Talk:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Powers of each nation

In the SFRY how much control do each member state have over its own domestic issues and how much was dictated from above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.112.38 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional status

Nikola, when you say "had no special status" it's ambiguous and potentially misleading because this part was actually the Social Republic of Serbia, the others were autonomous under Serbia. I remember we used to call it "uža Srbija" in school, meaning "narrower Serbia" but that doesn't sound too good in English. --Shallot 10:23, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well no, it was not actually SRS, but only a part of it that was not an autonomous province. I don't see that 'had no special statrus' is ambiguous, if you have some better wording apply it. But the status must be explained, if not, whatever you say will mislead anyone not previously informed that this part was also an autonomous province. Nikola 11:29, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. Can we simply say SR Serbia "had these two additional provinces" rather than "was further divided into"? --Shallot 14:18, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In addition to what? They were as much part of Serbia as the central part. BTW, we surely can't go without mentioning it as some people will think that Serbia consists of only Kosovo and Vojvodina. Perhaps we could say "Part of Serbia (oftenly called "Serbia proper" that was neither in Vojvodina nor in Kosovo was not an autonomous province." and leave everyone puzzled. Or perhaps the topic is so complicated that it deserves an article on its own. Nikola 05:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It seems there isn't a copy of the 1963/1974 Yugoslav constitutions available online and I can't be arsed to go to a library, so I'll defer the judgement on how autonomous they were to you. :) --Shallot 12:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have some good news! I scanned and OCRed the whole SFRY constitution from 1974; it took me 14 days to complete, but now all of 406 articles are available on-line at Slovene Wikipedia as Ustava SFRJ (1974). Have fun --Romanm 20:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Great!!!! :DD So, regarding this, "Socialisti?na federativna republika Jugoslavija je zvezna dr?ava kot dr?avna skupnost prostovoljno zdru?enih narodov in njihovih socialisti?nih republik ter socialisti?nih avtonomnih pokrajin Kosova in Vojvodine v sestavi Socialisti?ne republike Srbije." Nikola 05:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

So, yeah, if I guess-read Slovenian correctly, the others were autonomous under Serbia, like I said before. I think we should simply omit the mention of the naming of the central part in this page because it's already dealt with on its page. --Shallot 10:57, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Using redirects

---

Shallot, instead of linking directly to the Serbia and Montenegro page or allowing the FRY page to redirect, maybe we could put a short explanation of the connection between FRY and Serbia and Montenegro on the FRY page and continue linking to that from here. Tim Ivorson 19:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That occured to me as well, though I wasn't sure if people would think that such a short page would be better replaced with a redirect... I guess we could rid the current S&M page of a fair bit of historic baggage if we moved it to the FRY page. Nikola Smolenski, are you watching this, what do you think? :) --Shallot 20:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

National motto

Wasn't bratstvo i jedinstvo unofficial really? Certainly a popular phrase, but I doubt it was codified. --Shallot 20:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it was unofficial, too. This is what I also wrote in the first version of the table, but someone seems to leave "unofficial" out, obviously. --Romanm 20:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK, "bratstvo jedinstvo" was just one of the slogans used to express the ideology of the socialist Yugoslavia, and not a national motto in any sense. I think this should be removed, or ideally dealt with somewhere else. Zocky 20:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

My first version of the table listed "Bratstvo in enotnost" as unofficial motto; ie. of course it was not official (although sintagme "bratstvo in enotnost" appears several times in the Yugoslav constitution), but if there was some motto-candidate, this would be the one. I suggest to mark it "unofficial" again and leave it as it is. --Romanm 21:23, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

No, I think that it's pointless to invent or approximate national mottos when there are none. It's like pronouncing red or blue to be the unofficial national colour - if there is no official colour, the unofficial colour could be any colour. Zocky 22:05, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

UK, for example doesn't have official flag or hymn, yet unofficial ones are listed in the table. By the way, I am neutral about this. Nikola 07:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

That might be true, for a country like UK, which also has no written constitution and whose flag and motto are several centuries old. I don't think it's a comparable situation. Zocky 23:09, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, this motto was only half a century old. But as I said, I don't care, remove it if you wish, mark it as unofficial if you don't. Nikola 23:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Avala's edit

Avala, Slovene and Macedonian were also official languages of the SFRY. You also removed the map of the country showing the political entities and rephrased the passage on Serbia so that it's not clear that the autonomous provinces had any special status in the federation. For this reasons I reverted the page. Please discuss these issues here before you act. --Romanm 13:58, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

They were official on the paper. But ok leave them. Draw the new picture for ne table. Old one is "buggy". Also I just copied the info for Serbia. I will revert and leave it to you to draw the new picture(just change numbers (old one was bad-serbia,croatia,bih,slovenia,macedonia and montenegro by size i think that is the order) Best wishes Avala 16:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC) If you want you can change info for Serbia so that everything can be clear.

Avala, Slovenian and Macedonian were official on paper (ie. constitution) and in real life. As for your other changes:

• the original list of republics was in alphabetic order, but you changed that to sort them by area. IMHO sorting them alphabeticaly is the way to go, since this is the way they were sorted in the constitution and is also the way to sort other entities; see U.S. states, for example.
• you omitted the part about "uža Srbija" and said that it was called "Central Serbia". I think that the usual English name for "uža Srbija" is "Serbia proper" or "Narrower Serbia". This was discussed on Talk:Serbia some weeks ago.
• the picture was just fine, I don't see why you removed it from the page? If the boundaries between autonomous provinces and other part of Serbia bother you, we can change them to dashed line so that it'll be more obvious that they belonged together.
• the new table looks bad, especially on small screens. In generaly I prefered the old layout of this page.

I'd like to ask you and especialy the other users to comment this before I revert, so that I won't start an edit war. --Romanm 08:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

First about old "table". I think that majority of today users have 17" screens on which that old text was going over the picture. This one is much better for 17"screen with 1024x768 which is about 80-90% of users. You can buy 17" to change your 15" or 14" for only 100-150euros.:) I don`t really care for the line but OK if you want to do it all right. I already told you that you can format the table if you want(order it alphabetically or whatever).--Avala 13:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that we should go for a list, alphabetically sorted or not. The problem with the list was that the image interfered with it on some browsers, leaving the list which was only two characters wide or so. I can fix it. BTW, Regardless of the solution, I think that we should link as Serbia so that it would be visible what if its official name. Nikola 01:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Nikola, I agree with you. Please include the list and the image, then. The part of linking as Serbia I don't understand, could you explain a bit more, please? --Romanm 21:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I re-added Image:SFRYugoslaviaNumbered.png to this page. It looks good on my monitor in Mozilla with new Wikipedia skin, but if there are some problems on other user's equipment, please let me know. In this case I'd also like to ask Nikola to fix it (I cannot reproduce the problem). --Romanm 12:34, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

What happened :? I wrote Socialist Republic of Serbia. An alternative might be Socialist Republic of Serbia. Nikola 05:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I don`t get it! You are linking to Serbia with Socialist republic of Serbia!

Please explain! Avala 15:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Kako drukcije da objasnis ljudima da se republika zvala "Socijalisticka republika Srbija"? Mada ima smisla to sto kazes, verovatno je ovaj drugi predlog bolji. Nikola 21:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Znam ali ako kliknu na taj link otici ce na danasnju Srbiju i onda ce gotovo sigurno da misle kako je Srbija i dalje Socijalisticka republika.

Inace ovima ovde pogotovo Slovencima je vrlo tesko objasniti i najobicnije stvari kao npr. da neke stvari ne mogu da imaju copyright kao sto je grb ako on izgleda isto kao original...Al' sta da se radi Avala 08:11, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

A pa to se slazem onda neka bude ovo drugo. Za kopirajt, moram da ti kazem da su u pravu, grb naravno nema kopirajt ali slika grba ima kopirajt onoga ko ju je naslikao. To je vrlo glupo ali je tako. Tako je i po nasem zakonu o autorskim pravima.

P.S. Neki ovde pogotovo Slovenci znaju srpski ;) Nikola 11:38, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. But although we understand Serbian, it'll be more useful if we stick to English on the English Wikipedia talk pages, so that others understand us too. We can always talk slovensko or hrvatski or српски on our user pages, if we'd like to have some ex-Yu privacy. :-) --Romanm 19:55, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I know, but as Avala's English isn't the best one, I thought it would be the best to resolve this in Serbian. Nikola 05:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I know that they speak and I don`t really care because I already told them everything on Serbian and English and whatever.

