Jump to content

Talk:Yugoslavia at the Olympics

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

List of medals by sport

[edit]

It is a simple case of OR because the results of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which latter "became" the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are added with medals by sport won under the flag and name of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) + adding up medals won under the Olympic flag by Independent Olympic Participants.

This entire article is a synthesis because:

  • the Kingdom never officialy stopped, not by the nature of regal powers of the King (which never abdicated)
  • the Socialist Yugoslavia was never succeded by any particular ex-SFRY nation
  • the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (unrecognized up to late 2000.) was reffered by the name the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) during much of its history and was the state consisted of only two of the six + two succeding ex-SFRY nations

Yes, the atribute of yugoslavian existed in all those names, but it does also exist in the name under which the Republic of Macedonia was accepted in the United Nations - The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. So we would have to list that fact in this article also, wouldn't we?

But we have the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo so we must have an article Congo at the Olympics, we simply must!?

And the People's Republic of China with its counterpart the Republic of China (official in Taiwan).

It is a simple case of trying to maintain a POV that is not logical therefore not neutral.

When we have persons with the same name and surname we do not create one article only. Even when we use the date of birth and death, place of birth and other data. Those data could be the same also.

Yugoslavia couldn't be a special case. Each and every country that used the word yugoslavia existed for its own period of time so why joining them all in the same article about Yugoslavia at the Olympics.

I could understand the need to have such an article but only as a redirect page which would lead to the following articles:

Imbris (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to see distinct articles for the kingdom vs. SFR years, or do you only want to see the FR portion "decoupled" from the pre-1992 Yugoslavia? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this was the only way to make the clear distinction between the kingdom + SFR years then I would support that separation also. -- Imbris (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask this because you see that I have included the FR years in the Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics, and you seem to find that acceptable, so are you simply seeking to remove the FR years from this article? The rest of your comments make no logical sense. They seem like red herrings to me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have the same data on the participation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as Yugoslavia YUG in the article Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics we do not need to have those data here. It is ordinary doubling of data and also misleading. I think that the ordinary wikilink with a few sentence describing why and where the data is listed would be enough. -- Imbris (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My last question for now, and then I'll wait for you to answer. Surely you see that we organize the top-level articles in Category:Nations at the Olympics by their National Olympic Committee. Therefore, if you agree that the NOC of the SFR was identical to the NOC before WWII, then there is no need for distinct articles for those years. I think the SFR vs. FR distinction depends on how much of the post-1992 NOC was inherited from the pre-1992 NOC. I'm looking for sources for that, but please consider that Olympic sources must be used for that decision, not successor decisions of different international organizations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that you organized them by IOC code, and respect the simple name change. I am sure that the Olympic Committee of the Russian Empire (which competed as the Russian Empire and not just as Russia) is the very different olympic committee than the Olympic Committee of the Russian Federation. And if you did organize them by the IOC code YUG changed their code a few time in JUG and once in YUS. So we would had to have those codes separated even they are a simple name change, is that what you are talking about? :)
National Olympic Committee somtimes change their name like the Serbian Olympic Committee in 1911 and the Olympic Committee of Serbia. NOC under the SFRY was not identical to NOC under the Kingdom but those differences are very small. United Nations are not just an international organization, or they were not just a simple international organization before this Kosovo and Georgia stuff. So I would advise you to solve the issue based on the entire picture and all available official sources and not just on IOC which has proven to be biased in the case of Yugoslavia and its succession.
Imbris (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

