Jump to content

Talk:Yugoslavia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Edit request from Fablemaniac, 7 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Kosovo is not a country yet. Please fix it.

fablemaniac-The Greatest Of All Heroes (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The article never says it is, as far as I can see. Algebraist 10:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Animation of the breakup of Yugoslavia

I don't know how the 2008 unilaterally-proclaimed, (quasi-)independent "country" of Kosovo is included in the breakup of Yugoslavia - the animation should show what has happened to the region up until the name Yugoslavia existed thus Kosovo shouldn't be included (since it unilaterally proclaimed independence whilst under the name of Serbia). Can someone please remove that part of the animation or just post another one ASAP. Even if we don't take this into consideration, since Kosovo is not recognised as a state by the greater half of the world I don't see how there isn't a note stating that it is a break-away/separatist state.

Wake up man and accept reality. Whatever you put on this science fiction article won't change anything. How come we got a Taiwan wikipwedia article?--66.131.205.127 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Chetniks vs. Partisans

This article states that the Chetniks were a 'collaborationist Axis-supplied' force. This is the point of view of Tito's late regime and is almost entirely false. Yugoslavia had a three cornered-war between nationalists, communists and invaders, much as China did. This section should be re-written to show what actually happened, not just reprint communist libels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.153.50 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.10.139.129, 23 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please update final sentence of Legacy: New States to reflect yesterday's news about the International Court of Justice ruling against Serbia's claims that Kosovo's declaration of independence was illegal. Kosovo independence not illegal, says UN court (BBC News)

173.10.139.129 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

KOSOVO INDEPENDENCE IS ILLEGAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JatakNaPodatak (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

BANOVINAS

Just below the "Contents" there is an image of Yugoslavia. The description contains the linked word BANOVINAS, but this link directs one to the Yugoslavian Kingdom. I've read, somewhere, that the areas were named after rivers or waterways which is what a Banovina is: the "s" making it plural. I'm a rookie, so those who are interested in such trivia can take note. (Paleocon44 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

CIA involvment

several references from mainstream media can be found here [1] 188.2.169.209 (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are we calling Tiawan the Republic of China?

in the legacy, new states section (meaning yugoslavia today) wikipedia is supposed to be current lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.249.98 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2012

Hello. The section entitled "===Ethnic tensions and economic crisis===" has overlooked something fundamental. In the midst of its economic crisis caused by the IMF, the U.S. Congress, under the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, passed a law prohibiting further economic aid unless the SFRY split up into separate states, or showed evidence of steps toward doing so. I have placed a copy of the complete Statute book for that occasion at scribd (http://www.scribd.com/doc/77535908/STATUTE-104-3-2-Law-Passed-by-USA-to-Force-the-Break-up-of-Yugoslavia), however, the segment on Yugoslavia is relatively short, and reads as follows:

"YUGOSLAVIA

SEC. 599A. Six months after the date of enactment of this Act, (1) none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to provide any direct assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and (2) the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director of each international financial institution to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose any assistance of the respective institutions to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Provided, That this section shall not apply to assistance intended to support democratic parties or movements, emergency or humanitarian assistance, or the furtherance of human rights: Provided further. That this section shall not apply if all six of the individual Republics of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have held free and fair multiparty elections and are not engaged in a pattern of systematic gross violations of human rights: Provided further. That notwithstanding the failure of the individual Republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to have held free and fair multiparty elections within six months of the enactment of this Act, this section shall not apply if the Secretary of State certifies that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is making significant strides toward compl5dng with the obligations of the Helsinki Accords and is encouraging any Republic which has not held free and fair multiparty elections to do so."

Further insight into the relationship between the economic sanctions and ethnic tensions is discussed by author William Engdahl, who draws attention to these economic sanctions in his book: "Yugoslavia Gets Shock Therapy", excerpted from the book A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (2004), where he also says:

"Speaking in Washington in 1998, ten years later, and one year before NATO began bombing Belgrade, NED director Paul McCarthy boasted, 'NED was one of the few Western organizations, along with the Soros Foundation and some European foundations, to make grants in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and to work with local NGO's and independent media throughout the country.' During the cold war, such internal intervention in a foreign country would have been labeled a CIA destabilization. In Washington newspeak, it was called, 'the fostering of democracy.' The result, for the living standard of Serbs, Kosovans, Bosnians, Croats and others, was disastrous.

What ensued in Yugoslavia after 1990 was understood by only a few insiders for what it was. Washington, using the NED, George Soros's Open Society Foundation and the IMF, introduced economic chaos into Yugoslavia as an instrument of geopolitical policy."

I do believe that no full understanding of what happened to Yugoslavia can start to be achieved without these elements: (a) the 1991 USA statute calling for the SFRY to break up; and (b) the clandestine underground destabilization of that country by Soros-funded groups and others.

A further element that needs to be looked into is the self-serving expansion of the EC-EU by willfully declaring the SFRY "dissolved" to absolve the leaders of its component states of liability for treason; as well as absolving themselves for illegal interference in the domestic unity of a sovereign state, which is illegal under U.N. instruments. The combined effect of the underground destabilization, the havoc wreaked by the IMF, the US statute calling for the break-up, and the EC-EU's EXPANSION as a consequence of its blatant destruction of the SFRY by declaring it "dissolved" in order to then self-servingly "recognize" its components after issuing an invitation to "accede" to the EU system, all point to a radical new form of imperial conquest.

As observed by Professor Dr. Raju G. C. Thomas, External Researcher with Strategic Studies Institute, United States Army War College, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University:

"Disintegration and war in the former Yugoslavia was caused mainly by the hasty and reckless Western policy of recognizing new states who wished to secede from an existing long-standing state."

He continued...

"In 1991, new state recognition policy proved to be an inventive new method of destroying long-standing sovereign independent states. When several rich and powerful states decide to take a sovereign independent state apart through the policy of recognition, how is this state supposed to defend itself? There can be no deterrence or defense against this form of destruction."

Thanks for your time.