About CoA - on Serbian-mi ne znamo da li je neko nacrtao taj grb ako nije dodao neki detalj koji ga cini razlicitim od originala. Onaj Grb je sa zvanicnih stranica i siguran sam da makedonski predsednicki websajt nece tuziti Wikipediu zbog objavljivanja istog. Takodje nisam siguran da li takav zakon obuhvata grb. A i lepo je rekao Tito da se sudije "ne drze zakona ko pijan plota". A kad on kaze onda nema druge........ ;-) Avala 14:37, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

E, ali to je drugo ako je s drzavnih stranica, onda mozes reci da prema zakonu te drzave (a vecina ih ima tako), sve sto je drzava objavila u javnom vlasnistvu. Jedino ako skines sliku s privatne ili komercijalne web stranice onda oni imaju copyright nad tim konkretnim djelom. --Shallot 15:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Ne vazi ni to za svaku drzavu. Nikola

pa uostalom vidim da ovde sve sto skinu sa state department ili bilo kog drugog gov sajta satvljaju pod fair use. Avala 18:01, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Pa to je zato sto po americkom zakonu drzavni organi ne mogu da kopirajtuju nikakav materijal koji proizvedu. A po nasem zakonu drzavni organi ne mogu da kopirajtju nikakav ZVANICAN materijal koji proizvedu. Da li je zvanican sajt zvanican materijal treba pitati nekog advokata... Nikola 08:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Ne treba.... jer na novom sajtu vlade Srbije npr. pise velikim slovima Dobro dosli na zvanicnu prezentaciju Vlade Republike Srbije. S druge strane sumnjam da ista o tome ima u nasem zakoniku. Jedino da neko posalje mail webmasteru..... --Avala 14:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Takodje pise i Copyright © 2004 Vlada Republike Srbije. Nikola

Da li mogu da prekopiram informacije o okruzima sa sajta na wikipediu? To su vise cinjenice a i sajt je zvanican? Avala 15:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Vec postoje: Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro.

Uzgred, [1] i [2] prema [3] i [4] sugerise da neko treba da izvrsi jedan search/replace na ovom i drugim srodnim clancima (pre svega onim povezanim na njega...). Nikola 10:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

[[5]] evo sajt sa svim informacijama. Ne samo lista okruga vec sve informacije. Pa ako se slazemo da je to sa sajta zvanicni materijal mogao bih da iskopiram i da napravim tekst o svakom okrugu Avala 20:06, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Ja bih ipak pitao webmastera. U stvari, upravo mu pisem. Nikola 07:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Vidim hvale se kao novi sajt, sve super a ovamo ne mogu da odgovore na obican e-mail! Avala 15:50, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Da, nista mi ne odgovara. Ne bi ti savetovao da to radis, sve ce ti pobrisati. Nikola 23:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Lepo cu napisati u fusnoti da je ta informacija zvanicna i da vlada ne moze drzati copyright za to. To je ionako 99% tacno. To nije ni neka umetnost napisati kolika je povrsina, gde se nalazi koji su gradovi.... --Avala 12:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I jos samo da kazem da na svakom sajtu , drzavnom sajtu, na kom sam bio ne stoji znak za C. Od singapurske vlade do predsednika austrije. Pretpostavljam da se to sve odnosi na izgled sajta. Tj da taj kopirajt drzi webmaster. A sadrzaj je verovatno slobodan ali takodje ovo je Srbija :) Avala 19:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ovdje seru neki ljudi, sto nemaju pojma sta je SFRJ bila... Drzava u kojoj smo svi slavili, pili i jeli i druzili, ali jednog dana su stranci kupili seljake nepismene i izdajice za saku para da ucine sto se je desilo, problai sa Madjarima pa su skontali da je bilo malo, onda sa Albancima na Kosovu, i klupko je poceo da pada niz brdo, zatim Slovenci, Hrvati itd. Zalosno je to, sto danas nam se svi smiju, kazu: MAJMUNI JUGOSLOVENKI, kako glupo, ali sta ces mi bi i svoju mater prodali za 1 euro a ne sta drugo, danas svi zelimo u EU, a Yugoslavija je to vec imala 40 i kusur godina, to tako zvano bratstvo i jedinstvo sto danas EU gradi na. Jos kada nam ukinu granice onda ce Juga opet postojati u pozdini ali razlika ce biti sto je samo vise politicara i fotelja, sto bi u mene djed reko "sva govna su isplivutala na povrsinu" Njemac je godinama hjtjo da zauzme SFRY, 2 svjetska rada, 2 puta se opeko, ali je 3 put mudro nas zajebo i dosao dole i jedino ako narod htjedne letit ce Njemci i ostali napolje, ko eto neke mirovne trupe sta ces mi smo tako smotani da nista ne znamo, a samo pocevski od Tesle, da njega ni bilo, danas bi 100% puhali svjecu. Ja sam proveo u Jugoslaviji ljepe dane, i vjerujem da su to isto i ostali, zato vas sve molim ostavimo Jugu staru nek miruje isto sto pokojniku neskacemo po grabu. Na sjeli smo na igru zapada, ali nemora na ostale, ja apelujem "DRUZIMO SE, NI SMO VUKOVI" Ja bi u svaki cas priskocijo pomoci, Makedoncu, Slovencu, Bosnacu, Hrvatu, Crnogorcu ili Srbinu nego nekom bjednom svabi ili sta ja znam. Budi te dobri svi i molim vas ostavite, nase drzave nako kako i jesu, a jebimo druge ;-) radimo malo vandalizam ovim Nacistima iz Njemacke ;-)

UZA or CENTRAL

Just for the record if you type

Google search
Uza Srbija	1,500 results
Centralna Srbija	6,480 results
Central Serbia	1,260,000 results
Serbia proper	110,000 results

Avala 13:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Serbia proper for more on this search and why it proves nothing. Morwen 14:19, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Factoids

I disagree in part with the recent edit by Jiang. I think that the obsolete ISO 3166-1 and calling code information should remain if it was true throughout the SFRY's existence. Presumably it was (unlike population information for 1991 or membership of the EU).

Did the area change during the SFRY's existence? If not, then I think that that should be reinserted.

If somebody does put the ethinic/national information back, I don't think that Muslim should count as a national or ethnic identity. Does Muslim mean something special here? Does it mean something like Muslim-Serb, Muslim-Croat, Muslim-Turkic or Muslim-Arab?

Tim Ivorson 11:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The area changed very little, in the 1950s the surroundings of Trieste were formally annexed. Yes, Muslims by nationality was a legal concept in SFRY. --Joy [shallot] 11:45, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello Joy [shallot]

I have linked the poulation groups to the relevent pages. I hope that this is appropriate. I have not bypassed redirects at Slovenes or Hungarians, in case there was an important reason for not using `Slovenians' and/or `Magyars'.

Ah, don't worry, all of it is correct, I don't think those English spellings were chosen by anything other than chance. While we're nitpicking, the combination that would fit the original phrasing the best would be "Slovenes" (Slovenci) and "Magyars" (Mađari). --Joy [shallot] 23:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have changed `Muslims' to `Muslims by nationality', but I have linked it directly to Slavic Muslims.

Is there a shorthand for [[Montenegrins (people)|Montenegrins]]?

I looked up Trieste and discovered the 1954 dissolution of the Free Territory of Trieste. Perhaps I should mention it and the area of SFRY in the history section.

Tim Ivorson 12:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm thinking we should also move this demographic data into the main text, like it's in other country articles. It looks crammed in the table, anyway. --Joy [shallot]

I added something about the annexation of Trieste's Zone B. I'm not sure whether what I wrote is accurate. I said "most significant change to the borders" because that's not strictly inaccurate if it was the only change to the SFRY's borders. Tim Ivorson 18:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I looked it up at Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Links_and_URLs and found that [[Montenegrins (people)|]] is the shorthand and that there is no lasting difference between that and what I did, because the shorthand is expanded in the Wikisource when it is saved.

