALKING team.. carrying over the argument from Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and generally "defending Serbia" everywhere. The issue isn't whether we should not have another useless Balkans article - its whether we should have a separate article. Read this. -- Director (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hey, give me a rest, please! Stalking! This page is on my watchlist since 2006! World is not going around you. My dear god... I wanted to do this proposal, but i was too lazy to start it... --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh I'm sorry, I'm so egocentric... Out of curiosity: is my talkpage also on your watchlist? [1][2] And how is it that I knew you were just about to appear here? I must be psychic as well as self-centered.. -- Director (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
        • No, i didnt answered on your talk over my watch, or your contributions. There is one very logic way how i came there. And this is not place for this non-existing "conspiracy" over your... --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Everyone should really chill out. In particular, Direktor should stop accusing people of stalking him. Address people's arguments instead of making ad hominem attacks. Similarly, nobody should be making claims that the current situation is a result of some kind of American conspiracy. This is a legitimate disagreement about how to organize our articles on a rather confusing topic. Nothing is added to the discussion by making accusations like this. john k (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not about titles. This country apparently constitutes a single topic, because it's hardly worth covering a 2.5-year period in a separate article. Sorry, but the tendency to put the things (text) into articles (boxes) just on tha basis on the box title just reveals in the box thinking mindset.
  What should be the article title is quite another matter. I'd prefer "Serbia and Montenegro", because it might easily be the English common name, even from the days when it was called FR Yugoslavia, although "FR Yugoslavia" would not be terribly wrong either.
  Oh, yes, and Loginnigol conspiracy theory arguments aren't even worth an answer. No such user (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • When the federation needed to be referred to as such, I cannot remember any instance of it being called "Serbia and Montenegro" prior to 2003. Perhaps you can provide some examples. Also, why not move this article to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and then cover the 2.5 years in a short new article? We already have, for example, Republic of Hungary (1946-1949), Democratic Kampuchea, and so forth, all of which cover short periods. john k (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • You seriously don't remember that FRY was internationally unrecognized 1992-2000, and that the US government insisted on calling it Serbia and Montenegro? Come on, it says so in the article lead section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't remember that, no. I remember it being unrecognized, but not anyone calling it, as a formal entity, "Serbia and Montenegro." Certainly the American press did not follow the government's lead on that one. My Rand McNally world atlas from 1993 calls it "Yugoslavia." john k (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. Throughout the 1990s this state was commonly known as Serbia and since 2003 as Serbia and Montenegro and not Yugoslavia. Most sources that cover events (i.e. Yugoslav Wars) related to this state as Serbia and not Yugoslavia.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No, Serbia was known as Serbia throughout the 90s. For most of the 90s, for example, Milosevic was called a Serbian leader because he was the President of Serbia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, when it needed to be referred to, was typically called Yugoslavia. john k (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, a split would not be reader-friendly, as the factual overlap in coverage between the two articles would still be near 100%. Just because there was a constitutional change at some point doesn't change the fact that for all practical purposes of article writing these are the same topic. Fully agree with No such user. Article coverage must be carved up on criteria of what we actually have to say about a topic, not of what the name at the top of the box says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. If there be one article, how about it be FR Yugoslavia and merge SCG into that. After all, that is how it was for a longer period. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly support that over the current situation. john k (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't. ZjarriRrethues says it all. -- Director (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Very well, if holding onto SCG is so essential, I pledge my full support to a split per the proposal. Referenes to FRY as Serbia were not so much common as merely incorrect. Where the state was represented officially it was FRY. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, not same entities. Nemambrata (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Fut.Perf. and ZjarriRrethues reasoning. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, fork-like situation. Enough of these Yugoslavian dramas.Majuru (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unless you intend to split e.g. Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia... the FRY was pretty much universally known under its unambiguous name "Serbia and Montenegro", and then it was renamed to that for the remainder of its existence. The overhead of having to split the other articles would be annoying, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Joy, I'm not disputing you but I do find one thing you said interesting. You say, "pretty much universally known under its unambiguous name Serbia and Montenegro". Can you just provide me with one or two links of pre-2003 publications from any kind of journal or even blog (I don't mind) that distictly cites SCG with the language of official sanction (eg. The August 1999 solar eclipse has moved southeast over Serbia and Montenegro before covering Bulgaria, etc.). I'm just very curious to read these. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is absolutely untrue that that the FRY was ever called "Serbia and Montenegro" in any kind of official context before 2003. For instance, I can't find any sources which call Milosevic the president of "Serbia and Montenegro," while I can find numerous references to him as "President of Yugoslavia" or "President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." The only person who seems to be commonly referred to as "President of Serbia and Montenegro" is, unsurprisingly Svetozar Marovic. john k (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is no source to support view that two were same country. First was federation and other one was state union. Examples - Rhodesia and Zimbabwe. Nemambrata (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I honestly cannot be bothered, because it would be a confusing search; anyone who really wanted to address the country in an official capacity probably wanted to respect their wishes; anyone who didn't, didn't care for it and might as well have just called it plain "Yugoslavia", which is not actually the same thing as saying "FR Yugoslavia is the primary name of Serbia and Montenegro" today. Today we have the benefit of hindsight and we can make the editorial decision that it was indeed a series of sufficiently indistinguishable states to form a single article, just like we're saying KoSCS was the same as KoY, and how SFR Yugoslavia was the same as the FPR Yugoslavia and DF Yugoslavia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments of No such user and Fut Perf. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - To John K, yes that is correct. When I read Joy's vote I took particular interest and sought references myself. With Milošević having served as state president from 1997 to 2000, a period entirely within the FRY period, it helps greatly for locating usage. So if you take "Milosevic was President of Yugoslavia", you get 1,510 results. If you quote Milosevic was President of Serbia and Montenegro - not even 1 hit. Alternatively, you could try Milosevic led Yugoslavia - 893 results, not a huge figure I admit, but the opposing Milosevic led Serbia and Montenegro - gives ZERO again. To that end, whatever reason behind keeping a single article at SCG, it is unequivocal that "Serbia and Montenegro" was definitely not universal. Also, where one does find "Serbia and Montenegro" in literature pre-2003, it may very well be that the two are merely listed as one by one entities, something that could have just as easily been Montenegro and Serbia and therefore not pertaining to the state. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. As per political circumstances, it was not a simple geographical renaming.--Zoupan 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a reform into a looser union... Just like the 1963 reforms that changed the name from Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and devolved further authority to the republics; or the 1945 institution of the republics and the name change from Democratic Federal Yugoslavia to Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia... or like the 1929 renaming of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, accompanied by the institution of 9 constituent Banovinas.. or the 1974 constitution that practically made the republic autonomous in all respects, etc. etc. I think three articles is quite enough. -- Director (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a reasonable point. I don't think that the 2003 constitutional changes, on their own, are sufficient to require a split. I would say, though, that the dramatic name change, combined with the constitutional change, is a good reason for a split. The only comparable instance of a name change is the 1929 one, but the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes had been informally called Yugoslavia or Jugoslavia from the very beginning, at least in English. In spite of attempts to claim it was so, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as a state, was never widely known as "Serbia and Montenegro" before 2003. If certain countries which did not recognize the FRY officially called it that, this designation was largely limited to official documents, and "Yugoslavia" remained the most common name of the country in both the media and in general reference works. So we have a dramatic name change, to a new name which was not really used before 2003, combined with significant constitutional changes. I think that's reasonable grounds for a separate article. Since it doesn't look like there's going to be consensus for a split, though, I'd renew the suggestion of a move of the whole article to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Not only was this the name of the subject of this article for most of its existence, it was also its name for the most meaningful part of its existence, since "Serbia and Montenegro" after 2003 was an ephemeral and largely notional entity with no real authority or powers. Before 2006, it made a certain degree of sense to have the whole article at the then current title. But since both names are now defunct, I don't see a reason to privilege the newer one. john k (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Again with the denial of the concept of "Serbia and Montenegro" prior to the renaming... you're forcing me to produce at least something as a retort, so here's a series of book searches:

• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 1990" about 3,580 results Yugoslavia "in 1990" about 80,200 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 1991" about 5,880 results Yugoslavia "in 1991" about 104,000 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 1992" about 5,330 results Yugoslavia "in 1992" about 83,400 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 1993" about 3,620 results Yugoslavia "in 1993" about 62,300 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 1994" about 2,760 results Yugoslavia "in 1994" about 51,900 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 1995" about 3,190 results Yugoslavia "in 1995" about 52,400 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 1996" about 2,540 results Yugoslavia "in 1996" about 39,300 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 1997" about 2,490 results Yugoslavia "in 1997" about 34,400 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 1998" about 2,760 results Yugoslavia "in 1998" about 37,900 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 1999" about 4,170 results Yugoslavia "in 1999" about 40,300 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 2000" about 3,920 results Yugoslavia "in 2000" about 23,700 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 2001" about 4,120 results Yugoslavia "in 2001" about 18,500 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 2002" about 4,890 results Yugoslavia "in 2002" about 13,600 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 2003" about 5,870 results Yugoslavia "in 2003" about 11,500 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 2004" about 5,130 results Yugoslavia "in 2004" about 10,500 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 2005" about 3,570 results Yugoslavia "in 2005" about 7,400 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 2006" about 2,670 results Yugoslavia "in 2006" about 5,330 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 2007" about 1,370 results Yugoslavia "in 2007" about 4,500 results
• "Serbia and Montenegro" "in 2008" about 738 results Yugoslavia "in 2008" about 3,070 results