70.52.24.166 (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests are for requesting that specific changes be made to an article only, not for general content discussion. If you have a specific change you would like to make, please reactivate this request. Mato (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"refers to"

Yugoslavia does not "refer to" such and such. It "was", rather, such and such. This is not a dictionary. I'd be interested in knowing what percent of articles in English Wikipedia start with this flawed phrase. It really should be focused on in the style manual. The phrase "refers to" suggests the article is to be about the word or term that is the title of the article. However, this is in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles not at all the case.

In Wiktionary, it would be a fairly good way to start an article, using this "refers to" expression. In Wikipedia, however, it is in most cases simply nonsense. The topic of articles here in Wikipedia are in almost all cases about a topic that the title "refers to" ... not about the article title words themselves. Which is to say, this article should not start out by focusing on the word "Yugoslavia" (which it does as it is now), but should instead focus simply on Yugoslavia. The article should not at all begin with talking about what Yuguslavia "refers to", but should instead start out by saying that Yugoslavia "was" a series of political entities and so on. I hope it won't be too many years until the administrators finally realize how silly it looks how so many articles start out with this "refers to" silliness. Please take this topic to your leaders, guys. :-) It's been a blemish on Wikipedia for years. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The "administrators" aren't the people who can fix this - everyone can, as can you. If you want to entice others to help, please post that to a generic page such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip, Joy. I have now posted the message in the page you suggested. Thanks, again. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I made an effort to rewrite the first paragraph, but it is not ideal. The main difficulty is that it is very hard to describe Yugoslavia as 'three countries' without using 'refers to'. So I just described it as one country with three forms of government, which seems OK to be because none of the countries was literally named "Yugoslavia", and because the rest of the lede outlines the successions between the governments. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To me the introduction looks alright now.
This link, which I like very much, points out that when that phrase "refers to" is used, it's appropriate to use italics formatting on the word that refers to whatever it is. Precisely because "refers to" means it's the word as such (not the topic) that refers. This is what "refer" means. It means to kind of point to something. The word points to a notion, but the word itself is not the notion. Like a picture of a pizza is not a pizza. So if in the introduction here we were to use "refers to", it should properly say "Yugoslavia refers to ..." And then I think it becomes more apparent that such a statement is better placed far into the article under some subsection on the origins of the name Yugoslavia. And, again, since this is not a dictionary or etymological entry but instead is an encyclopedic article about the former country, the intro must not focus on Yugoslavia but on Yugoslavia. Anyway, Carl, I heartily approve of your edit. I'm officially un-bugged by this article now. :-) --31.45.79.44 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Third Yugoslavia