Tim Ivorson 16:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yep, that's just fine. Looks a tad redundant in the source, but hey. --Joy [shallot]

IMO, that article shoul be moved to Montenegrins, a sentnce could be added which explains that in a wider sense, Montenegrins are all inhabitants of Montenegro. Nikola 03:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You might be right. Montenegrins (people) is not the correct choice of title, unless Montenegrins ever refers to something other than people. Tim Ivorson 13:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I went ahead and did that. --Joy [shallot] 16:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SFRY bordered on...?

A non-logged in user changed the article to read, "The SFRY bordered on Italy etc." Is this some dialect with which I am unfamiliar, or is it vandalism? "The SFRY bordered on Italy etc." sounds to me like "The SFRY was similar to Italy etc." rather than "The SFRY was adjascent to Italy etc." Tim Ivorson 16:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Economy, socialism?

What about the economy of Yugoslavia? What about the socialism :) Foant

the socialist yugoslavia page has the pupulation set at 20,522,975 but when you add up all the population of serbia, croatia, bosnia, etc, then it comes out to be 21,597,925. That error should be corrected.

The constitutional nations of the Socialist Republic Croatia were Croats and Serbs, respectivly. HolyRomanEmperor 18:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The section on economy doesn't show any citation to back up its facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.24.124 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Official language

In the 1963 Constitution the official language was specified as "srpskohrvatskom, odnosno hrvatskosrpskom, slovenačkom i makedonskom." (Art. 11, [6], footnote 10). The wording is somewhat ambiguous (the comma + the word "odnosno" could be translated as "or" or "also"). In practice, all acts were published in 4 versions: Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Slovenian and Macedonian.

In the 1974 Constitution no language was specified as official (except for the obligatory translation of official acts into languages of Albanian and Hungarian minority, the same reference as above). The decision on the official language was left to the republics. --Elephantus 00:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

sources? HolyRomanEmperor 11:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the whole text linked above. It's somewhat biased (written by a Yugoslav unitarist) but useful for the facts it states. --Elephantus 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really commendable as a valuable source; for many reasons... It isn't official; and it still no where directly supports your claim. HolyRomanEmperor 16:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Basic Data FYI

Source: "Yugoslavia: Politics, Economics and Society", Bruce McFarlane, 1988

====Population:

• 23.1 million (1985)
• Projected population 2000: 25.167 million (obviously, now an insensitive joke)
• Population density: 90 per sq.km, 155 persons per sq.km of agricultural land

====Administrative Divisions:

Serbia (34.5% of territory), Croatia (22.1% of territory, Bosnia and Herzegovina (18.7 % of territory), Macedonia (8.2% of territory), Slovenia (8.3), Montenegro (2.7). Two autonomous provinces - Kosovo Metohia and Vojvodina (known as "SAPs" or 'socijalisticka autonomna pokrajina').

====Membership of int orgs:

• UN since 1964
• Non-Aligned Movement
• IMF
• World Bank
• Observer at CMEA general sessions
• member of Balkan Pact with Greece and Turkey (no longer active)

====Economy

• GDP 62 billion dinnars
• Growth rate - 1948-85 5.3% per annum; 1981-1985 0.6% per annum
• Foreign debt 19 billion dinnars (33% of GDP)
• Total exports 2,258 billion dinnars (1985), 50% raw materials and semi-finished goods, 17% machinery, 33% food, textiles, medicines

• Size of work-force: 6.5 million socialist sector; 0.14 million private sector
• Structure of work-force (1985) 38% industry; 38.5% women; 51% women in private sector

====Culture

• Professional theatres 70
• Number of cinemas 1298

====Education

• Adult literacy 85%
• Primary school enrolment 100%
• Secondary school enrolment 79%
• No data provided on tertiary

====Share of Gross Social Product going to defence

• 3.4% (1984)

====Political structure

• Constitution (3rd 1974)
• Highest legislative body Federal People's Assembly
• Highest executive body Presidency (collective)
• Prime minister
• President
• Ruling party League of Communists of Yugoslavia (Savez komunista Jugoslavije)

====Political organisations

• League of Communists 2.16 million
• Socialist Alliance of Working People 15 million (Socijalisticki savez radnog naroda Jugoslavije)
• League of Trade Unions of Yugoslavia 5.9 million (Savez sindikata Jugoslavije)
• League of the socialist youth of Yugoslavia - no data

====Key themes in political and economic orientation

• 1) a belief in rapid industrialisation and a policy of transforming peasantry into a working class
• 2) market socialism (ridden by tensions between socialist self-management and trade unionism)
• 3) collectivist control over resources (this is the underlying economic issue of the Croatian spring and inter-republic squables in the 1970s and 1980s, see interviews with Croatian spring leaders on disatisfaction with the investment in primary resources that favoured resource-rich regions for more insight into the issue)
• 4) non-alignment in world politics, active membership of the non-aligned bloc, anti-militaristic centre-left orientation in relation to the US
• 5) attempts to cement unity by introducing a 'supranation' - Yugoslav

====What is socialist self-management? (cited from various parts of the book)

A conference on productivity was held in 1959, which recommended increased standardisation of production, the setting up of 'associations of factories' and their cooperation in the manufacturing process of their industry. The workers councils were at this stage 'managing state property on behalf of society'. That is, state ownership prevailed over the menas of production in most areas of social life (although housing and building sites were not nationalised until 1959)... the Yugoslav self-managed economy was a special case wehere workers hired capital for rental instead of capitalists hiring workers for wage labour ... the system avoided the methodology of neo-classical economists and took into account the sociological aspects of corporate behaviour occasioning perverse results such as dimissing workers from the collective as profits rise or gaining when output is reduced.

The neo-classical school of economists analysed the Yugoslav model -- see Ward, Horvart, Vanek, Ward, Meade, Estrin.

====Constitutive nations

Also - constitutive nations (1943) - intially - Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians and Montenegrins - thus, initially coat of arms consisted of five torches, in 1963 the sixth was added to represent Bosnian Muslims, who were later constitutionally recognised as a nation in their own right. Hence, Yu officially had six constitutive nations, not four.

Hope this helps. Cheers. Fomafomich 16:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

====Administrative Divisions:

Serbia (34.5% of territory), Croatia (22.1% of territory, Bosnia and Herzegovina (18.7 % of territory), Macedonia (8.2% of territory), Slovenia (8.3), Montenegro (2.7). Two autonomous provinces - Kosovo Metohia and Vojvodina (known as "SAPs" or 'socijalisticka autonomna pokrajina').

They was not administrative divisions but constitutive elements sice 1974. See the last Constitution of Yugoslavia. Ther is no constitutive nations, this nation was the constitutive nations of the Republicks (SR Serbia,SR Slovenia, SR Croatia. SR Motenegro, SR BandH. SR Macedonia)wich was the constitutive elements of Yugoslavia. So you can intepret tha and say like this, but you must see the different betwen the administrative subdivisions and the constitutive elements.--Hipi Zhdripi 18:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Democratic Federal Yugoslavia → Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Proposal

It has been proposed that Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (DFY) be merged into Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), and the DFY article be replaced with a redirect with possibilities.

Rationale

The DFY article is made up of text and images copied solely from the SFRY article.

Community response

Please note your support or objections below.