So, bottom line, is if this article discussed the 1920–1988 participation of Yugoslavia, and we used a hatnote to direct people to Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics with respect to the Yugoslavia of 1992–2002, then would you be happy? I could live with that arrangement. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more inclined towards using a wikilink in the text just after the SFRY is mentioned. This wikilink would be surrounded by a paragraph where in a few words/sentences there would be mentioned that after YUG (1992 W) was the last appearance there was a breakup of Yugoslavia, then FRY banned but allowed Yugoslav citizens of the Montenegro and Serbia to participate as IOP (1992 S), then a wikilink towards [[Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics|Yugoslavia (1996 S - 2002 W). Your opinion please. -- Imbris (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe both are useful. I'll try to expand this article next week and we'll see what it looks like. But I guess the more important question is: should this article only include the 1920–1988 Yugoslavia teams, or are you really serious about the idea of a distinct article for Yugoslavia before WWII and for SFR Yugoslavia afterwards? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appologize for that nudge in the form of requesting separation of the kingdom/SFR era but it helped to move us in the right direction. I abandon that claim because it would be a fruitless tree move. Also I hope that the hatnote wouldn't be neccessary. -- Imbris (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I am suggesting a hatnote is because the Yugoslavia teams of 1996–2002 would not be covered on that page, but were still called Yugoslavia. Hatnotes are the standard technique when there is potential for confusion or some sort of disambiguation is required. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have big and dashing hatnotes which use a brightly coloured infobox and dominate the entire article and we have small hatnotes in the form of a wikilink that is inserted before the top of the article. I would be in favour of that low profile hatnote if it must be a hatnote. This would look like this: for Yugoslavia (1996 S - 2002 W) see Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics or something like that. But if that hatnote is presented then we do not need to explain anything about that team in the article but the breakup of Yugoslavia to seven separate NOCs (one of which is not recognized by the IOC) of which two appeared independently in the 1992 W, while six appeared at Bejing 2008. -- Imbris (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that the template would also be changed (along with the article) -- Imbris (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. There are three cases to consider: what should it look like on Yugoslavia at the 1988 Summer Olympics etc., what should it look like on Yugoslavia at the 1996 Summer Olympics etc., and what should it look like on this page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Template:Infobox Olympics Yugoslavia sorted the two cases and even the third one. -- Imbris (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template issue

[edit]

Isn't Template:Infobox Olympics Yugoslavia a good solution. I saw that you complimented the author of that template. -- Imbris (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author? You mean: "most recent editor". In any case, I still think it's not quite right. On the "first face", there is no link to Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics and no link to IOP in 1992. On the "second face", there is a footnote for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia attached to all but one instance, which seems awkward since the title of the infobox is "Yugoslavia". I also think the links to SRB and MNE for 2008 are too much—only the immediate predecessor and successor ought to be shown. On this page, I think the full list of sucessor NOCs is redundant to the table in the article body, so I just removed that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change those small issues as you see fit, I will do the same. I belive that without duplicates this article is better. -- Imbris (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Yugoslavia ends in 1988, I see ediors insisting in not understanding that

[edit]

