Talk:Yugoslavia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Should FR Yugoslavia's image be included in the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Q: Should FR Yugoslavia's image be included in the lead?
2. Q: Should article title be renamed to List of countries named Yugoslavia
3. Q: What does Yugoslavia in the article title stands for?

The article clearly states that FR Yugoslavia is just one of successor states to Yugoslavia that happens to have the same name (the answer to why is given in the text of the article) and the image which puts it next to Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Socialist Yugoslavia implicates that FR Yugoslavia is the sole successor to those two states. That makes the text of the article is contradiction with that image. The text of the article says that Yugoslavia had seized to exist in 1991/1992 and that it broke up to 5 states. As I see it the problem is with the definition to what does "Yugoslavia" from the title stands for? If it stands for 'ONE' county then we can't have FR Yugoslavia's image next to Socialist Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. If it stands for 'MULTIPLE' countries that have "Yugoslavia" in it's name than the image is ok, but the article body needs to explain that clearly. The present body's context is that it stands for a single country, otherwise the title should be stated List of counties named Yugoslavia which would clearly implicit that there were more countries. Furthermore, the years of FR Yugoslavia's existence is stated as 1992-2003 when in fact that state existed from 1992-2006 under 2 different names. The years of Kingdom of Yugoslaiva's existence is states as 1918-1943, when in fact Kingdom of Serbs,Croats and Slovenes had changed its name to Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929. So that makes the image in conflict even with itself. If FR Yugoslavia existed up to 2003 when only the name was changed then Kingdom of Yugoslavia "exists" from 1929. 193.105.7.67 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me ping some people I found helpful recently. Joy [shallot] , Director . 95.110.35.193 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No. -- Director (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I was not sure if this is in your point of interest, but the discussion needs more experienced editors, so I pinged you two. Sorry for the disturbance. 95.110.35.193 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant "no", as in no way should the FRY be included in the lede image :). Or the article (except as a successor state). In fact, that's the standing consensus. The three-part image is against standing consensus. Before its restored - it needs consensus. -- Director (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I thought so too. Because the first sentence in the lead is speaking of ONE country and the image shows 2 countries which happen to have the same name. The image is clearly in conflict with the body of the article. Apart from being in conflict with itself. 95.110.35.193 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Director. Maybe the caption can also state that Yugoslavia was under occupation during WW2 from 1941 to 1945, so it is quite clear that this is one country. 95.110.35.193 (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 95.110.35.193 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. This article is about all 3 Yugoslavias that existed, and all 3 are included in the map. FkpCascais (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. The article is about, as the lead sentence states, about "a country in Southeast Europe during most of the 20th century". A single country, and not about multiple countries that were named Yugoslavia. You are free to make an article "List of all countries that were named Yugoslavia". FR Yugoslavia is a whole another country from Yugoslavia, and there isn't any doubt about that. This discussion should be very easy. Here's the question that will solve this discussion. Please answer this, how many counties are represented in that 3 part image, FkpCascais? 151.24.15.202 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia existed during the 1990s and just a few years of the new millennium. The 1990w were 20th century, I believe you know that. Yes, I suppose for you it is not much fun including the third Yugoslavia you were no part of, but it was officially known as Yugoslavia worldwide, listed everywhere as such, and that cant be ignored just because you don't like it. FkpCascais (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop the POV pushing and start participating in good faith. How many countries are represented on that 3 part image? 5.144.98.84 (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 5.144.98.84 (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais, don't pretend you didn't see the question. How many countries are in that 3 part image in the lead? That is the main question here that will resolve this whole dispute and I don't see how it can remain unanswered by each side in this dispute. I know you are not discussing in good faith, from my previous experience with you, and this is why I'm repeating this question, just to show it more clearly to anyone who reads it. I suggest you answer it for your sake. Otherwise this is a clear proof that you are not here to discuss in good faith, and I will call for a closure. A consensus will be established if you do not answer, since it will prove you are not here to discuss in good faith. I'm sorry but I had to write it this way so it is quite clear what you ignoring this crucial question implies. It can even imply a report if you continue to oppose so strongly without an answer to this question. I don't intend to have again one of those long discussions with you, because you are not discussing in good faith, but rather repeat invalid arguments and manipulate. This is exactly what happened in the previous discussion on Serbs of Croatia article where you refused to answer the crucial question, to define the term you are trying to introduce in the article. That caused us all who dealt with you a lot of time, almost 2 months of discussing and walls of text. I'm for sure not here to have another 2 months' pointless discussion with you.178.130.41.173 (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course he's not discussing in good faith. Don't know when ever he had. He, like virtually everyone else who ever advocated including Miolsevich's "Serboslavia" here - is Serbian, and sees this as a "Serbs vs Croats" issue [1]. He knows full well he doesn't have consensus for this. That the consensus is explicitly NOT to include the FRY. Its been discussed at least three times that I can remember, there were at least two previous RfCs - and every time people have to explain to him that SUBSTANCE, rather than the NAME, is what matters towards article scope. Its not the same country. Period.