All the standard disclaimers apply, this may not mean anything, but it may indicate very general trends. It's also impossible to set aside the fact that the disparity in absolute numbers and the general downward trend of the larger number means that people are by and large referring more to the former SFR Yugoslavia as "Yugoslavia". So we can't compare absolute numbers, but the trend in the peaks of the mentions is indicative:

• Yugoslavia picks up in 1991, 1995 and 1999, the years of the initial breakup, the Dayton Agreement and the NATO bombing, respectively
• Serbia and Montenegro picks up equally in 1991 when it was founded and in 2003 when it was renamed.

The former data indicates to me e.g. that the article NATO bombing of Yugoslavia cannot be a priori renamed to "NATO bombing of Serbia and Montenegro". The latter data indicates to me that it is completely fair to talk of S&M from the date of founding. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I am involved on a very similar discussion taking place at Talk:Burma whereby I favour a move to Myanmar for reasons not too different from those discussed above. But it seems in both cases that the constitutional name of a country is ignored by outsiders but atleast in the case of Serbia and Montenegro, it had that name in the U.N, unlike "Burma" which is Myanmar there. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Serbia and Montenegro picks up equally in 1991 when it was founded". FR Yugoslavia was founded in April 1992.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

THAT'S the other thing! Evidently in the aftermath of Croatia's, Slovenia's and Macedonia's independence, along with Bosnia's pending declaration, the remaining two republics may often have been listed together but was this always meant in a sovereign capacity? Surely not always. I suppose it could as easily have been Montenegro and Serbia. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The reality was that the notion of Serbia and Montenegro forming their own state was already pretty clear even in 1991. With Macedonia's referendum in September 1991 and Bosnia's declaration of sovereignty in October 1991, coupled with the sieges of Vukovar and Dubrovnik, the breakup was looking increasingly clear even for the most die-hard fans of SFR Yugoslavia. Even the Badinter Commission reached the same conclusion on 29 November 1991. Only the Bosnian referendum was formally missing, and after that, the April 1992 proclamation of FRY was a mere confirmation of the fait accompli. And then there's also the benefit of hindsight - in 2012, we already have all the necessary information to avoid these incongruous arguments, but no, let's rehash it once again... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia & Serbia and Montenegro, were the same country. Splitting this article on 'name change' basis, isn't advisable. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as it is the same country. Changing the constitutional name, as well as administrative functions means little. FNR Yugoslavia changed name to SFR Yugoslavia in 1963, and it did not have any effects (although, Yugoslavia`s designation in UN from 1945 until 2003 did not change at all, because full constitutional name was not being included!). FR Yugoslavia was not disbanded in 2003, it was only re-organized. What is more- it was Yugoslavian parliament that voted on those constitutional changes. In the UN, only designation was changed, flag remained, anthem remained, Serbia and Montenegro was not to apply for membership in international organizations (that are, today, held by Serbia, as successor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustBGD89-3 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per comment above by others who have opposed the split.--R-41 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Dominant-party