The fact that there was a country called Yugoslavia between 1992 and 2006 (renamed Serbia and Montenegro in 2003) doesnt make old Yugoslavia have the results until 2003. The major sillyness is to separate FR Yugoslavia from Serbia and Montenegro since it is the same country just with name changed. FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be an easy concept to understand but apparently not. I'm still amazed. Jmj713 (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This articles isn't exclusively about SFR Yugoslavia. That is the easy concept and you are the not-understanding one. This article is about all the achievements of Olympic delegations called Yugoslavia and the name was used up to and including the 2002 Olympics and, as explained in the article, by THREE different geopolitical entities. The IOC still credits these achievements to Yugoslavia and we have to respect reliable sources. So it's about time you stop your disruptive editing.Tvx1 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not have articles about a people's participation in the Olympics. These [Country] at the Olympics articles are solely about geopolitical entities. Because they're countries. As stated numerous times previously and what you're still completely ignoring, is that we do not separate these articles when an entity is renamed, but we do separate it when an entity is changed. That is why Ceylon equals Sri Lanka, but Soviet Union does not equal Russia. Jmj713 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see it this way then. There was one and only Olympic Cometee headquartered in Belgrade ever from early 20 century till today sending one same Olympic delegation. The thing was that the comitee menaged teams sent to Olympics ever since. Some regions were added to the country, some separated, but the comitee and delegation remained the same. Thus, Belgrade headquarers of the comitee and the delegatio sent manteined their seat at Omlympic comitee all time and they represented:
  • Kingdom of Serbia (till 1918)
  • Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1918-1929)
  • Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929-1943)
  • SFR Yugoslavia (1943-1992)
  • FR Yugoslavia (1992-2003)
  • Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006)
  • Serbia (2006-present)
Can we then agree on this? It was one same Olympic Comitee and delegation all time. FIFA for instance did that with football, considered the one same headquarters as one same team, remindless of regions adding and going or names changing. Even federation presidents remained the same between changes demonstating continuity. Basically the vastly major and most populous country, Serbia, was allways at head of the delegation. For all, that was allways one same "our" team. It should go together. FkpCascais (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jmj713 these These [Country] at the Olympics articles are not "solely about geopolitical entities". That's patent nonsense. For instance we have articles on a Unified Team, Olympic Athlete from Russia, Independent Olympic Athletes, Chinese Taipei, Korea and so on. None of which are (previously-)existing geopolitical entities. We have articles on the Olympic entities the IOC have awarded the results to. That's the only truth. As for FkpCascais, we reflect results as they are credited by the official authority the IOC. And they credit achievements to one continuous Yugoslavia from 1920 up to and including 2002. Prior to the 2004 Olympics nothing whatsoever was ever credited to something called "Serbia and Montenegro", let alone Serbia. We have to reflect that. It's called adhering to the reliable sources.Tvx1 22:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One has to distinguish Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia apart from Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I doubt IOC credited something to SFRY from 1992 to 2002. I have to check this, but I seriously doubt it. If something was credited to FRY from 1992 to 2002 that was also credited to Serbia and Montenegro, since that's the same country. 141.136.223.103 (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they did not credit anything to SFRY 1992 to 2002. In fact they didn't credit anything ever to SFR Yugoslavia. They have credited all achievements of the Kingdom, the SFR and the FR simply to "Yugoslavia". All of them simply appeared as "Yugoslavia" at the olympics. You can check footage from all the relevant olympics to verify that. And that's what this article is about: all of the delegations called "Yugoslavia" which appeared at the olympics (as credit by the relevant authority IOC) during the course of history.Tvx1 00:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And we have an article on North Korea at the Olympics while that country never participated under that name. What the name is or isn't does not necessarily 100% determine what we do for keeping track of participation. In this case, sure post-breakup Yugoslavia (later known as Serbia and Montenegro) participated as Yugoslavia, but that was if anything for convenience or politics or what have you. The fact remains, it was no longer the pre-breakup Yugoslavia. It was the entity which was later renamed Serbia and Montenegro. This should be simple and easy and you are deliberately trying to make something illogical out of this. Jmj713 (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making anything out of this. I'm just following what the authority of the Olympics makes out of it. They have always credited the results up to and including the 2002 Olympics to Yugoslavia. That's an indisputable and easily verifiable fact. And it's about time you admit that to yourself. As for North Korea, the facts on that article match the facts published by the IOC. The full name is in the lead and the infobox. The title follows the common name policy.Tvx1 21:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being stubborn, there is no consensus, only your will. Please tell m what happened in 2003 that you seem to know and we dont. Also, I opened a thread where I eexplain everything, you seen to fail to understand there was one same Olympic Comettee since 1910 till nowadays, there was NO separate "Yugoslav Commeette" it was this Serbian one which allways existed but adapted the name to the country, while others created new OCs. This should be merged with Yugoslav