Just revert him. If he starts yet another edit war, I'll request admin assistance. That's with regard to the state of the article. In the meantime, lets see if anyone will care to participate. -- Director (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't edit because the article is protected. Ok, I thought to call a closure since he's objections are not valid, but let's give some more time for others to participate. 5.144.98.84 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais, how many countries are in that 3 part image in the lead? 5.144.98.84 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Yes, FR Yugoslavia image must be included in this, as that country was named Yugoslavia. Very simple.
2. No, i think that ths would be common name, and this article can explain history and overview of all political entities named Yugoslavia. But that question can be solved later anyway...
3. Yugoslavia in this title article should repretsent, as i just said, all political entities named Yugoslavia in history. As far as i know, we had three big states named like that. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you answer the question? How many counties are there on that 3 part image? And the following question is. What does the article say, how many counties does it speak of? The first sentence in the lead. 5.144.98.84 (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Who are you? Only edits are here?? Please return to your account, if its not blocked or banned. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 14:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Who am I? Would you rather answer the question than wonder who am I? I'm making this very simple. The article clearly states that FR Yugoslavia is a successor country to Yugoslavia. It also states in the lead sentence that this article is about ONE country. And I ask again, how many counties are in that 3 part image? I really wouldn't want to go into speculation into how you appeared here with virtually the same attitude as the other user, but if you don't answer the question the same goes for you. You wouldn't be discussing in good faith. I don't know what else to say to you. We can't continue the discussion of you refuse to answer this crucial question. If the article clearly states that it speaks of ONE country and that FR Yugoslavia is a whole different country, then the image is in contradiction with the article body. Removing FR Yugoslavia from the image would not mean we are neglecting some info. The article is well written and it explains the whole deal with FR Yugoslavia. 5.144.98.84 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This article should not be about one country, but about the political entities named Yugoslavia. We already have articles about those countries, so we do not need one more, the same one. I came here from the article alert on Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia, as this article is on request for comment. Again, are you blocked editor? Are you actually allowed to edit Wikipedia still? We should not talk around it, its impossible that new editor come here, and edit only talk page of this article with 0 edits in normal article space. Its difficult to understand you if you dont return to your original account. Again, your question is wrong. We do not care how many countries are on that 3 part image. Our question is how many political entities throughout history existed under the name of Yugoslavia. And then this article should cover all of those! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What can i say. Go and change the article, make a new article. Should the article be something or shouldn't it is irrelevant to this RfC. The article is what it is and it can't have FR Yugoslavia in the lead image. Yes we do care how many counties are in that lead image. That's the most crucial question here. If the article says it speaks of ONE country, how can we have 2 countries in the lead image implying that they represent "Yugoslavia" which is ONE country.213.5.194.78 (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Q1: it doesn't really matter if you explain that it was a rump, self-proclaimed Yugoslavia in the image caption; Q2: no, because this simple title is more concise and natural for the readers (cf. WP:NC); Q3: it stands for the concept of Yugoslavia that has been universally recognized as a sovereign state between 1918 and 1991, none of which precludes giving a reasonable explanation of the relevant murky periods between 1941 and 1945, and after 1991. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That's censorship what you propose. Murky periods existed also, and we must not hide that period, but explain it in proper encyclopedic way. Also, we should not made up explanations. Article title represent something that existed under that name. We had two countries, and the third one that officially existed also under the same name. As each of those entities now have their own article, we must represent all of them here. This article is disambiguation for the term Yugoslavia. This article is not just one more article about Kingdom of Yugoslavia or SFR Yugoslavia. Why do we have those two then? Why not only one Yugoslavia, the first one? Because we have articles about countries. Its not recognized? By whom? We have articles here about states that have 0 recognition's worldwide. Again, stop the censorship. FR Yugoslavia existed for eleven years, and that's the fact. It was the state with constitution, and self government. We have 0 reasons not to include that one here. And i am not counting IDONTLIKEIT reason :) We do not care how many countries are on that 3 part image. Our question is how many political entities throughout history existed under the name of Yugoslavia. And then this article should cover all of those! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is hidden. The article extensively explains that FR Yugoslavia is another country and that it has the same name just so to appear that it is a sole successor to Yugoslavia. Article title does not represent all countries that existed under the name "Yugoslavia". You are free to make an article named "List of all counties that were named Yugoslavia". You are obviously speaking of 3 counties, while the article says in the lead that it speaks of ONE country, so you are obviously having a discussion about the "List of all counties named Yugoslavia" thus wasting our time. Concentrate to the topic of this RfC and do not digress what should this article be and so on...So to make quite clear to the admin who is going to close this RfC. Your statement that "Our question is how many political entities throughout history existed under the name of Yugoslavia. And then this article should cover all of those!" clearly says that you are digressing from the topic and that you are speaking of what the article should be. Go and make a new article that will deal with your problems. This RfC is regarding this article and regarding the image which does not represent "Yugoslavia" as the article defines it.213.5.194.78 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't originally matter, but when I see that some people made this image on purpose to implicit something against the consensus, I'm against that. Image makes the most of impression to people who don't read the whole article carefully. I'm also against that, since the other side is not participating in good faith. The article already explains all that in the lead and there is not need to put a misleading image in the lead and then again explain the matter in the caption that is already explained in the lead. Yes, I agree the answer to second question is to be a decisive NO, since that would be a significantly different article from this. I'm glad we agree on the question 3. That's exactly my point. I'm against any change to the article body which is fine, and it does not neglect FR Yugoslavia in any way. I'm just saying that the image that shows FR Yugoslavia is misleading because of the article body. I'm glad we agree. Since you have not yet supported each side, I will ask you this question. How can we have article that speaks of "Yugoslavia" (and explains exactly what "Yugoslavia" is) and then have an image which supposedly represents "Yugoslavia" which has a completely another country added to that image simply because it is called the same? 5.144.98.84 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