• Support as proposed --Kralizec! (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - no need to cut on legal encyclopedia material Avala 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I do not completely follow you; what do you mean by "cut on legal encyclopedia material?" I am not proposing that any material (encyclopedic or otherwise) be removed from wikipedia. Everything in the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia article was cut-n-paste from the History section of this article. Since this article (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) already covers everything contained in both articles, I am proposing that the DFY article simply be re-directed here. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. Duja 19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not quite sure if I fully understand the situation, but I will post to what I feel is the situation. I do not believe that these two articles should be merged as they technically cover two different stages of Yugoslav history. Whoever wrote the history of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia should have undertaken more effort then to just copy and paste the history section of another article. These two different stages of history deserve their own articles, and it would be nice if someone with a proper knowledge of the history of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia write an article. The Yugoslav people have already lost enough, let us try to preserve their history for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SAWGunner89 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That history is already in this article. Since even the creator/forker of DFY article doesn't seem interested to cover it in more detail, it may as well be reverted to the original state (redirect to here). Besides, Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was a far longer period and it is a redirect. I don't mind having separate articles describing different periods of history, but that should occur when the main article becomes overlong, not "just-because-I-feel-like-it". Duja 07:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose DFY was sort of a transitional phase between KofY and FPRY/SFRY and can not be viewed in continuity with either one. It definitely deserves its own article. It has as much to do with the former as with the latter. Unfortunatelly, the DFY article doesn't do a decent enough job in explaining all of the historically significant events surrounding DFY (when I've got more time I'll try to expand it), but it should definitely remain separate. Zvonko, 23 July 2006
• Support as proposed. Djido 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support as proposed UberVash 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support as proposed Foant 12:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support as proposed Bigz 19:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Distortion of facts: The mentioning of the Roma people

Let me remind the author of the following statement in the article:
Yugoslavia used to be described as a country with seven neighbouring countries, six republics, five languages, four nations, three religions, two alphabets and one party. (Though this is fairly incorrect; the country had several languages and nations not accounted for, like Roma and their language. Muslims (Bosniaks) received recognition as being a nation in 1971.)(end of quote)

The former Tito's Socialist Yugoslavia was the first country on the planet Earth in the history of humankind that broadcasted TV program in Roma language (it was on TV Prishtina) and I should add that Yugoslavia had the "Queen of the Roma music" Esma Redzhepova who was and still is spreading the Roma folklore culture all over the world (among other things she was invited to perform in front of some most famous world politicians when they were visiting Tito, incl.(just to name a few) Muammar al-Gaddafi) and Indira Gandhi who decorated her with a medal in India, the cradle of the Roma people.
However IT IS TRUE that the Roma language didn't have the status of an official language but as a language of a minority ethnic group (which undoubtely it is, with all my respect to Roma people) so that doesnt mean that their language and nationality was not recognized. I recommend checking the book: "The Gypsies" by Angus Phraser, blackwell publishing, ISBN: 0631196056 . Find the latest edition (if several exist) and check the section about the Roma people in Yugoslavia. Also Yugoslavia was the first country where the word "Cigan"- Gypsy (which Romas themselfes consider as insulting/pejorative) was replaced in the media with "Rom". And I would add also the following which can be veryfied: It was in Yugoslavia (particulary Socialist Republic of Macedonia) where for the first time in history a TV program has been broadcasted in Albanian language, by TV Skopje (at the same time Enver Hoxha's Albania didn't have television at all). Im certainly not favorizing Yugoslavia claiming that it was a "heaven on earth" but a fact is a fact. Delete the errouneus statement.--Vbb-sk-mk 06:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

you are wrong

Yugoslavia had 3 languages: Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Slovenian as official languages.

obviously you haven't read what I wrote.--Vbb-sk-mk 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I find the former country infobox to be deficient in some ways (see the talk page of the project) and would like to revert the change until it is agreed on more thoroughly. I'm not going to revert Duja however. Just adding this to register my complaint :) - Francis Tyers · 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved it down, looks better now. - Francis Tyers · 15:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More?

Why not add the Republic of Serbian Krajina and the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Hersegovina to the secessionist part (the "->")? They too were formed at the brake up of Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Four languages?

"Yugoslavia used to be described as a small country with big problems: seven neighbouring countries, six republics, five nationalities, four languages, three religions, two alphabets and one political party." -- from the article

What is the "four languages"? Serbo-Croatian of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro, Macedonian of Macedonia, Slovenian of Slovenia, and Albanian of Kosovo? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Further more, article states that there 5 official languages: Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian, Albanian, Hungarian. There for there is something wrong with the statement in the article, or was any of the counted languages declared official lange after the phrase (Yugoslavia used to be described as [...]) in question came to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rdi (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There were only 3 at the time of the original statement. Religions and languages seem to have gotten swapped over the years as people forgot the Jews and distinguished the Serbian and Croatian languages. An earlier Time article described "that paradoxical land of six republics, five nationalities, four faiths, three languages and two alphabets." A paper by Robin Davies on the UNDP web site quotes Tito: "I am the leader of .....One Country ...which has Two Alphabets; Three Languages, Four religions, Five Nationalities, Six Republics....surrounded by Seven neighbours. A country in which live Eight Ethnic minorities." http://harmony-themovie.ca quotes him similarly. Not R (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My screen is not displaying the flag anymore it just shows a deleted link symbol is this the same for others?

With all the changes happening to Wikipedia's templates recently, I'm noticing that images are not showing up in some articles, they appear as deleted links such as this page with the Yugoslav flag. But when I press on them, the images are still there. Is anyone else having this problem or is this just a problem with my computer?--R-41 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Politics section

I'm having problems with the following paragraph:

Ethnic nationalism which had deeply divided Yugoslavia as a kingdom, was repressed under Tito. Ethnic nationalism was not tolerated, and outspoken nationalists were either arrested or killed. However, one nationalist uprising, the Croatian Spring, managed to put pressure on the Yugoslav government to change the constitution in 1974. Among the changes were the right of any republic to unilaterally secede from Yugoslavia as well as the controversial internal division of Serbia, which created two autonomous provinces within it, Vojvodina and Kosovo. Each of these autonomous provinces had voting power equal to that of the republics.

• I'm not sure that Croatian Spring was the main reason for 1974 constitution.
• The republics didn't have right to secede from Yugoslavia; the right was granted to peoples of Yugoslavia.
• Vojvodina and Kosovo were not created, they existed before, but as autonomous areas, not provinces.
• It is very important to note that each of the provinces could veto any decision of Serbia, while Serbia could not affect any decision of the provinces. Nikola 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Olympic Games

I changed a fact on the olympics in the "Post-Tito Yugoslavia and the Dissolution of the State" section. Previously, it had stated that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the first Communist State to hold the Olympic Games. This is incorrect, as the 1980 Summer Olympic Games were held in Moscow, RSFSR, USSR. The USSR was clearly a Communist State in 1980. If the original author meant to say that Yugoslavia was the first Communist State to hold the Winter Games, that would be a true statement. However, it is hard to determine the original intent and therefore I changed the article accordingly. Tbkflav 18:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.98.193 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 October 2007

(I didn't start this section.)
The article has been carefully checked and edited many, many times, so I think everyone would like a little explanation as to exactly what you think is POV in this article? Be careful, no nationalist outbursts, there's already too many of those around here! DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

name of country

I'm a bit confused about the name and continuity of the country. The first paragraph says "The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ... was the Yugoslav state that existed from the end of World War II (1945) until it was formally dissolved in 1992" and then the second paragraph says "the country was proclaimed in 1943 and named Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. In 1946, it became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia[1] and in 1963 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." Then the history section says "on November 29, 1945 the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia was established" (not Federal, not 1946).

The article on the Constitution of the SFRY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia) says the Constitution of the SFRY became 'defunct' in 1990. Did the SFRY have no constitution from 1990 to 1992? If so, was it a country?

To summarize, I am confused by some inconsistencies in dates - 1943/1945/1946 and 1990/1991/1992 (from the article on the Constitution) and Federal/Federative,

I came to this article from an article about Mila Mulroney, which directs to FPR Yugoslavia. Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The myth that Croatian Serbs had no constitutional rights explodes!!!!

I eliminated the blurb under Tudjman's picture which stated that the Serbs had no rights in Croatia and Tudjman "refused" to negotiate otherwise. You can do one of a few things: Call me a "ultra-nationalist" of that i'm not - I especially deplore the crimes of the Ustase - both my grandfathers fought for the partizan's. Option No.2 you can delete the facts that I have presented.

MYTH: "SERBS HAD NO GUARANTEED RIGHTS IN CROATIA"

Myth: The government of the Republic of Croatia denied basic civil, cultural and linguistic rights to the Serbian minority in Croatia, forcing them into revolt in 1991.

Reality: On the very day it declared independence, Croatia granted extraordinary rights and privileges to Serbs and other minorities in Croatia.

By 1996, it was evident throughout the world that Serbia was the aggressor in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Hercegovina during the break-up of Yugoslavia. The transparent endeavor of the war was the preservation of a Greater Serbian state retaining the name Yugoslavia against the expressed will of the majority of the people. Serbia's intentions were less clear to many during the early days of aggression in the Fall of 1991 and Spring of 1992.