This is continally being added to the political status with IJA even suggesting "want sources". If so then yes. One source will do - if anyone can cite the section of the FR Yugoslavia constitution which declared dominant-party political status. Without it, this is just another sneaky way of misusing designated infobox sections to draw attention to the authoritarian nature of a country during a period. Another thing about this "observation" is that it is Serbia-centric while FRY was two republics. Regarding Montenegro, once Momir Bulatović and Milo Đukanović split with the latter looking westward, Montenegro continued to be dominated by a new one-party system which from 1996 had totally divorced itself from Serbia in as many ways as practical. But the events of 2000 made no difference in Montenegro as political life continued to be dominated by Đukanović and his associates not only right up to 2006 when it broke away but even into 2015. Regardless, these facts still don't belong to any politial status section of an infobox as that part should be kept for what is constitutional. --Vrhunski (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A breakdown would be like this:

• 1992-1997: President without major power, affairs dominated by Socialist Party of Serbia and Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro in each republic - they worked together.
• 1997: Bulatović-Đukanović split in DPSM / Milošević becomes President of FR Yugoslavia
• 1998: Đukanović proves powerful enough to manage Montenegro independently (less institutions such as army which were central) so Bulatović is made Yugoslav Prime Minister but this office, and that of president, hs no de facto power over Montenego.
• 2000: Democractic Opposition of Serbia ousts SPS and by end of year, Vojislav Koštunica is President, and Zoran Đinđić is PM. However, these central positions only exercise power over Serbia (minus Kosovo of course). No change in Montenegro.
• 2000-2006: Power in Montenegro remains the same. Save for some amendments to posts (Filip Vujanović and Milo Đukanović in 2002), Montenegro was then and is today dominated by a handful of individuals.

That is the shortest possible but clearly complicated status summary for FRY/SCG. --Vrhunski (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Serbia and Montenegro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613083054/http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/wood_1.pdf to http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/wood_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928025829/http://www.fifoost.org/jugoslaw/yugo.pdf to http://www.fifoost.org/jugoslaw/yugo.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211190546/http://www.parlament.gov.rs/content/cir/akta/akta_detalji.asp?Id=466&t=Z to http://www.parlament.gov.rs/content/cir/akta/akta_detalji.asp?Id=466&t=Z
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ssinf.sv.gov.yu/default.php?id=87&je=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111227044239/http://www.fss.rs/sr/savez/istorijat.html to http://www.fss.rs/sr/savez/istorijat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Confusion in article because of merge and not enabling later to split article in two relevant subjects

Article starts with sentence: "Serbia and Montenegro was a country in Southeast Europe, created from the two remaining republics of Yugoslavia after its breakup in 1991."

Article is based on very confusing sentences that it is laughable to anyone who knows facts about this two states. Because such thing Wikipedia is not to be taken always a reliable source and encyclopedia for readers. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was created in 1992. There is no such a thing as state of Serbia and Montenegro after break up of Yugoslavia in 1991. Serbia and Montenegro as state was created after agreement to change constitution of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 2003.

And in many places in this article reader could get easily confused by order of sentences and dates given to what state content is refereed. This article is ridiculous from historical stand point. History facts get distorted in such a way by timeline and way it is presented in this article that make it bad in many ways. Readers who know nothing about this twoi states could get totally wrong impression.