As i said. Someone who is here for the first time (user of encyclopedia) is unaware of the fact what Yugoslavia is. So, we must tell him that Yugoslavia was a kingdom that existed over first half of the 20th century, and that then new Yugoslavia was established as republic, and that the last remnant of that state was also named Yugoslavia. So, that name, Yugoslavia, was about political entities that existed over almost entire 20th century. I understand that someone will question legality of the third Yugoslavia, and that's good attitude, but that last Yugoslavia existed also, and we must talk about that in the same manner as with previous entities. None will care about the legality of that state. It was there, so it should be here too. That's fact. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the discussion. This discussion is only about whether FR Yugoslavia should be represented in that lead image. The answer is quite clear. It can't since the article body defines what "Yugoslavia" from the title is, and it is not FR Yugoslavia. As the user who started this said, you are free to make an article named "List of counties named Yugoslavia". You are even free to change this article with a consensus, but we can't simply add a whole another country in the lead image just because it is called similar. 213.5.194.78 (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Its not some other irrelevant country. Its country with the same name that claimed to be the sole legal successor to the former one. Its very much related. Article body was tortured with addition and removal of third Yugoslavia, so article body is irrelevant for our discussion. It can be changed very easily. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You are free to change the article body with consensus. You are free to make another article, but as long the article defines "Yugoslavia" as it does in the lead sentence, FR Yugoslavia can't be in the lead image. 213.5.194.78 (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Then lead should be changed, it's wrong. Again, its irrelevant how this article now defines anything. Its only about facts. Fact is that three Yugoslavia's existed. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair I put it to the table in this RfC. I asked it very clearly. Should this article be renamed "List of all countries named Yugoslavia" and adjusted accordingly. At least you discuss in good faith, unlike the other editor who would want to leave both the article body in the present state and the FR Yugoslavia in the image. Go to the bottom of the discussion and make your stand completely clear. As far as I understand, you wish to make "List of all countires named Yugoslavia" article.213.5.194.78 (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it should not be named like that. It should stay under this name. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Then you would have to change virtually the whole article, in another words, you would have to create a whole new article. I'm glad we reached a consensus, I'm afraid FkpCascais made me think that's impossible. ;) I don't wish to anyone to have to deal with people like him who do not discuss in good faith but pushing POV. 213.5.194.78 (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Anastan, I think you seriously need to stop assuming bad faith by accusing fellow editors of censorship simply because they prefer the reliable sources' description of history as opposed to Milošević's wishful-thinking description of history. Indeed it is fairly ridiculous that you seem to imply that the articles about FR Yugoslavia and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 777 are somehow false in describing how that new country's dispute with the international community was outstanding for eight years, etc. I'm not going to entertain further discussion based on such false pretenses. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What reliable source? Joy, I am sorry but I dont see any bad faith in anything Anastan said. The crude fact we have here is a group of Croatian editors wanting to exclude FR Yugoslavia from this article, somehow basing their assumptions that FR Yugslavia doesnt deserve to be included, that because of Milošević it should be disregarded, and similar thoughts. I dont see any relation there, the country was officially named Yugoslavia and treated as such in all English-language sources right till its name change in 2003. I dont see how being Milošević in power for many years in FR Yugoslavia affects these facts. The only way of solving this would be all of us accepting some mediation or dispute resolution process. Would you like to propose some? FkpCascais (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We all reached a consensus with Anastan. He wasn't discussing in bad faith, but he was just having a discussion that is out of scope for this RfC. He has some other edits in mind and he opened a new section. FR Yugoslavia is not excluded from the article. There is no suggestion to change the article body. Just the image in the lead. This RfC is resolved, again despite your disruptions so there is no need for mediation. It is resolved by a consensus and I will leave it open for some time and I will request a closure request if you keep reverting on the article page. 194.226.8.147 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