There were three entities known as Yugoslavia. That can be checked very easily. Third one was Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And this article is called Yugoslavia. Therefor... --WhiteWriterspeaks 08:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"known as Yugoslavia"? What does that mean? I would contend that the "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was also known as Serbia and Montenegro, and that it is just one among five Yugoslav successor states. It no more warrants inclusion in this article than Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, etc. Its name is nothing more than an abortive bid by Slobodan Milosevich to have his rump state declared the sole successor to Yugoslavia (for the money, of course). -- Director (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You will have to gain consensus for removing stable version from this article, and for this controversial and highly disputed edit. You cannot revert again, as i will instantly go to administrators. Neither you, PRODUCER, can just accidentally revert without consensus here! No one can! Talk page is for discussion and agreement! Official name of that country was Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. You, DIREKTOR, already wanted to push your POV years ago, without any consensus, and you are doing it now, again without any consensus, agreement or reason. One comment: SFRY ≠ FRY. I got the impression that you are trying to remove third Yugoslavia from wikipedia, in every possible way, in order to show that FRY is minor dark error in the face of history, and to clearly show that FRY is not only successor of SFRY, despite the name. Well, that is not quite important for the scope of article "Yugoslavia". Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed. Was a fact for eleven years, since 1992 up to 2003. That is a fact. Country named Yugoslavia should and will be mentioned in this article, named very much the same, Yugoslavia. And further reverts, without clear agreement, will be instantly reported in every possible way i know, starting with AE. This is blatant violation of numerous wiki rules and guidelines. So, you will have to agree here first. You must not revert again, without agreement and consensus here first! --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I've restored the previous version that was unilaterally altered. You can either discuss the additions you propose (having followed my edits for the sixth or seventh time), or you can try to intimidate people with threats. -- Director (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which existed since 1992 - 2003 be included in the scope of Yugoslavia article? For more information's see threads above, or other international wikipedias. I insist that only unrelated users comment below. --WhiteWriterspeaks 08:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • My preliminary comment is that this is mainly a style issue plus obviously the issue with DIREKTOR's pattern of annoying edits - certainly it's silly to completely censor the notion of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from this article. Its role must not be overstated, given that it was not the sole successor to the notion of "former Yugoslavia", but it's wholly irrational to avoid giving it a section at all. This reminds me of censoring Kosovo War from the Yugoslav Wars, which also seems to be one of DIREKTOR's pet peeves. Amusingly, it's also a place where the two of you agreed about the matter. But the whole thing isn't really amusing because it's a waste of time to discuss things with people who spend more time yammering on Talk pages than on referencing their claims in main space articles. Y'all keep this up and one of these days a less appreciative admin will come along and topic-ban you all for being such horrible pains in the collective ass (which almost happened with Fainites a while back). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Joy, I think I'm starting to get annoyed with you pointing out the annoying nature of my edits. I apologize for you having been "forced" to actually have a requested move in order to move an extremely controversial article [2], but this isn't admin behavior. A real admin would just keep a dignified silence and have one of his buddies block the people he's annoyed with.. or something, get with the program ;). And this is the third Balkans dispute you're participating in within just a couple of weeks. Hopefully you won't be included in the mass-topic ban you're threatening people with.
    • Re this specific issue, do you actually have some sort of constructive suggestion? Or are you just here to talk down on people? (and/or to take revenge for my having "forced you" at Talk:Bleiburg massacre and elsewhere?) Obviously I would not mind having FRY covered here to some extent, but I am opposed (apparently just as you are) to how things were before, i.e. the organization of this article into the "First", "Second", and "Third Yugoslavias". There's the "New States" section. Perhaps we can have a section therein that will cover the FRY?
-- Director (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I get accused of being unconstructive by a person whose demonstrated stance on the matter is to completely drop several kilobytes of text and then revert-war over it. See, that's the kind of attitude that makes these discussions a waste of time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Even more nonconstructive quips. Do you have some sort of proposal to solve this?
This may come as a shock to you, Joy, but I'm really a nice guy, who doesn't hold any grudge or ill-will towards you. I think you're a neutral, hard-working Wikipedian. Your edits on Bleiburg massacre were top-notch, excellent improvements, and I dropped all my objections so you can get back to work. But I keep to one objection about the emotionalism of the term "tragedy" - and you take offense immediately. You post an RM with personal remarks, and then proceed to chastise me several times based on.. nothing. Your perception of my tone, I suppose. Joy, keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. You should probably imagine me speaking is a slow, lazy baritone :). My girlfriend tells me I sound like Anthony Hopkins, but I suspect that's a violation of WP:NPOV.. -- Director (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
We will wait for someone else neutral to call, but we will see about that, as for now, we will restore third yugoslavia, as that is outcome of RfC. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
WhiteWriter, could you please refrain from "proclaiming victory" after one person stated something partially in your favor? At least without cause. As you said, lets have a few people comment - that's what an RfC is for. And, for the record, you can't "insist" that some people don't comment. I expect you're to decide who's "involved" and who isn't? -- Director (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
You are not quite commenting. That is spam. You are convincing everyone else that only you are right. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, FR Yugoslavia should not be given undue weight by this article because it is one of five countries which became independent through dissolution of the SFR Yugoslavia. That means I think it would be inappropriate to present information about FR Yugoslavia as a form of continuation of SFR Yugoslavia (other then by name alone - and that ought to be stressed to avoid misleading casual readers), but I could see no objection to mentioning it as one of five successor states in an appropriate section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I would elaborate upon it in the New states section, perhaps in a special subsection. I believe its name warrants more detailed coverage than the other four states, but I would not like to see it listed as the "third Yugoslavia" on equal footing with the other two. -- Director (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Tomobe03, but we agree that FR Yugoslavia is not a continuation of SFR Yugoslavia, but it have the same name. That is the reason for this RfC. And therefore should be mentioned in article Yugoslavia, IOHO. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
What is the dispute then? Do mention it (if you ask me) in an appropriate place, but as one of five successor states, taking care not to mislead casual readers (not everyone is familiar with the subject) and do not give it undue weight. Shared name is significant (as well as any motive for retaining the name) but it is still one of five successor states and not a continuation of SFR Yugoslavia in any other form whatsoever.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Problem is that FRY is NOT mentioned in this article in any way, as user DIREKTOR removed it completely, while is was mentioned before. That is the problem. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay then why don't you replace Montenegro and Serbia with FR Yugoslavia in the successor states table and elaborate on its renaming and breakup then? The same bit should mention that the five original successors were equal legally (remember Montenegro and Serbia had a different arrangement). That would, IMO be fair representation of the issue and FR Yugoslavia would be there in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, but ho cares about that here? We are not talking about successors now, we are talking that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be mentioned in article Yugoslavia, as third country known by that name. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Succession of SFR Yugoslavia in effect is the last stage of history firmly associated with Yugoslavia as a country which has a political continuity until the 1990s. That also creates a nice framework where FR Yugoslavia could be introduced without giving it undue weight. Additional info (in the same area) on its retaining the name, along with stated and perceived reasons for such a move would be very welcome.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I've restored the table as well. It didn't occur to me in the first revert.
@WhiteWriter. EMPHASIZING a name doesn't make it more than a name. Emphasizing the FRY's name doesn't give the FRY a special status over other successor states of Yugoslavia. Its name is almost completely irrelevant here. Surely you must also see that the FRY can't really be listed here in equal status with the "real" Yugoslavia? -- Director (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. FRY was real Yugoslavia. Some other one (third) but it was quite real one, and existed for 11 years. So, it was real, nothing less real than kingdom or SFRJ. --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Only on RTS, WhiteWriter. The FRY warrants inclusion herein no more than Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, etc. Building a straw man around the term "real" isn't an argument. Obviously it was "real" and not imagined. -- Director (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." There were three different states named Yugoslavia (kingdom, socialist state and the republic).