Table on the right serves for what? To state that Zoran Lilić was president of Serbia and Montenegro or Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. How could reader make right conclusion to which country he was a president. And he is on the same raw with Svetozar Marovic president of Serbia and Montenegro who was not elected by voters but MP's like Zoran Lilic was.

"The new state also abandoned the collective presidency of the former SFRY and replaced it with the system consisting of a single president, who was initially appointed with the consent of the republics of Serbia and Montenegro until 1997 after which the president was democratically elected."

This makes confusion even oblivious more because it mentioned Serbia and Montenegro without explaining that they were part of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Were is disambiguation in this article when you need it?

In many parts of article timeline about Serbia and Montenegro precedes timeline of Federal republic of Yugoslavia and reader could not tell for sure about which state is reading. When is talked about flag in "Proposed flag and anthem" section it is more about Serbia and Montenegro when it comes to "Sports" it is more about FR Yugoslavia. When we read about transport article is talking about Serbia and Montenegro not a single word about Federal republic of Yugoslavia. Not to mention military and many differences between Armed Forces of Yugoslavia and Armed Forces of Serbia and Montenegro that cannot coexist in one single article without clear disambiguation.

For sake of few kilobytes of Wikipedia servers we have one article to describe two states and make confusion.

This article need clear disambiguation or to be split in two or more for each existing entity and some events in their respective timeline to prevent confusion for readers. Loesorion (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is that they were the same state just under a different name (see North Macedonia and Macedonia, Timor-Leste/East Timor, or Eswatini/Swaziland). – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The article has since been improved to add some clarity to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. I would personally recommend renaming the article the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia considering the name Serbia and Montenegro was only used for three years, but it isn't a major issue. You are correct in saying that Serbia and Montenegro operated differently to FR Yugoslavia. However, FR Yugoslavia itself operated differently under the Socialist Party of Serbia (1992-2000) than after the Democratic Bloc was elected (2000-2003) and final state union (2003-2006). Best to consider it one state with three different important eras. Azaan H 14:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

National anthem?

Did SCG have an official national anthem? My understanding is that "Hej Sloveni" was just used de facto since they could not agree on an official one. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Hej Sloveni was used while the state was called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992-2003) but when the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was created, it was used unofficially as an actual anthem was never agreed upon. The State Union in fact was never designed to last - its constitution promised a Montenegrin independence referendum in 2006. Azaan H 10:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Official name?

The constitution of 2003 uses the terms Serbia and Montenegro and State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The state was called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992-2003) and the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006). It was a Dominant Party Federal Republic between 1992-2000, a regular, Democratic, Federal Republic between 2000-2003, and a State Union (essential Confederacy) from 2003 until Montenegro's independence in 2006. Azaan H 14:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've seen the colloquial term New Yugoslavia in maps and in road signs like this(https://i0.wp.com/aparaskevi-images.gr/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/%CE%A4%CE%B1%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%AD%CE%BB%CE%B1-%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%87%CE%B5-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%B8%CE%AE-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BF%CE%B4%CE%BF-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%82-copy.jpg). I do not know for how long was the colloquial term "New Yugoslavia" in use, but I guess it would have been from the late months of rump SURE to the first year or so of the FRY. I have also found instances of it in French sites, like this (https://mjp.univ-perp.fr/constit/yu.htm) and this Communique by the Foreign Ministers of then EEC(https://www.vie-publique.fr/discours/129176-communique-des-pays-de-la-cee-sur-les-affrontements-armes-entre-serbes). Any ideas? Thanmad Productions (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

So what? Both French site uses this once each as a descriptive phrase in rather long texts. It's not any kind of common moniker, and has never been in widespread use. I don't see it worth including in the article even as a mention, let alone as a common alternative name. No such user (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Government section, infobox