English-language media and publications were screaming out loud "Yugoslavia" everywhere during and prior 1999 refering to FR Yugoslavia so whenever the word "Yugoslavia" appears in English it can clearly be refering to any one of the 3, Kingdom, SFRY or FR, and this article needs to adress that. I dont know what the problem of the map is, I havent heard till now any actually convincing and valid reason to change the image representing the 3 of them. Also, stop missusing the word consensus, when consensus is archived you will know it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Anastan: There should be a {{distinguish}} note directing people to the Serbia and Montenegro article up there, I agree with you that far. It was there previously - somebody (FkpCascais?) removed it. But this is not a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages lead to articles, they're not articles. Articles deal with similar topics - not similar names. In other words, its not the NAME that matters, its SUBSTANCE that counts towards scope: this article is about a country. The FRY is not the same country. Or if it is, then so are four or five others in equal measure. The name is irrelevant to our discussion. You have no position. -- Director (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, i beg to differ. Name is very much not irrelevant. This article NAME is what defines it. Sure, substance, but substance under that name. Again, Kindgom od Yugosavia and SRF Yugoslavia are not quite the same countries too! Very different, in almost every seance country can be different. Its only name, as you said, but their substance is totally different. And, FRY is again something different. So, that's why we have 3 Yugoslavia's. First, second and third. We should represent all three. Also, i disagree with revert of that note. Per my explanation, that note should not be here, as that Yugoslavia is one of the Yugoslavia's from article. We should distinguish all three, not just Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Have a look at policy. Name follows scope, not vice versa. And, as a matter of fact, the SFRY and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were legally and formally one and the same country. The country this article is about. We're not about to tell readers they have the wrong article by telling them to distinguish the two from this article's topic. -- Director (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't address most of my arguments. We had three countries named Yugoslavia, and we must represent that in this article about YUGOSLAVIA. Also, sources are on my side of arguments. (THIRD YUGOSLAVIA) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't have 3 Yugoslavia's and there's your problem, you are completely out of this discussion. Read the article again. 213.5.194.78 (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We do have, read the sources. They are far more important then the current state of this article. P.S. Another unknown IP adress with 0 edit elsewhere? Are you the same IP as above, or someone else? You too should return to your account, if its not blocked or banned. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