Conclusion: this page should present informations abot all of three Yugoslavias or be replaced with disambiguation page with links to all three of them. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion: no it shouldn't :). All of the above is either irrelevant or just plain dead wrong. -- Director (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That is just IDONTLIKEIT. You didn't provided even a single real reason of source. Also, wrong by who? You? Also, you are not allowed to create such a massive subject canhges without even a smallest consensus, or community agreement. --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
No its not "IDONTLIKEIT" and please stop quoting these guidelines and policies, neither you nor Antidiskriminator appear to be very good at wikilawyering.
  • Antidiskriminator (and you apparently) did not seem to read WP:DISAMBIG. Your understanding of policy is incomplete, and therefore the claims and statements made on the basis of said understanding are just dead wrong. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
  • What the original two sentences on this page were, and its ancient history from 2001(!), are of course completely irrelevant.
So as I said: irrelevant and/or dead wrong. -- Director (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR: This is not the first time you violate WP:NPA and comment the contributor instead of contribution. Please don't do it anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
No I don't think I violated WP:NPA above. You really ought to read these policies. Not being good at wikilawyering is actually a good thing. -- Director (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be mentioned as a successor state of what was once known as "Yugoslavia" in this article, but that's it, and it should be clarified that it is not the 3rd "Yugoslavia" or a continuation of "Yugoslavia." Yugoslavia died after the second one, there is no third "Yugoslavia" until "the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia" unite again - Hello, I qualify as an unrelated editor since I am a US citizen, and dislike all Europeans. From what I see, Yugoslavia was a "union of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia, from which the name, essence and identity known as Yugoslavia came from in 1929. This was the first "Yugoslavia." "Yugoslavia" would have disintegrated but the Communists held "Yugoslavia" together with an Iron fist, (because that is what was required) - and this was the "Second Yugoslavia." After the Cold War was won and it was declared that the US is the greatest Nation the Earth has ever known, the Communist Fist loosened and the first state of the Second Yugoslavia declared Independence, the Name and everything associate with what was Yugoslavia died. While the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is mentioned in the Dayton Agreement, it is but a shadow, a corruption of what was known as "Yugoslavia", and is not at all the name, essence and identity of what Yugoslavia is or was - a "union of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia." Until the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia unite - there will be no "third Yugoslavia." For what it is worth, we had a similar problem in the United States - which was captured in this banner Join or Die........... i.e. (basis) Is the tail of a chopped up Snake a Snake? No. It is a chopped up snake and one piece is the tail.Patriot1010 (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
So Antidiskriminator... are you going to keep repeating the same argument over and over again? Or are you going to read the entirety of WP:DISAMBIG, not just the first sentence? -- Director (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, "US is the greatest Nation the Earth has ever known"... Sure... Yugoslavia's Bloody Collapse: Causes, Course and Consequences, Christopher Bennett, Between Past and Future: Civil-Military Relations in Post-Communist Balkan States, Biljana Vankovska, Håkan Wiberg, 2003, The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building And Legitimation, 1918-2005, Sabrina P. Ramet, Explaining Yugoslavia, John B. Allcock, East-Central European Economies in Transition, United States. Congress. Joint Economic Committee, Words Are Something Else, David Albahari,Ellen Elias-Bursać,Tomislav Longinović... ... --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Lets not get into the whole "President Raygun killed Yugoslavia" thing here, WW. But if you've got sources for it, why don't you elaborate in the article? Or in Breakup of Yugoslavia? -- Director (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The comment "US is the greatest Nation the Earth has ever known" was for humor - and to emphasize a disinterested 3rd party was commenting. If you find it offensive I can remove it ^^ Patriot1010 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I guess it depends on how one defines "great". But why stop at Earth? Why not "the Greatest Nation the Universe Has Ever Known" :). Surely it may be considered highly unlikely that any hypothetical alien civilizations will be so similar to us as to have something that can be thought of as equivalent to our nations? -- Director (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
As an outside commentator - I do not understand why Yugoslavia cannot "refer to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Croatia" Antidiskriminator, could you elaborate? Or perhaps I read that the wrong way? Also to clarify my comment: : the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Socialist State Yugoslavia had the exact same states within it. The FR Yugoslavia excluded some states, therefore it is a completely different entity in and of its own now - a Republic of a few states of the former Yugoslavia (as a whole). For example, in the US Civil War, the US split into two states - The United States, and the Confederation of States of America Confederate_States_of_America In that case, if the United states would have broken up separately, there would have been separate states like New York, Maine etc...AND the Confederation of States of America. If there would be a wiki page of that situation, it would be the United States, and the article would end at the breakup of the United States, listing the independant states (like croatia etc) and the Confederation of States of America (Like FR Yugoslavia) - which would then link to those separate pages as they are new Countries now.... Patriot1010 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The primary topic is state Yugoslavia. When someone refers to Yugoslavia as state he can refer only to three different entities: the kingdom, socialist state or republic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator, please stop pulling all these claims out of nowhere, and please read the policy for once.
@Patriot. I am not at all opposed to covering one or all of the successor states in subsections of the "New states" section (which could perhaps be renamed "Successor states" or something of the sort).
-- Director (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What policy? three different entities should be presented side by side, as it was, in this article under the name Yugoslavia. What is that in DISAMBIG that confront with this? --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
White Water, the WP:DISAMBIG is to clear up the ambiguity that the FR Yugoslavia is not a continuation of Yugoslavia, but that it is one of 3 successor states that emerged after the breakup of the country formerly known as Yugoslavia. Patriot1010 (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
@ Director "Successor states" would be the accurate English language description.Patriot1010 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The title of this article is Yugoslavia.
  • The primary meaning of this term is state Yugoslavia, which can be one of three different entities: the kingdom, socialist state or republic.
  • Succession issue of SFR Yugoslavia is irrelevant for the scope of this article and has nothing to do with the simple fact that the topic of this article is state Yugoslavia which can refer to three different entities.
  • WP:D says: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. Just look at: Greece (disambiguation), Italy (disambiguation), Germany (disambiguation).... Yugoslavia (disambiguation) also existed and redirected to this page.

I can conclude that this page should either be a disambiguation page or an article which scope should be the primary meaning of the term Yugoslavia, which is all three different states (like it was initially). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So you'll continue to repeat irrelevant and erroneous statements without any actual understanding of policy? "I can conclude" you're very handy with the copy/paste function of your OS :). -- Director (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. "you're very handy with the copy/paste function of your OS :)." You again violated WP:NPA.
  2. I elaborated my approach against the request of one user and presented examples of the existing practice of other countries.
  3. It is you who continually repeat irrelevant statements about succession states of SFR Yugoslavia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly article on this issue, the highest form of verification:

That source divides Yugoslavia into two separate periods like we do now, but I doubt any single academic source will be a be all and end all. Just reading through all of this, I don't think the 1992-2003 country should be covered in the same article. It's just such a vastly different scope. CMD (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • BTW, Category:Years in Yugoslavia also includes FRY, and there's also "1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was not recognized as the legal successor of Yugoslavia by the United Nations. In addition, the FRY did not represent the basic political culture of Yugoslavia - involving a state from Slovenia to Vardar Macedonia, the FRY had no interest in maintaining Slovenia in the federation, nor Croat-populated lands outside Serb irredentist claims. Despite claims by a few apologists to the contrary, most serious scholars recognize that the FRY and its name was just a polite and politically-correct term to refer to Milosevic's promised "state for all Serbs" - a Greater Serbia that included Serbia, Montenegro, and intended to include Srpska and Serbian Krajina within it. And contrary to apologists claims that say "but Montenegro was not absorbed by Serbia" or that "but Milosevic recognized the Republic of Macedonia", first of all Montenegro under Momir Bulatovic was a client regime of Milosevic's Serbia and that many Serbs consider Montenegrins to be a subgroup of Serbs, and Serbia initially denounced the Republic of Macedonia upon becoming independent - saying that Macedonians "are not a real nation" - Milosevic had previously sought to allow the families of Serbs who were forced off its lands in WWII to return and removing the people who lived on those lands after WWII, and thus increase the number of Serbs there and increase the legitimacy of Serb irredentist claims to Vardar Macedonia. Serb forces removed all of the Yugoslav People's Army's heavy equipment from the R of Macedonia immediately prior to its independence, leaving the country defenceless to a Serb attack, only armed NATO forces serving as peacekeepers on the Serbian-Vardar Macedonian border prevented an invasion, and Milosevic accepted R. of Macedonia in 1996 because the NATO forces in R. of Macedonia were ready on the border for a Serb military invasion and were prepared for military action if Milosevic attempted to start a war there, thus he did not. Again to summarize, the FRY was created to be a "state for all Serbs", the name "Yugoslavia" was just a term then used to legitimize Serb irredentist claims to ex-SFRY lands.--R-41 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Now we have simple choice. To change millions of sources that refer to FR Yugoslavia as Yugoslavia (because regarless of the succession issue, Milosevic, Momir Bulatovic....) or to change this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Always with the exaggerated claims and erroneous categorical statements.. Antidiskriminator, don't worry. It will be fixed. Laziness is hardly an excuse to present misleading data. -- Director (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are GS hit results only for Yugoslavia + "in 1999" = 8,630,000 hits.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
And what's that supposed to show? :) -- Director (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Those English language cites are usually from the lazy reporting during the Kosovo War of 1999 by newspapers, magazines, or TV news, that did not take the effort to note that the United Nations and respected international institutions referred to the territory of Yugoslavia as the "former Yugoslavia" after 1992. During the Kosovo War in 1999, you can find the terms "Serbia" and "Yugoslavia" used interchangeably to refer to the whole of Serbia and Montenegro from 1992 to 2003. During the Kosovo War, English language media referred to Milosevic when he was President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as the "Serbian leader", "Serbian strongman", etc. No reliable academic source that studies Milosevic's regime, takes Milosevic's word for it that he supported a "Yugoslavia", the FRY was formed to have "all Serbs in one state" - in Milosevic's own words, a Greater Serbia, it had no interest in maintaining Slovenia nor areas of Croatia that were outside of Serb land claims - it was merely disguising its irredentism behind the term "Yugoslavia".--R-41 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::: That regarless of the succession issue, Milosevic, Momir Bulatovic, "state for all Serbs".... there are millions of sources that refer to FR Yugoslavia as Yugoslavia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There are also millions of sources that refer to the FRY as "Serbia".--R-41 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::::::Here are some books:

Milošević "yugoslav president" - 12,100 GBS hits
Milošević "president of yugoslavia" - 12,800 GBS hits
Those books are not newspapers, magazines, or TV news written and edited by lazy reporters.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are 64 million results for "Serbia 1999" on Google, [3] many refer to Serbian military forces and they are obviously not referring merely to the Republic of Serbia within the FRY because then it legally held no military forces.--R-41 (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is United States President Bill Clinton's 1999 presidential address on the Kosovo War, he refers to "Serbia" repeatedly in his speech as well as mentioning "Serbian forces" but not even once mentions "Yugoslavia". See here: [4].--R-41 (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point. You should add FR Yugoslavia to Serbia (disambiguation) like Soviet Union is listed in Russia (disambiguation).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
You are evading the issue. The issue of the name of the state is the same as that of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire is not considered a direct continuation of the Roman Empire even though it bears the same name. The Holy Roman Empire in spite of its name is not a continuation of the Roman Empire. The same is the case for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in spite of its name, no international institutions nor serious scholars consider it as a continuation of the Yugoslavia formed in 1918. The FRY's claim to succession of the SFRY was illegal because neither Serbia nor Montenegro abided by the legal constitutional reform procedures of the SFRY to change it.--R-41 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
As I have said the issue before, the issue of naming of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is the same as the naming of the Holy Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire was not the direct successor of the Roman Empire. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not the direct successor of the SFRY from 1943 to 1992 that was itself the recognized successor of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In spite of its name, the FRY is not the continuation of the state of Yugoslavia that existed from 1918 to 1992. Serious scholars know that the "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was just a name used to legitimize Milosevic's goal of a "state for all Serbs", a Greater Serbia - this is countlessly acknowledged. We have gone on ad nauseum here and Antidiskriminator is not being productive, he/she doesn't acknowledge any claims to the contrary of her/his position, and just says "regardless of this evidence...and this evidence..." that her/his position is valid without seriously acknowledging any of the claims against her/his position, that is an example of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU.--R-41 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There was no need for such hostile comment and personal attack. My comment was reply to Joy's question. I have right to have opinion which is different from opinion of the group you belong to. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I did not personally attack you, I said that you are not acknowledging the criticisms of inclusion of the FRY, you are ignoring them by saying that you support the inclusion of the FRY here "regardless of" material that disproves a direct succession of the FRY to the SFRY. Discussion is not supposed to have users disregarding evidence from other users, it is supposed to involve communication to seek to reach a consensus. But every criticism that is made by me or others is being tossed aside by you because you say that "regardless of that, the FRY should be included", that is a violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:ICAN'THEARYOU. That is not productive because if you are refusing to acknowledge evidence that does not support your view, thus you are not taking part in a two-way discussion, you are only presenting your view and not responding to criticisms of it.--R-41 (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I was summarizing what you have said. And yes, ignoring evidence that criticizes your claims is unproductive - that is not a personal attack, it is saying that your editing behaviour is not contributing to constructive discussion. When you toss aside multiple criticisms from several users by saying that "regardless" of those points your perspective still holds, that is violating the Wikipedia policy on WP:ICAN'THEARYOU, because you are not acknowledging others contributions, thus it is unproductive.--R-41 (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Include: From the point of view that an article is there to inform, a short, neutrally-written section on a short-lived country that had "Yugoslavia" in its name and that occupied part of the territory of Yugoslavia is worth having. It should not be called "The third Yugoslavia", it should not give undue weight and it should not argue for or against "direct succession". It is enough to say that it existed, when it existed, how long it existed, how it was governed etc. Scolaire (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • There's currently a mention in the lead and a short discussion of the FRY's claim to the Yugoslav UN seat in the article. What do you think should be added, and where? CMD (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Where: where it was before, after "Yugoslav Wars". What: something like
        • The republics of Serbia and Montenegro formed a rump state, known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in 1992. A loose confederation, Serbia and Montenegro were united only in certain realms, such as defense. The two constituent republics functioned separately throughout the period of the Federal Republic, and continued to operate under separate economic policies. In 2003, it was reconstituted as a political union called the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. The state union effectively came to an end after Montenegro's formal declaration of independence on 3 June 2006, and Serbia's formal declaration of independence on 5 June (from this version, chosen at random). Scolaire (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Something like that seems reasonable, although I think it would be better suited under "New states" then "Yugoslav Wars", being a product of the war, rather than part of it. However, this current proposal is to treat the FRY like the previous Yugoslavia with regards to this article, as a full subject topic. Your comments seem to suggest you would want it appropriately mentioned, but not as a main point, which your include !vote suggests. CMD (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
            • The question asked was whether the FRY "should be included in the scope of Yugoslavia article". I envisaged it being included as a short section with an approriate section heading ("Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"), below – not under – "Yugoslav Wars". However, bear in mind that this is a disinterested response to a Request for comment (which ideally RfC is intended for). I'm not pushing for anything so there's not a lot to be gained by discussing it with me. Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
              • The name issue here is just like that of the Holy Roman Empire - the Holy Roman Empire was not a genuine "Roman" state - it was a German state, and no serious scholar considers it a genuine continuation of the Roman Empire - the "Holy Roman Empire" was just another name for Germany. The "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" held no genuine connection to the political culture of Yugoslavia of the unity of the various Yugoslav peoples; the FRY had no intention to hold territories outside of Serb irredentist claims - it didn't care about the unity of Slovenes and Croats who were identified as Yugoslav peoples. The in genocidal ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs in territories claimed by Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia, were aided and abetted by the Serb-dominated FRY, demonstrate that the FRY was intended to simply be "a state for all Serbs" - as Milosevic had promised to Serbs amidst the breakup of Yugoslavia - a Greater Serbia with the politically-correct name "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". Montenegro was pressured to remain in union by Serbia through threats - even Milosevic's ally Momir Bulatovic has admitted this happened when he had briefly considered Montenegrin independence in 1991 - as I mentioned above. When Djukanovic demanded greater autonomy within the federation, Milosevic and Serb nationalists made increasing threats against Montenegro.--R-41 (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Idea