There is an "ongoing" edit war in the government section in the infobox and since this can't really go on I would want this to be discussed. My solution would be to leave it as "Federal republic (1992-2003) under a dominant-party system (1993-2000) and Confederal constitutional republic (2003-2006)" with Dobrica Ćosić, Slobodan Milošević and Svetozar Milošević listed as heads of the state and Milan Panić and Svetozar Marović listed as the heads of the government. Besides their names, I added a ref tag with the name of the official name of the government title that was used at the time. Alfred the Lesser/Alexiod Palaiologos has been constantly reverting my edit without explaining anything, he did not contact me and we never discussed this topic. As far as I can see his solution is "Federal republic (1992-2003) under a dominant-party state (1993-2000) and Confederate constitutional republic (2003-2006)" with Dobrica Ćosić and Svetozar Marović listed as heads of the state and Milan Panić and Svetozar Marović listed as the heads of the government but without the ref tags with the official government title names. The reason why I changed it from Confederate to Confederal is that it applies more to the term "Confederation". During the existence of FRY, Slobodan Milošević was a leading figure and even though he only served the term for three years I still think that he should be mentioned in the infobox because of numerous reasons such as the involvement in the Yugoslav Wars, politics in Yugoslavia and later Serbia and many other reasons. During the existence of this country the title "President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was only used until the proclamation of the state union while the title "Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was never used, the official title was "President of the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" or shortened to "President of the Federal Government" which was used until 2003. You can either add the ref tags that show the official government title name of these positions or change the "President" to "Head of state" and "Prime Minister" to "Head of government". I would especially want Alfred the Lesser to join this discussion because he is a part of it and I want this to get solved asap. Vacant0 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think my version of the Government infobox looks neater. I wasn't aware I was changing the names of leaders of the country and so I apologise for that. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change article name

I think it would make more sense to name this article, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' or FR Yugoslavia, instead of Serbia and Montenegro. The name Serbia and Montenegro was only used for the last three years of the country's existence, and indeed the Serbian Wikipedia version of this article uses Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as its name, and has a separate article for the brief existence of Serbia and Montenegro. Kurt Hartman 15:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It was commonly known in English sources as "Serbia and Montenegro" during all of its existence. See the 1993 CIA World Factbook [3]. It is listed as "Serbia and Montenegro". Same in the 2000 edition. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not the official name though. Also, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, not NATO bombings of Serbia and Montenegro. Kurt Hartman 17:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses most common names, not official names. See WP:COMMONNAME. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Kurt Hartman 16:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Montenegro as a Serb majority republic?

Under the heading entitled "History" in this article, the first sentence in the first paragraph says the following:

"After the collapse of SFR Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the two Serb majority republics, Serbia and Montenegro, agreed to remain as Yugoslavia, and established a new constitution in 1992, which established the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia essentially as a rump state, with a population consisting of a majority of Serbs."

Now, I was surprised to read this, as I assumed that Montenegro is ethnically different or otherwise it would not have seceded from the union with Serbia. However, reading the Wikipedia article on that country, it turned out that Serbs is not a majority in Montenegro. Furthermore, there is in fact a separate and distinct Montenegrin culture and people, who constitutes the largest ethnic group (about 45% of the total population) in this country today according to the article on that country, with Serbs being the next largest ethnic group. Nowhere did the article on Montenegrin ethnic group say that it is a branch of Serb ethnic group or something like that.

That then leads to the question as to why the quoted sentence from this article says that both countries are "two Serb majority republics", which implies that Montenegro is or had been Serb majority. It is well possible that the Serbs were formerly a majority. However, I cannot find any information on such demographic change in Montenegro between the establishment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) or State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, nor can I find any information that suggested that Serbs were once a majority in that country at any point during the existence of FRY. Moreover, it does raise the question as to why a separate state existed/exists in Montenegro if their majority is or were ethnically same as the country literally next door that it had peacefully joined as part of a new federation at the breakup of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY, before it seceded later.

All of that being said, I recommend either correction or clarification of this particular sentence to avoid the confusion and misunderstanding. Legion (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes in infobox

Some of the footnotes in the info box either lead to the wrong thing or nothing at all. I'm not very experienced with infobox editing so I don't want to accidentally worsen it, plus I'm not sure where some of them are supposed to lead. I would be grateful if someone more experienced could help. Vp4411 (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• National anthem of the Yugoslavia.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)