By that criteria we also have a "Fourth Yugoslavia" [2] :). The problem with your method is that you don't go into what the sources actually say.. why, I count four sources on the first page that place the term in quotation marks. To be more precise: yes, the FRY was the third country named "Yugoslavia" and one could find authors that therefore refer to it as a "third Yugoslavia". But that's just skirting the issue: the issue is that it isn't the same country. Its not the same topic. It doesn't belong here simply because it has the same name. -- Director (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It only your point of view, it does not mean you are actually right. Its IRRELEVANT is that the same country or not. I say that it is the same topic, as it is the same name. It does belong here because it has the same name. You think this article should be about first two Yugoslavia's, and not the third one, because its politically different. I say this article, called Yugoslavia, should be about countries named Yugoslavia, no matter political status, or anything else. Simple as that. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Its not my point of view. Like I said, its project policy... article content isn't determined by its title, but vice versa. Besides, that's just common sense. -- Director (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Then make a request to rename the article to "List of all counties named Yugoslavia" or something similar or change this whole article so it fits in your little idea. Make this post the lead of that article and there will be no problem or confusion what the article is about. 213.5.194.78 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this is quite enough of digression. Fell free to make another request and let's not clog this RfC with digressions. You and the other editor can go and make "Colloquial names for all counties named Yugoslavia" article. It's quite clear I'm the same person who started this discussion. For further reference, you can ask me on my talk page if I'm the same person when my IP changes, although I think it is quite obvious. 213.5.194.78 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Create your account, or log in back to your original account better. Do not confuse everyone with tons of different IP addresses here, please. That's never good thing to see in those political topics, where tons of editors are blocked and banned. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be looking at ip's, but arguments. 213.5.194.78 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the lede version that should be restored. Its balanced, explanatory and clean. I was looking throughout history, and it looks like it was almost only one user, Director, who was removing third Yugoslavia for years now. Thats not good. I would love to restore this proper version of this article, so i am asking for a comments below. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you make a separate topic so we can resolve this with a consensus instead of formal closure? I think we have a consensus since I'm not taking into consideration invalid objections by the user who is not willing to participate in good faith, and when no one else opposes. You do not oppose, do you? 213.5.194.78 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see you already made a new topic while I was writing this. Can we close this RfC? 213.5.194.78 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that you should, as all of the questions above will be actually solved if we get clear about this article topic. Thank you. And please, create account :) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, maybe I will. This constant IP changes makes people rather suspicious for no reason at all. They are probably no aware how often their ip's change when they edit trough with accounts. On the other hand, I don't want to finish up like Recihal. The poor guy didn't know what hit him. He's still probably wondering to why he got banned. Good thing he posted a comment to the talk page I was involved where a certain user tried to push POV in the same manner as he almost managed to do here.188.242.144.157 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the lede (Q1)
• Oppose renaming the article to a list of countries (Q2). Support creating a disambiguation page with a hatnote.
• This article is about the country that existed from the end of World War One to the fall of the Soviet Union, not any other country. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? Can we have some argument actually instead of empty VOTE ascertainment, please? :) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose including FRY in the way suggested. Same name but different substance. It would be similar to adding an image of the boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire to the lede of an article on the Roman Empire. Brustopher (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Three political entities named Yugoslavia in this article

I was looking throughout history, and it looks like it was almost only one user, Director, who was removing third Yugoslavia for years now. I see above that he was thinking that third Yugoslavia is somehow not the topic of this article. I disagree, per sources, arguments above and IMHO, common sense. I say this article, called Yugoslavia, should be about all countries named Yugoslavia, no matter political status, or anything else. This is the lede version that should be restored, and copyedited, sure. Its balanced, self explanatory and clean. I would love to restore this proper version of this article, so i am asking for a comments below, in order to establish proper consensus. It looks like a lot was happening around this article topic in murky waters in the past years. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

NO. I'm against changing the present consensus. It was established by more users and with several RfC's.213.5.194.78 (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if you look talk history, i see only one serious discussion with rfc about this years ago. Thats nothing. Also, if it was established before, (and it looks like it was not) that can change, we have guideline about that. It would be helpful to actually present some arguments why not. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you look a bit closer.

And this time around, you and FkpCascais are also in the decided minority (4v2). If you want to try and argue as if this is some kind of disambiguation page, be my guest. Frankly I think I made my point in my first response to you: the article's name is derived from its scope - not its scope from its name. Read some policy. To request the scope be changed based on the name is nonsense, its circular logic. If you think the scope doesn't fit the name, challenge the name. If you think the reader might be looking for the FRY, introduce a disambig page or a distinguish template. To put it briefly: the name is not an argument, per policy.