OC as well. FkpCascais (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tvx1 you fail to see that it was the editors from other republics that insisted that FR Yugoslavia has nothing to do with old big Yugoslavia. Also, we should go all here : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#Serbia/Yugoslavia_broader_discussion. FkpCascais (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was before insisting that SRFY is a separate country from FRY. We had a RfC and regarding that, we have a consensus. I was even asking for FkpCascais to be banned for POV pushing when he didn't want to accept that SFRY and FRY are completely different countries. Tvx1, your only problem is that you are considering IOC credit as the only that is relevant and you are basing the whole discussion around that. I don't think it's relevant at all and we should not base our discussion around that. If someone now in Asia calls their country "Yugoslavia" their credits would certainly not be associated with Europe's Yugoslavia, even if IOC put them all together under Yugoslavia. It doesn't make any sense to follow IOC's logic that we know is wrong and we should simply disregard it. If you want to state somewhere in the article that IOC gives credits only to "Yugoslavia", I have nothing against that, but it also has to be mentioned that this kind of credit is factually wrong. 141.136.225.184 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.105.233 (talk) [reply]
I couldn't care about what editors from the other republics think. In fact the other side could also be seen as nationalists from Serbia trying to claim these achievements to who think rightfully own them. The only thing I care about is reflecting who the sole authority on crediting Olympic achievement credits the contested results to in reality. It's an indisputable fact that they credit them to the Yugoslavia, not Serbia&Montenegro. I don't know why it is so difficult for some to understand such a simple, indisputable and easily verifiable fact. That I have to repeat that dozens of times is just utterly ridiculous. As for what happened in 2003 what you clearly don't know. Two thing: 1)The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was reformed to the State Union of Serbia&Montenegro. A couple different form of state which resulted in the citizens of the country receiving new passports with a new nationality in the nationality field. 2)A new Olympic competitor with it's own separate record called "Serbia&Montenegro (SCG)" with the IOC which is the Olympic authority.Tvx1 23:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to reinvent the wheel. This has been a long-standing accepted consensus, and I think explained very clearly here: All-time Olympic Games medal table#Obsolete nations notes. Jmj713 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All was discussed a while ago at WT:OLYMPICS. The reality every one can see is that you only accept your own POV. A Wikipedia article is not a reliable let alone meaningful source. The official sources speak for theirselves. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia.Tvx1 23:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, maybe I misunderstood something. I thought that I'm agreeing with FkpCascais. Anyways, results from SFRY and FRY can't be viewed as attributed to the same country just because both countries are having the word Yugoslavia in their name, even if IOC is doing it that way. I don't see the big problem here. Just mention in the article that IOC is attributing everything to "Yugoslavia" while the contributions before 1992 belong to SRFY and after 1992 to FRY. It can't be more accurate than that, right? That's my only point. 89.164.105.233 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Save that they don't belong to those you mention. They were no credited as such back then and they still aren't. They only accurate way is following the records of the IOC as that actually matches the actual events which took place in reality.Tvx1 17:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's use IOC as the main sentence and add some kind of explanation somewhere that IOC contributes everything up to 2002 to "Yugoslavia" without specifying whether it is SFRY or FRY. I don't believe that there's not any additional sentence that can be added to explain that IOC is contributing only to "Yugoslavia". We surly can come up to something, because many people could be confused with the logic that IOC is using. Let me ask you Tv, regardless of this discussion, do you agree that SRFY and FRY are two different counties that just happen to have "Yugoslavia"in their name?89.164.105.233 (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by "reality"? Because in reality, countries have participated in the Olympics under various names and codes. I have provided many examples already, but I'll be happy to provide more. You seem to disregard reality of the fact that the Yugoslavia you are attributing this participation ceased to exist in 1992. That is the only criteria really used to differentiate when participation is split or ended: when a country or a geopolitical entity ceases to exist. That is why there is one Germany which is then split after World War II because that Germany ceased to exist. Once Germany reunified, its participation totals also resumed. If the former Yugoslav states at some point in the future were to reunite and recreate Yugoslavia, then from that point on we could continue this article. But as it stands now, that country ceased to exist in 1992 and thus it cannot have participation in any future Games. I believe I have explained this as cleanly as I'm able to, but I'm sure you'll just ignore it. Jmj713 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, we only need to look at our own article for the country: Yugoslavia. It's clearly stated that it ceased to exist on 27 April 1992. If you try to extend that into the 21st century, you will be swiftly reverted. The infobox also shows successor states, including "FR Yugoslavia" which links to, of course, Serbia and Montenegro, and you can see that the dates of its existence are 1992–2006, and it therefore fully conforms to how our Olympic tables and articles must be. Thus, you are going against reality here, as you can see. Please revert yourself. Jmj713 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yugoslavia_at_the_Olympics&oldid=1241851316"