im just asking because i don't know a huge amount about yugoslavia but i dont see anything about the economics of the country or groups of countries, and also the nazi occupation doesnt have alot of information... just my idea of what can improve this and sorry if this is the wrong place to put it. 7/28/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.49.212 (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yugosphere - Not official but technically official

New to this, apologies in advance - I have a problem with this sentence in the Yugosphere section: "Although the SFRY had no official language, technically there had been three official languages, along with minority languages official where minorities lived, but in all federal organs only Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian was used and others were expected to use it as well." I don't see how there could be no official language but, at the same time, there could technically be three official languages. I think that in this context 'officially' and 'technically' are synonymous and that the language(s) must be either official or not official. I suspect that the author is trying to indicate that, while there was no official language, one or more languages were regularly used by the government. I would suggest rewording this sentence for clarity but I will not attempt to do so because I know jack-all about Yugoslavia. --50.73.216.81 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Keith

I suspect your analysis was right. I've removed the sentence in the meantime, based on its confusing wording. CMD (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2013

Please amend the NEW STATES section Remove Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Add Serbia, capital Belgrade Add Montenegro, capital Podgorica Nemesys83 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That section refers only to the states formed just after dissolution. Serbia and Montenegro only broke in 2006. CMD (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

perceived positive attributes

saying 'perceived' in the sentence 'Remembrance of the time of the joint state and its perceived positive attributes is referred to as Yugo-nostalgia'has the connotations that there were no positive attributes. Please change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.3.234 (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get a sense that there was any bias. My interpretation is that "perceived positive attributes" is a key aspect of the definition of the neologism "Yugo-nostalgia," which I've heard used in this way before: the Yugo-nostalgic person is one who perceives the old Yugoslavia in a positive light. That is, suppose that Marko is a hypothetical citizen of one of the former Yugoslav republics who is described as being "Yugo-nostalgic." My impression is that, according to the definition given for "Yugo-nostalgia," this is meant to convey that Marko tends to perceive the old combined state in a favourable light (and perhaps supports reunification). "Yugo-nostalgia" can be used in a derisive manner (i.e., whoever referred to Marko as "Yugo-nostalgic" may have been using it in the context of expressing the opinion that Marko's attitude is foolish; I'm not sure whether "Yugo-nostalgic" generally has particularly negative connotations, but I don't think it's a term people usually use to describe themselves), but I didn't read the definition given as suggesting anything either way about the author's opinion regarding the unified Yugoslavia and whether it could reasonably be viewed in a positive light. Rather, I thought it just made it clear that a positive opinion of the Yugoslavia era is part of the definition of "Yugo-nostalgia." ("Nostalgia" is defined in my dictionary (the New Oxford American) as "a sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations," and it makes sense that the positive perception implicit in the word "nostalgia" would be passed on to the portmanteau "Yugo-nostalgia.")
What are other people's opinions about this? Could anyone who thinks it sounds biased please try to (1) explain why, and (2) suggest how we might change it while preserving the aspect of "Yugo-nostalgia" that (I think) it's meant to express? Thanks! Mia229 (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Yugoslav" as ethnic identity (re article section: "Yugosphere")

The last sentence (so far, anyhow) of this section,

"There are still people from the former-Yugoslavia who self-identify as Yugoslavs, and commonly seen in demographics relating to ethnicity in today's independent states."

is unclear and, I think, ungrammatical (not 100% sure about this part, but it really ought to be fixed anyway). Specifically, the clause following the comma, "...and commonly seen in demographics relating to ethnicity in today's independent states," should specify what is "commonly seen in demographics...." I'm assuming that the intended meaning is something to the effect of:

"...and the term 'Yugoslav' is commonly seen in demographics relating to ethnicity in today's independent states."