A full-scale Serbian propaganda campaign repeated time and again that a "civil war" was being fought to "protect the Serbian minority in Croatia" despite the fact that the Serbs had lived peacefully with the Croatians for a half-century. To reinforce its case, Serbia let it be known that the new Croatian government had made no provision for the rights of Serbs in Croatia. Some in the Western media accepted the mythology as fact, and in some cases continued to repeat it well into 1996. "The Croatians wrote a new constitution, giving no special rights to Croatia's Serbs..." wrote a major daily in late 1995.

Croatian Declaration of Independence, June 25, 1991

In reality, with the very first document to emerge from the new Croatian Republic, its Declaration of Independence on June 25, 1991, the Croatian government guaranteed not only civil rights, but unique rights, to the Serbian minority. The first two articles of the Declaration established the rights of Croatia to declare independence and to defend its territorial integrity. Article III of the Declaration stated:

The Republic of Croatia is a democratic, legal and social state in which prevails the supreme values of constitutional order: freedom, equality, ethnic equality, peace, social justice, respect for human rights, pluralism and the inviolability of personal property, environmental protection, the rule of law, and a multi-party system.

The Republic of Croatia guarantees Serbs in Croatia and all national minorities who live in this territory the respect of all human and civil rights, especially the freedom to nurture their national language and culture as well as political organizations.

The Republic of Croatia protects the rights and interests of its citizens without regard to their religious, ethnic or racial belonging. In accordance with customary and positive international law, the Republic of Croatia guarantees other states and international bodies that it will completely and consciously uphold all its rights and duties as a legal successor to the previous Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the extent that they relate to the Republic of Croatia.''''

In order to avoid bloodshed and insure a peaceful transition, the Croatian declaration included:

The Republic of Croatia calls upon the other republics of the former SFRY to create an alliance of sovereign states on the presumptions of mutual recognition of state sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual respect, recognition of political pluralism and democracy, pluralism of ownership and market economy, and the actual respect of human rights, rights for ethnic minorities and other civilized values of the free world.

To add an extra littel addition we still have to refere to an ignorance of people who strived to democracy that there is internaitonal law and many nations have lived resignation about events that went on. The basic problem is that every Republic had a right to go out of Jugoslavia but there had not been any regulation how to do this. So all entites used violence as a"way out" where findamentalists with confessional institutions have become the only organised power in entire Yugoslavia. And AVNOJ is the only document that defines them as states. Without AVNOJ Serbia would be cut by Eastern neighbour, Croatia without Dalmatia and Island Macedonia would go to Greece etc. To end up this nightmare allied forces on document confirmed on Crimean Conferrence organised activities that conflict has been ended ended with as less casualties as possible. It could have ended up immensly worse. So Dayton means for all of us that we live. Respectfully we have to is to understand that confessional fundamental options do not like it. But this is democracy. So and Serbs adn Croats had rights. What they did not have was knowledge how to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.178.120 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/nno17565/myth/mser01.htm

Kosovo: Map

The map of Kosovo in the Administrative divisions section of the article should clearly reflect the Republic of Kosovo, as it reflects Croatia, or Bosnia. That is, the border line should be continuous... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DataOpen (talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tuđman

Text under his picture was ultranationalist Serbian POV... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.36.200 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

POV under Tudjman blurb

Again having accepted the truth in regards to the myth that Serbs had no constitutional rights an additional myth that Tudjman "controversially allowed the expulsion of Croatian Serbs during Operation Storm" has to be corrected or eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective Truth (talk • contribs) 05:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The section on the dissolution is disproportionately large. On the other hand it is better referenced that the Breakup of Yugoslavia so maybe stuff could be moved there.Dejvid (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Culture

The Culture subsection is one of the worst that I have ever seen. Where are all those writers, painters, poets, musicians, intellectuals?? Instead, I see Lepa Brena (?!) and moreover, she is described as a folk rock artist. No personal offense to anyone but this is absolutely terrible.--Dzole (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixup

Very nice work R-41, finally someone's actually improving the quality of articles around here... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

R-41

R-41, could you replace the "[]" with "<ref></ref>"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Constituent nations in Croatia

To avoid any edit wars, here's the explanation and references:
Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. In Constitution from 1974, Croatia is "national state" solely to Croats; for others, it's just a "state". Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
Thanks for reading, Kubura (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am no lawyer and still less a Croatian one but the normal interpretation is that the Serbs were a constituent people. I might add that your translation seems to me a little odd in places. For instance there is no "other" in država narodnosti koje u njoj žive. The distinction between naroda and narodnosti is very significant with narodnosti often being translated as "national minorities".Dejvid (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian

Macedonian is only written in the Cyrillic script, it is merely transliterated into the Latin alphabet using a system based on Gajica. It is not like Serbian, which has two scripts put pretty much on equal footing. Representing the name in the Latin alhabet as Macedonian is simply incorrect. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And Croatian and Slovenian use only Latin. We're confusing alphabets and languages here. One can write words in the Macedonian language and use Latin script, just like one can use Cyrillic to write up a phrase from Slovenian or English, it does not matter. What you're saying is that if we do not use the Cyrillic alphabet, its not Macedonian. The letters are the same, only the alphabet differs. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, but languages have alphabets for a reason. That's why we don't write Slovenian in Cyrillic. The name of the country is the same in Croatian and Macedonian, but a different alphabet is used, and that should be reflected. Also, it makes it look like Macedonian was/is part of Serbo-Croatian, which it isn't/wasn't. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Languages don't "have" alphabets, there are languages, and there are alphabets. You can write in Croatian, but use Cyrillic. However, you're right, we should probably denote the fact that Cyrillic is used in Serbian and Macedonian. We could use something like this:

"(Serbo-Croatian, Croatian, Serbian, Macedonian: Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija, Cyrillic script, used by Serbian and Macedonian: Социјалистичка Федеративна Република Југославија; Slovene: Socialistična Federativna Republika Jugoslavija)"

But that would be too much text, I believe.

Serbo-Croatian is/was a seperate language. It does not/did not "consist" of the Serbian and Croatian languages. Serbian and Croatian are/were obviously not "part" of Serbo-Croatian, that is/was simply its name. I do not understand how you could have interpreted that Macedonian was part of Serbo-Croatian... ??? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How about "(Serbo-Croatian, Croatian, Serbian: Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija; Serbian Cyrillic, Macedonian: Социјалистичка Федеративна Република Југославија; Slovene: Socialistična Federativna Republika Jugoslavija)"? About Serbo-Croatian — too many people have too many different views, so just ignore what I said :) BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 12:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added the notes clarifying the usage in detail, acceptable? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 12:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Federative" or "Federal"?

If you want to move the article to Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia propose a move and do it properly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the common English name is "...Federal....", which I guess trumps direct translation. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to move the article

The proper name is Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, because the official names were (Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian) Социјалистичка федеративна република Југославија, Socijalistička federativna republika Jugoslavija and (Slovenian) Socialistična federativna republika Jugoslavija.
The names were not "Социјалистичка савезна република Југославија", "Socijalistička savezna republika Jugoslavija" or "Socialistična savezna republika Jugoslavija".

Also, look at the name of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. It was officially (Russian) Российская советская федеративная социалистическая республика, Rossiyskaja sovetskaya federativnaya sotsialisticheskaya respublika.
It was neither "Российская советская союзная социалистическая республика", "Rossiyskaja sovetskaya soyuznoye sotsialisticheskaya respublika", nor the "Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic".

On the other hand, look at the page of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There is federal all right, because the official name (Serbian and Montenegrin) was Савезна република Југославија, Savezna republika Jugoslavija. By the way, look at the Serbo-Croatian page of the Federal Republic of Germany, too.

So, when federativna then federative, when savezna then federal. Move the article, please.

--WPK (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NonAlignedMovement.jpg

The image Image:NonAlignedMovement.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Vucko.jpg
• Image:TheBattleofNeretva.gif

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Breakup

The breakup section is too big. It should be drastically reduced in size and all the information it contains should be moved to the main Breakup of Yugoslavia article (excluding, of course, that information which is already there). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --JUSTICE 07:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is: how to write an NPOV short version of the breakup mess? :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that!