I'm going to go ahead and change it to this (or something close), since it really is pretty screwy as it stands. I still get a sense that the phrasing is kind of awkward, although I'm not sure how to express just why. What it's trying to say, as I understand it, is that a list of statistics derived from one or more surveys on ethnic identity in one of the former Yugoslav republics might read something like this: "Croat, 91%; Serb, 5%; Bosniak, 1%; Yugoslav, 1%; Other, 2%." I think it might be nice to be able to offer an example in the form a result that, like the above list, includes the ethnic self-identifier "Yugoslav" — only with genuine statistics (as opposed to my made-up ones). Mia229 (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Deplorable Scholarship

Demographics

Main article: Demographics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

See also: Changes in Yugoslavian Religious Demographics

Yugoslavia had always been a home to a very diverse population, not only in terms of national affiliation, but also religious affiliation. Of the many religions, Islam, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and Protestantism, as well as various Eastern Orthodox faiths composed the religions of Yugoslavia, comprising over 40 in all. The religious demographics of Yugoslavia changed dramatically since World War II. A census taken in 1921 and later in 1948 show that 99% of the population appeared to be deeply involved with their religion and practices. With postwar government programs of modernization and urbanization, the percentage of religious believers took a dramatic plunge. Connections between religious belief and nationality posed a serious threat to the post-war Communist government's policies on national unity and state structure.[11]

After the rise of communism, a survey taken in 1964 showed that just over 70% of the total population of Yugoslavia considered themselves to be religious believers. The places of highest religious concentration were that of Kosovo with 91% and Bosnia and Herzegovina with 83.8%. The places of lowest religious concentration were Slovenia 65.4%, Serbia with 63.7% and Croatia with 63.6%. Religious differences between Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and Muslim Bosniaks and the rise of nationalism contributed to the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991.[11]


In the second paragraph of this section, the final sentence exhibits an infantile understanding of the transitional state of Yugoslavia and its consequent religious dimensions. The only citations here are from an about.com article on atheism and agnosticism. As if that weren't suspicious enough, it makes no distinction between practicing versus non-practicing adherents of the diverse religious communities in the Balkans. To be perfectly honest, this section is not only ignorant of a basic understanding of late twentieth-century Balkan politics, but is grossly offensive to the tragic situation that occurred there. It should be immediately removed. Nekon1of5 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That's all very interesting. Feel free to source and fix. -- Director (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Nekon1of5 is a new account, so may not necessarily be familiar with how things work. Nekon1of5, if you think something's wrong, WP:SOFIXIT. This is a do-it-yourself kind of place. I would, however, suggest, rather than just deleting the sentence, you replace it with something you think is more accurate with an inline citation to a reliable source supporting what you have written. DeCausa (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Serbia & Montenegro split

There reads: After Montenegrin independence, the state previously known as Serbia and Montenegro became known as the Republic of Serbia.
That can't be right, and there is no source to support it. Serbia and Montenegro became known as both Montenegro and Serbia. 85.217.33.164 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What it's probably trying it say is that Serbia is the successor state of Serbia-Montenegro, I'll clarify that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

The fourth paragraph under Yugoslav Wars has this parenthetical statement: (following the disarmament of the republics armed forces by the federal JNA).

The word republics is possessive, so it should have an apostrophe. The statement should read (following the disarmament of the republic's armed forces by the federal JNA). Sabler1 (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: instead of republic's changed to republics' since there were multiple republics Cannolis (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014

Hi,

About your 'Yugosphere' section - I can assure you that the British Journalist Tim Judah coined it - he is the Balkans correspondent in the Balkans! 81.147.128.78 (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 23:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick Map Change

While on the Yugoslavia page, I noticed that in the last third of the map (the modern borders) that Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast was part of the Baltic Sea. I do not know how to edit the picture, so may someone please correct the photo? It would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBoulderite (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2014

please change from: "while Montenegro re-applied for membership in international organizations.. In February 2008" to: "while Montenegro re-applied for membership in international organizations. In February 2008" 213.162.68.219 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing that out! Mz7 (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014

Someone with editting authority should fix the "Jugoslavia" subheader spelling to match the "Yugoslavia" used throughout the rest of the article. See The 1948 Jugoslavia-Soviet split header. Thanks. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Jugoslavia" was changed into "Yugoslavia" in that header.--ZYjacklin (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comprehension of Central Serbia sentence in "The 1948 Yugoslavia-Soviet split"

From the article: "Vojvodina and Kosovo-Metohija formed a part of the Republic of Serbia but those provinces also formed part of the federation, which led to the unique situation that Central Serbia did not have its own assembly but a joint assembly with its provinces represented in it." I don't get the sense of this. Maybe it should be split in 2 or 3 sentences. Is "Vojvodina and Kosovo-Metohija" the same as "Central Serbia"? 178.194.68.43 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015

Kosovo is not independent. 31.223.159.193 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015

Please remove third picture from the front page, the one that shows Yugoslavia from 1992-2003. It is misleading because the readers might thing that state is the successor of Yugoslavia since it has the same name. That if of course wrong. The successor states of Yugoslavia (up to 2003) are Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and FR Yugoslavia. It is very misleading to point a single successor state as the only successor state. Yugoslavia broke up in 1992 and seized to exist as a state, the fact that one of it successor states made a decision to call itself the same does not make it the only successor state. The name is irrelevant, and the article correctly names the successor stated, however the image on the front page is very misleading the readers into thinking Yugoslavia as a state existed after 1991- 1992. It's even more ridiculous that the image suggests that FR Yugoslavia existed up to 2003, when in fact FR Yugoslavia had changed it's name to Serbia and Montenegro and continued to exist up to 2006. It's the same state, and only the name is changed. Please go and look Myanmar-Burma case and you will see that Wikipedia does not state that Myanmar seized to exist in 1989 because it changed it's name to Burma. Serbia and Montenegro article also clearly states that the state existed from 1992–2006. So to repeat once again, FR Yugoslavia does not have anything more in common to Yugoslavia than Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia. The name is irrelevant and Yugoslavia as a state existed up to 1991. The article clearly explains that. Relichal1 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What you are doing is mixing up this article, with the specific ones such as Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. The last one was known for much of its existence as FR Yugoslavia, or colloquially "third Yugoslavia". This article is about all countries that were named Yugoslavia, and that is why the 3 of them are included in the image. It doesn't have to do with sucession. FkpCascais (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not mixing anything,FkpCascais. The first sentence in the article says that Yugoslavia was a country in Southeast Europe during most of the 20th century. FR Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia are completely different states and and FR Yugoslavia is not a country that existed during most of 20th century. It furthermore states that Yugoslavia came into existence after World War I in 1918 under the name of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. That for sure doesn't apply to FR Yugoslavia. It was not created in 1918 and not under the name of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. No, the article is not about all countries that were named Yugoslavia and you have mixing this article with specific one , about FR Yugoslavia. This one is about Yugoslavia(1918-1991). To be clear, this article is not about all counties that were named Yugoslavia. If we were to accept that, then we would have to change significant parts of the article since the article is being very clear that FR Yugoslavia is not related to Yugoslavia any more than any other successor states are. Relichal1 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Asdisis -_- ... The request is answered. FkpCascais (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
What? The request is not answered positively, nor negatively. We are reaching a consensus, I hope. If you are willing to reach a consensus. I will do the edit myself if I have to. The matter is very simple. The article clearly states that FR Yugoslavia is only one of successor states, thus having image of FR Yugoslavia next to Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Socialist Yugoslavia is horribly misleading. Yugoslavia seized to exist in 1991. That's clearly stated in the article. The only problem is the image that is misleading. I will remove it myself if you aren't willing to reach a consensus. That's all there is to it. This is not your article and you clearly have misunderstanding regarding this article. I suggest you read it once again. Relichal1 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no consensus to be reached. Like it or not, FR Yugoslavia existed with that name between 1992 and 2003 and it will be obviously included in this article. What you are saying is that FR Yugoslavia should not be included in the article SFR Yugoslavia, and it isn't. This article includes the first, second and third Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not, the image is misleading not because I say so, but because the article say so. You are free to change the article to what you claim it is to be, but as long as it is in the present state, this image can't be included next to Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Socialist Yugoslavia. FR Yugoslavia existed and it is included in the article. The problem is only one image which is in conflict with the article body. FR Yugoslavia is not the third Yugoslavia. It is only one of successor stated of Yugoslavia and that is clearly stated in the article, so if you are disputing that, you are free to change it in the article. Serbia and Montenegro had chosen that name so they can appear as "third Yugoslavia", because of the name similarity, however that hadn't stood. That is clearly and very correctly described in the article body. What the image suggests is exactly what you claim now. That FR Yugoslavia is third Yugoslavia which is false and very contrary to the article. So please change the article if you have sources to oppose the current state, or stop wasting my time, because the image can not be included next to 2 Yugoslavias only because it has the similar name. This isn't the case of one country changing its name nor the case of a country going trough transformation. Yugoslavia seized to exist in 1991, and the article states that as well. To have FR Yugoslavia in the image next to other 2 Yugoslavias would be exactly what you have been claiming and that would be wrong according to the article. I see no point in further discussing you since the article is clear on the subject. Once again, you are free to provide sources and change the article so it sustains the claim that FR Yugoslavia is third Yugoslavia.Relichal1 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
FR Yugoslavia is the third Yugoslavia and the map shows the three of them. The article focuses more on SFR Yugoslavia but that is natural and it is not a reason to ignore the other ones. Regarding the fact that you challenge FR Yugoslavia being the "Third Yugoslavia", I can start providing reliable sources if necessary. Here is one for instance, a dictionary that links FR Yugoslavia with Third Yugoslavia. You can even see a redirect here for Third Yugoslavia and see what article links to. FkpCascais (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
No it's not and the article clearly states that. To quote: "After the breakup, the republics of Serbia and Montenegro formed a reduced federation, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), which aspired to the status of sole legal successor to the SFRY, but those claims were opposed by the other former republics. Eventually, Serbia and Montenegro accepted the opinion of the Badinter Arbitration Committee about shared succession.". Stop making nonsense. If you are disputing article content that open a new discussion. This one is regarding the image that is misleading with the present article body. FR Yugoslavia is no more and no lees the third Yugoslavia that Bosnia, or Croatia or Macedonia, or Slovenia. What isn't clear to you about "shared succession". Go again to the article and see the successor states of Yugoslavia. The fact that one of them changed it's name to be similar to Socialist Yugoslavia doesn't make it the sole successor nor "third Yugoslavia". At least now we know that your objections are regarding article body, and not my request to remove the misleading image. Please open a new discussion. I don't need to go into vague terminology of the "third Yugoslavia" and the conclusions you draw from it. I pasted here the whole passage from this very own article that explains it very clearly without any vague terminology. If you wish to consider FR Yugoslavia as "third Yugoslavia" because of the similar name, you may but FR Yugoslavia is equal to any other successor state and it is not in any way more "Yugoslavia" than any other, even though it used the similar name to appear that way. Well it changed it in 2003. That brings us to the second inconsistency. The map say that FR Yugoslavia existed until 2003, when in fact it only changed its name in 2003 and existed up to 2006. Go to corresponding articles and see for yourself, and stop wasting my time. Relichal1 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Third Yugoslavia is the colloquial name attributed to FR Yugoslavia. That is why Third Yugoslavia is FR Yugoslavia (and not Bosnia, Slovenia, etc., as you claim that they all are). You miss the basics and thus is useless continuing this talk. The map depicts the 3 countries which were officially known as Yugoslavia. Your talk about succession is totally irrelevant. FkpCascais (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
In Serbia, maybe. Not in the rest of the ex country. -- Director (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in Serbia, because Serbia tried to appear as a sole successor to Yugoslavia which is explained in the article. Some countries, like USA didn't even use the official name of the state. USA had used the name "Serbia and Montenegro" instead of "FR Yugoslavia". That's explained in FR Yugoslavia's article. However the colloquial name is irrelevant to this discussion, I think. 95.110.35.193 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Third Yugoslavia is the colloquial name used worldwide for FR Yugoslavia, not just in Serbia Direktor. I can provide you evidence of that, already provided some here, none Serbian. FkpCascais (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not the point, even if you were correct. Even it it was called "the third Yugoslavia" again that's a term without the definition. In the legal sense, only one Yugoslavia existed. Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Socialist Yugoslavia are ONE country. The third Yugoslavia was a colloquial name used predominately in Serbia, and again, we are not dealing with the colloquial names here. 89.22.129.45 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Bottom line: article scope is a matter of user consensus. The long-time consensus, established and confirmed over and over again, is that the FRY is NOT included here. -- Director (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yugoslavia/Archive_2&oldid=1136222504"