It looks like I blanked this article at one point. It appears as though I managed to mix up my sandbox with this article. Sorry about that! (And thanks to McSly for fixing that...!) Yaminator ^talk 00:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

• It is pure nonsense to clog the infobox with cca. ten different names that were used for the state. It suffices to use the name in the "state language" of SFR Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian (the name covers cca. 90%(!) of the population), particularly since the only difference between the Serbo-Croatian name and the Slovene name is one letter, and particularly since that detail is clearly mentioned in the notes accompanying the name.
• I don't like the way my notes on the language usage were removed on the basis of Zocky's personal opinion that they were "too long". If you think they're too long for the infobox, move them to the text, or at the very least discuss the matter first. Your general attitude is haughty, bossy, and one gets the feeling that you believe yourself the owner of this article, the only one that knows "what's best" for it. All I'm saying is: seek agreement and consensus before reverting other people's hard work. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to get fed up with this silliness.

1. Yugoslavia had three official names and they all need to be listed in the infobox.
2. The notes about how exactly the names differ from each other are beyond silly. Readers can work out for themselves that "Socialistična" has one "j" less than "Socijalistička" and that "k" is replaced by "n".
3. There was no national motto. If you think there was, find the article of the law/constitution that says that there was.

Zocky | picture popups 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Can I get a source on that, or is that just your opinion? Something like a "law/constitution" will do nicely.
2. You personally find them "beyond silly", eh? That's nice. Are there any other "arguments", or is that about it? If you feel they don't belong in the infobox, feel free to move them elsewhere (like in a Name section).
3. Fine.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The user DIREKTOR states false arguments! One of the official names was Socialistična federativna republika Jugoslavija (in Slovenian language) and an official name must be written in the infobox. The difference is in more than 1 one letter! A similar example is Switzerland, which name is written in all of the official languages.

Ginekolog (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, get me a source on the "three official names". Though I am still baffled as to which three languages these are? There were:

1. Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian name (which are, of course, identical)
2. Slovene name (waiting to be sourced as official, though I suppose it probably was)

Do not confuse alphabets with languages. What was the "third official name"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused. I didn't state about three official names, but i did state that one of the official names was: Socialistična federativna republika Jugoslavija. It's written in my old Yugoslav passport. But i don't posses a scanner to scan my old passport. It's also written in the Excerpt of birth register.

It begins with: SOCIALISTIČNA FEDERATIVNA REPUBLIKA JUGOSLAVIJA
SOCIALISTIČNA REPUBLIKA SLOVENIJA

There is no word like "SOCIJALISTIČKA".

Ginekolog (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly do seem very confused. I'm so confused I don't see why a single letter difference (and a capitalization) can't be simply made clear by a footnote. The names at the top of the infobox are messy as it is... (I have very good eyesight, and can see ordinary letters as opposed to CAPITAL ones. Thanks all the same, though.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a single letter difference! Socialistična" and "Socijalistička" are spelled differently. An official name can't be ignored or just footnoted.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland
Switzerland's official name is written in all of it's official languages, although it's name is similar in some languages, just like the official name of former SFRJ.

Ginekolog (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well ok, but I'd still like at least some kind of a source, though. Can you provide it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sources: http://www.rtvslo.si/blog/mynick/ustava-socialisticne-federativne-republike-jugoslavije-1974-temeljna-nacela/2872
http://sl.wikisource.org/wiki/Ustava_Socialisti%C4%8Dne_federativne_republike_Jugoslavije_(1974)/Socialisti%C4%8Dna_federativna_republika_Jugoslavija
http://sl.wikisource.org/wiki/Ustava_Socialisti%C4%8Dne_federativne_republike_Jugoslavije_(1974)
http://editthis.info/Slovenija/Socialisti%C4%8Dna_federativna_republika_Jugoslavija
http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisti%C4%8Dna_federativna_republika_Jugoslavija

I will also scan my old Yugoslav passport and my Excerpt of birth register and upload it, so you can clearly see the official name in Slovene language.

Ginekolog (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's all right. Thanks very much. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

General overhaul

To whom it may concern, I've begun a general overhaul of this poor-quality article. I've merged all the information from the over-large the Breakup section into the Breakup of Yugoslavia article, and I've included a greatly shortened (fully sourced) summary of those events. I've also removed the cumbersome notes from the infobox and created a new section on Yugoslav languages and etymology which covers that properly. I intend to source every syllable (as I have done so far) and see if I can't make this mess into a good article :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Preceded by" section

I have removed "Kingdom of Italy" from the preceded by section. In my oppinion stating this kingdom as predecessor is just the same as stating Ottoman Turkey in the same section. The only predecessor should be Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed to Yugoslavia), and before that Kingdom of Serbia.

I added Italy as a predecessor state because SFR Yugoslavia incorporated parts of Italy. Its standard stuff really... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, should we then be adding Habsburg Monarchy and the mentioned Ottoman Empire to the list of predecessors as well?

Why in the world would we do that? SFR Yugoslavia was formed in 1945 out of the territory of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Italy, it had nothing to do with Austria-Hungary (dissolved 1918), and particularly nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire which was forced out of the area after the First Balkan War (1913) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is Nazi-Germany a predecessor? Please explain.

Amendment: OK, saw the Nazi-Germany card. "Part of Nazi-Germany" would be more appropriate. Anyway, why is "Independent State of Croatia" not included? Goran777 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Small portions of southern German (soon-to-be southern Austrian) territory were included in Yugoslavia (FS Slovenia). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see some inconsistencies in the infobox. I mean, if the successor states are unacknowledged states like SAO Krajina, the predecessor should be ISC. Furthermore, i dont see the point to include some predecessor territories twice (Istria and Slovenia allready covered by K.o.Jugoslavia). Goran777 (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right... serious inconsistencies. However, the matter is not quite that simple: you see all of the entities created out of Yugoslavia were initially unrecognized (including Croatia and Slovenia), so I think the successors (which I did not edit) are indiscriminate as to the diplomatic recognition. I personally would not mind the removal of Herzeg-Bosnia, Republic of Srpska, or the three SAOs. (No NDH legitimization, please. :)

Concerning the second part of your post, I do not understand you? Istria was most certainly not a part of KY, Slovenia was naturally included but after WWII incorporated more territory previously belonging to Nazi Germany... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, i simply cant see on which basis the predecessors are determined. If it's on the basis of 1943, so that Nazi-Germany is a predecessor, then NDH would a the proper predecessor too, given the consideration of unacknowledged states. If it's on the basis of 1939 then Nazi-Germany should be removed and K.o.Yugoslavia is ok. I hope this makes my thoughts a littler clearer. Goran777 (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(1939? you mean 1941?) Yes I see your point, believe me. Its a very complicated matter... I'm not married to any version, as long as there's a de jure basis. (though you can probably forget about the NDH right now :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1939 is related to the Nazi Germany Card. I will refrain from editing the infobox, but the current solution is second-best. Goran777 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Well now I've officially heard everything. I've been called a "Nazi", a "Serb" (fake insult), a "communist", an "ex-UDBA man", an "Ustaše", and now a "fascist" too... What am I going to do with this guy and his persistent removal of info from the infobox? The newb won't even make an effort to understand why he's being reverted... I talked to him on his talkpage. Did my best to explain... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

hahah... let it DIREKTOR ... some users just don't understand it... if he continues doing this he will just get blocked... Greetings :))) 1111tomica (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too long?

I've been working on the History section, and I'm wondering if its too long now? The resolution on my computer is high, so I might have gotten the false impression of brevity :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Misconceptions

Here's your problem Jean, I'll put it mathematical terms: "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" ≠ "its monarchy". There was no state with the name "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" in 1944, there was only the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia". This state did, as you understand, have a King as a formal head of state, and he was only deposed in 1945 - but this does not mean you can invent your own name for the 1943-1945 state based on the fact that the King was not yet deposed. In addition to all this, the state of "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", despite the fact that the King was not (yet) formally deposed, was not a "monarchy". It was neither a "monarchy" nor a "republic". Its complicated, and rather unique. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong and misrupresenting: [7], [8]. - Theirrulez (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

oh ffs... Read up on Yugoslav history. There was no such state named the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" after the AVNOJ declarations were recognized by the Allies in November 1943. Churchill and the Americans themselves made sure of that. By early 1944 this was recognized by the King and the government-in-exile by the Treaty of Vis. The "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" was the name of the state. The name was carefully chosen deliberately so that it would not prejudice the organization of the state ("Republic" or "Kingdom"), which was to be determined after the war. (Only the second link is relevant, and its a simplistic footnote.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology section

Muslims did not exist as a nation or nationality during the existance of Yugoslavia. 85.178.130.135 (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

LoL. Um... yes. Yes, they did. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Misconceptions Part II

In all seriousness, all of these sources, [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], and the sources in Misconceptions Part Ein, say that the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was established in 1945. Per WP:NOCITE, I am requesting sources for the currently unsourced material. If no sources are produced, then the claims should be removed and replaced with sourced material within a reasonable time. However, I'm sure that will bring the wrath of Tito unto myself. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Beware the Wrath of Tito! :), and please, move on to subjects you are more familiar with [15]. Apart from the myriad sources I shall certainly not waste my time writing up here, you may also see the founding date on the Yugoslav coat of arms [16], and, if you like, have a glance at the King's speech of 12th September 1944, where he calls his country "Our great free Federal Yugoslavia" [17]. This is just off the top of my head... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Direktor is entirely wrong and largely misreads the "myriad sources" he claims are on his side. There was no such thing as a Yugoslav republic in 1943 : AVNOJ said that it would proclaim such a state in 1943, and the King accepted the idea under allied pressure, but he and the british still hoped that the monarchy would remain in existence. Actually, Tito himself reluctantly accepted the existence of a regency council on yugoslav soil in 1945, which means that, at least on paper, Yugoslavia was still a monarchy until the Republic was officially proclaimed at the end on 1945. Granted, that was a fiction (the regency council was totally inactive, and the king was not even allowed to set foot in Yugoslavia in the months that preceded the monarchy's abolition), but the current infobox does not do justice to the actual situation. The introduction should at the very least be rewritten. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The sentence above "there was no such thing as a Yugoslav republic in 1943", says so much regarding your understanding of these issues. I had already made peace with the fact that JJG does not understand the first thing about Yugoslav history or politics, and that he is incapable of realizing that the Democratic federal Yugoslavia was NOT a "republic", and that while the monarchy was indeed abolished in 1945, the state named "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" was already reorganized under Allied (British) pressure into the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia by late 1943. So in 1943 the Yugoslav monarchy stays, no republic as established, and the country was reorganized and renamed into the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. Complicated?

The immense lack of information displayed is illustrated in particular by the claim (or the support for the claim) that the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was established in November 1945 with the removal of the monarchy - when it was in fact the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia that was abolished in November 1945 with the removal of the monarchy. In November 1945 (JJG's "end of 1945"), the Yugoslav parliament established the "Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia", and abolished the monarchy and the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" that existed thereto. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hence, the Republic was not established before late 1945. Tito had not even formed a government before february 1945. I did not invite debate with Direktor, as his opinion is of no importance to me. I consider that Direktor does not understand the first thing about Yugoslav history or politics, or about history in general, nor is he IMHO capable of writing a neutral article, or even a neutral parapraph, or even a neutral sentence. I am not even convinced that he has actually read a whole book about the history of his own country, other than glimpsing through google books. Quite frankly, I wouldn't even trust him on telling me about the weather in Zagreb. His one and only talent, IMHO is his immense agressivity and arrogance, which turns every single one of his contributions into an annoyingly extreme case of WP:OWN. Given his tendency to distort historical truth and misinterpret or misread the sources, I think it is better to be indifferent to his opinions, and even to his very existence. I have no interest in pursuing any - necessarily confrontational - exchange with this individual. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the republic was instituted in 1945, the kingdom was reorganized in 1943 as teh democratic federal Yugoslavia. You seem to have trouble accepting the facts, JJG. Here are the real "misconceptions" here:

• That if a state is not a republic, it has to be a monarchy. The DFJ was a transitional state that was intentionally organized to be neither.
• That a state has to be called a "kingdom" if it has a king.
• That "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" should somehow be the "default" state name simply because the state had a king - even though the King and his government both recognized themselves as officials of the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia".

None of teh above is true of course. Nothing but false dichotomies born out of a complete lack of understanding of WWII Yugoslav history. Far from WP:OWN, I'd say this article is fortunate to have a person with some kind of basic knowledge of the subject matter watching it. It seems it would be demolished with the inclusion of malicious absurdities. Far from being any "debatable" issue, the facts I mention are so incredibly basic to this subject its laughable to even consider an opposing argument. User:JJG, for example, seems to deny the very existence of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, the Tito-Šubašić Agreement, or the Belgrade Agreement. Milestones all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What I deny is Direktor's interpretations, not to mention his "trouble accepting the facts" (or at least aknowledging reality when it does not fit his personal conceptions). There was no consensually-recognized Yugoslav state between 1941 and 1945. The Allies (at least the western Allies) supported the Kingdom and its government-in-exile, while Tito had his own agenda. His conception of Yugoslavia was not suppported by the Allies, as Churchill insisted until the end that he recognize the king. Tito himself actually recognized the monarchy in February 1945 by accepting the presence of the regency council. Now, let us be done with this. There was no unitarian state of Democratic federal Yugoslavia from 1943 to 1992 : what did exist was the Tito government in february 1945 (which was a monarchy on paper), then the Republic in november of the same year. I consider this argument closed. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. Plain and simple. There is nothing to "interpret" here, JJG, and that weasel-word is getting really old. You are simply using it to cover for the fact that sources universally contradict virtually every single thing you have stated here on thsi project. So you fall to empty phrases such as 'I "interpret" this my way'.

The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia WAS "consensually-recognized" by ALL parties involved (except of course the Axis). That is to say, EVERYONE recognized that the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" was reformed and reorganized into the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia". The AVNOJ proclaimed it in November 1943, the Allies simultaneously recognized the AVNOJ in November 1943 (agreeing to insist that the two governments merge), and Churchill pressured the King and the government-in-exile to recognize the AVNOJ and accept the reorganization. Everyone.

The King therefore successively 1) recognized the AVNOJ (along with the rest of the Allies) as a legitimate governing body alongside the London government, 2) kicked out the pro-Chetnik prime minister, 3) appointed Ivan Šubašić, and 4) came to a formal agreement with Tito at the Tito-Šubašić Agreement on the island of Vis. Among other things, they agreed that when the TWO RECOGNIZED governments, which now had dual representation, were merged, that Tito would be the Prime Minister of the coalition government. This is what happened when Belgrade was liberated later in 1944.

By late 1944 Tito was the only Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, universally recognized. And Yugoslavia was, since 1943, known as the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia". The King was, of course, not deposed. In Novermber 1943, the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was abolished, or reorganized, as a republic - into the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia.

Notice one thing: this is a list of the bare FACTS. A succession of events completely shorn of any "interpretation", i.e. it is NOT possible to "interpret" the above in any way. This is what happened. You are, of course, going to "disagree", and you may feel free to do so. Frankly at this point I cease to give a damn. There are people who "disagree" that the Earth is round, nothing anyone can do about that.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Excerpts from the official address of King Peter II of Yugoslavia to his people, broadcast by radio from London on September 12 1944 [18]

• "I call on all Serbs, Croats and Slovenes to unite and join the National Liberation Army under Marshal Tito. With my full knowledge and approval, the royal government of Dr. Ivan Šubašić has concluded important and useful agreements with this our national army, which is unanimously recognized, supported and assisted by our great allies, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States of America."

N.b: the King now refers to Mihailović and the Chetniks, which were the single solitary faction claiming to represent the crown.

• "With this my message to you, I firmly denounce the misuse [or "misrepresentation" translated "zloupotreba"] of the name and the authority of the crown, which was used to justify collaboration with the enemy and cause a conflict among a fighting people in the most difficult moments of its history, being of use only to the enemy. (...) All those who rely on the enemy against the interests of their own people and its future, and who do not heed this call, will not succeed to rid themselves of the brand of traitors, neither before the people nor before history."

The King closes with

• "Long live our great free Federal Yugoslavia!"

In spite of the fact that User:Jean-Jacques Georges seems to feel he is far too "above" others to speak to them directly, I shall ask him (with due reverence and in the third person) to explain how he would endeavour to "interpret" the above? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

See above. The king accepted the idea of a "Federal" Yugoslavia, but intended it to remain the monarchy. It was not even formally organized. The Republic had not been proclaimed, and did not exist yet. And no, by end 1944, Tito was not "prime minister of Yugoslavia" : he had not yet formed a proper government (which of course does not mean that he was not de facto in charge of the Partisan-controlled zones). The user above claims to base himself on "facts", yet he seems to be unable to merely understand them. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with JJG on this one. Direktor, even in the King's quotes you gave yourself, it doesn't say anything about the King recognizing Tito as the leader of Yugoslavia.

What the King certainly did do though was: 1.Give his full support for Tito's Partisans as a Resistance movement representing Yugoslavia. 2.Condemn the Chetniks.

But that doesn't mean he also agreed for Tito to be leader of Yugoslavia. He just expressed his support for the Resistance he led and said that it was Yugoslavia's legitimate army. But that doesn't automatically translate into support for Tito as a PM/President/whatever.

Justice and Reason (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Brioni summit.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Brioni summit.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Titova sahrana.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Titova sahrana.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Titova sahrana.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Some things that I missed

Here are some very important points that were not mentioned in the article:

1."As Milošević consolidated power, the authorities in Slovenia were relaxing their hold. In the early eighties, the tiny northwestern republic embarked on a period of liberalism unprecedented in the Communist world. Alternative groups were tolerated and even flourished, functioning almost as political parties. They covered a wide spectrum, from ecology to gay rights. Slovenia was the most accustomed to pluralism of all the republics when multiparty elections were called...." - Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation; Laura Silber and Allan Little, page 48

2.The JBTZ Trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBTZ_trial

3.In regards to the miners' strike in Kosovo: "...The Yugoslav leadership argued violently over whether to declare a state-of-emergency in the province. There were accusations that the Slovenes and Croats were sending food and money to Kosovo to keep the strike going. Milošević wanted to deploy the JNA to end it. Kučan told him that he had no right to resort to military means, explaining that the strike was prompted by the changes to the Serbian constitution, which Milošević himself had strong-armed..."

"...If the Party would not back the amendments, Milošević told Kučan at a meeting of the party leadership, "Serbia would do what it wanted, using any means it deemed necessary, be it in accordance with the law or not." "Then this is the end of Yugoslavia," answered Kučan.

"That night, Milošević made a tactical maneuver to buy time. his three minions on the Kosovo Party leadership offered their resignations. The miners, 180 of whom were alredy in hospital, ill after a week underground, abandoned the strike. But it was too late. The situation had spiralled out of control."

"The next day, the Slovene capital, Ljubljana, turned out for a rally in the concerl hall, Cankarjev dom, organized by Bavčar's Committee for Human Rights. The entire Slovene political leadership took part, siding with the strikers against Belgrade. In Serbia, the public was shocked. Despite their current war of words, the Serbs and Slovenes generally had enjoyed good relations..."

"...On February 27, speaker after speaker in Ljubljana condemned the Serbs for repression in Kosovo. Belgrade had become the tormentor. "Yugoslavia is being defended in the Trepča mine. The situation in Kosovo shows that people are no longer living together but increasingly against one another. Politics cannot be pursued on the streets when lives are put at risk," said Kučan.

"The Trepča miners are defending the rights of citizens and Communists in Kosovo to elect their own leadership. Slovenes are not casual visitors in Yugoslavia. We helped create it and are responsible for its future. We protest against fanning the psychosis of the state-of-emergency. We are warning that a quiet coup is taking place before our eyes which is changing the face of Yugoslavia."

"Watching the Cankarjev Dom rally on Ljubljana Television, Dušan Mitević, Belgrade TV chief, made what he called an "unintentionally" dangerous decision. He decided to broadcast the rally. Within a few hours, complete with Serbo-Croatian subtitles translated from the Slovene, the rally sent electric jolts through Serbia, a nation inured to its own nationalist rhetoric. The Serbs appeared not to see that, when the Slovenes protested against the Serbs in Cankarjev Dom, it was after a full year of Serbian nationalist rallies echoing through Yugoslavia. The reaction was instantaneous..."

Hundreds of thousands of Serbs gathered in front of the federal parliament, extremely angry, shouting "Slobo, Slobo", etc. And then eventually Milošević had one of his famous speeches, saying "I can't hear you, but we will arrest those responsible, including those who have used the workers. In the name of the socialist people of Serbia I promise this." With this, he meant Vllasi.

- - Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation; Laura Silber and Allan Little, pages 65-68

Justice and Reason (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

To what extend could humans from the different Yugoslavia peoples understand each other and to what extend did it contritute to the falling apart of Yugoslavia and the civil war atrocities?

It reads: "Three main languages all belong to the South Slavic language group and are thus similar, allowing most people from different areas to understand each other. " I miss a reference to support this thesis. Can we make a link to a page showing 3 colums with some common words and phrases in the 3 languages indicating how similar or different the languages were? I mean, I belong to the Flemish people living in Belgium, next to the French and the German speaking community. Flanders was a province that got separated from "the Netherlands" after a freedom war against the Spanish Holy Empire. Flemish people also watch the TV stations from the Netherlands. It is just an accent difference. We all speak "Dutch". The German people living along the Rhine - that ends in the Netherlands - all speak Nieder-Dietsch. Which we also understand. Of course with German official language now being Hoch Deutsch and TV for a couple of generations, Nieder-Dietsch is dissapearing and there is a separation with Germany. Though this is recuperated because of the efforts since a generation or 2 to learn English at all schools all over Europe. So how close are these 3 Yugoslavian languages? To what extand could people understand each other and to what extend has to contributed to the falling apart and the civil war atrocities? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Linguistically, Serbo-Croatian is only one pluricentric language with four variants which do not hinder mutual intelligibility. I speak Australian English, and there are more differences between my English and that of someone speaking US English or between home Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese than between the variants of Serbo-Croat. But don't expect locals to agree... Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Start date

Shouldn't the starting date of the Democratic/Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia not be 29 november 1945 when the monarchy was officially overthrown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.112 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Socialist Federal Republic 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 →

==November 2012== Assessment as a part of 2012 WP:CRO drive, performed on 13 November 2012: 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. Even though {{cite web}} and similar appropriate referencing templates are not required I'd recommend applying the templates if GA or better quality is aimed at. At present the article employs a mix of the citation templates and bare-url references - which is not an obstacle for B-class in itself. B2 (comprehensiveness and accuracy) - criterion not met: Several aspects of the topic are not comprehensively covered and require expansion (those include: a summary ethnic breakup table is missing in the "demographics" section; "education" section has virtually zero content except for a bulleted list of universities, and some information on mandatory education, various education reforms and literacy through the years would be interesting to have, as well as any information on foreign-language use, if available; the "arts" section gives undue weight to the film and there's nothing there on anything except the film and literature - the most significant sculptors, painters etc, should be given a mention), while others could be trimmed down. The latter issue is not a problem in terms of B-class, but should be looked at if GA or better class becomes a target. In addition, no information on health and healthcare, cuisine, and media is provided. B3 (article structure) - criterion met in sense that there are appropriate sections of the prose. Still, there are parts of the prose which are apparently misplaced or unnecessarily broken into different sections producing an overly-complex ToC. Even though this is not a problem in terms of the B-class assessment, the article would benefit if it were better organized. For instance, "legacy" section could easily become the final subsection of the "history" section, or even the "breakup" subsection of the same. The "miscellaneous" section should definitely be removed per WP:TRIVIA (its contents may be moved elsewhere in this article or beyond), while "military" is normally included in the "politics" as a subsection in GA and FA class articles dealing with countries. The "education" is likewise normally placed as a subsection within the "demographics" section, where a "health" subsection may be added. Finally the GA/FA articles normally group Arts and literature, media, cuisine, and sports as subsections of a "culture" section. Once again - this criterion is met as far as B-class is concerned, but I thought to write all this down as a suggestion for improvements of the article beyond the B-class. B4 (reasonably well-written prose) - criterion met. Not good enough for GA or better though. B5 (supporting materials) - criterion largely met - except for occasional sandwiching of text between images which should be avoided. B6 (appropriately understandable presentation) - criterion barely met - Articles on history should have a "background" section explaining well, the background of the topic. This particular article indeed contains such information, but it is crammed into lengthy "history" section, as the initial part of the "World War II" subsection, rendering presentation of the background weak to casual readers who may not be prepared to read through the lengthy "history" of the topic. It would be the best to split off the first five paragraphs or so of the said subsection into such new section or at least a subsection within the existing one. 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) 12:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)