Naturally, you don't have any sources whatsoever, since no source in their right mind would claim the FRY and the state it splintered from are the same country. All you have is a cherry-picked, googled, out-of-context phrase that serves only as a red herring and in no way suggests to us that the FRY should fall into this topic. In fact, all you have is your own inference from the term "third Yugoslavia" (as used by those sources you cherry picked, instead of the thousands that don't). A source simply using that phrase does by no means necessarily support you in any way: nobody disputes that Serbia and Montenegro called itself "Yugoslavia" for a while, but again - this is an article about a country, not about a name. You must show that its the same basic country. -- Director (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I presented already sources confrming English-language term "third Yugoslavia" for FR Yugoslavia. Also, who are the 4 of you? You and the IP who is evading block? Get serios. FR Yugoslavia was Third Yugoslavia, deal with it. FkpCascais (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dierktor, I am leaving you a friendly advice to distanciate yourself from Asdisis socks and to drop the Croatian-nationalistic agenda in several of this articles that you follow. You may be known as "not as extreme nationalist" but you are one whenever the issue is Serbo-Croatian disputes. I can prove it quite easily. This is a friendly advice cause you have been assisting Asdisis socks and the community here will have to deal with his persistent disruption and sockpoppeting soon. FkpCascais (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Here we go, again he resolves to threats of bans and sockpuppetry.194.152.253.49 (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring, abide by standing consensus on this issue - as established in the previous RfC.

And I explained, just above in fact, that those sources don't actually support you in what you want to do... again. Firstly, if you google phrases like that yo're bound to find some publications that use it - but that's cherry picking - thousands of sources simply don't. Like the very first hit on gb: Twice There Was a Country. Secondly, and more importantly - the phrase is an irrelevant red herring. Your personal inferences from it are OR and aren't anybody's business but your own. Nobody disputes that Serbia and Montenegro called itself "Yugoslavia" initially, so yes it certainly was a third "Yugoslavia" in that sense - that in no way indicates it should be included here, though.

I honestly have no idea who "Asdisis" is, but if you think the IP is a sock, by all means - report and block. WP:SPI is that way. Otherwise don't bother me with your theories, this isn't the place for it. The 4 are Tuvixer, Joy, the IP user, and myself. -- Director (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Director ,He's completely obsessed with some editor. I looked at some previous discussions on Balkan articles and I hardly found one where he didn't accuse someone of being Asdisis or tried to ban him in some other way. You saw how he tried to ban me and another editor on Serbs of Croatia article before you showed up. Now he is trying to discredit you with this personal attacks. He always does that and I can't believe how that went unpunished. He should be confined to edit football related articles because all he does on Balkan articles is disruption. I don't really know how to report him, otherwise I would. He clearly knows the rules so he manages to do this. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The map was there, IP came here challenging it, and you are now supporting his edit. Per BRD you are edit-warring. Regarding the IP, dont warry, you can pretend not to know who he is, that will not change the outcome, all his accounts will be blocked and none of his comments and votes count for anything. Lets open a dipute resolution procedure then? FkpCascais (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You are obsessed. I'm the least important here as an ip.The RfC established a consensus, not me. I just started it besause I noticed the mistake first. The others are not supporting me, but s valid request.194.152.253.48 (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing, FkpCascais?? Not only is the previous RfC and consensus against you, but now also it isn't even a draw. And no - you don't have sources. Seriously, explain to me what you're doing? Why are you edit-warring? And no, this isn't Asdisis (if the IP is him) screwing you over, nor is it me "associating" with him - this has been my position here for years. True, the IP did alert the previous participants in the discussion, but believe it or not - that's perfectly legitimate. Its something you should have done, if you ever played by the book... -- Director (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You are mixing into this issue politics and your personal feelings regarding FR Yugoslavia, and based on that deniying the fact that English publications refered as "Yugoslavia" to all 3 of them, and that is what matters. For an English-language reader "Yugoslavia" were all 3 of them, and I cant see how will you apply a logic of "Yes, after 1992 till 2003 there was a country officially named and refered to as Yugoslavia, but, you know, it was Milosevic, a bastard, that runed that country for most, and they were just wannabes of the previous Yugoslavia, so just ignore them, OK? ;) ". We need here a dispute resolution mechanism and agree to respect the outcome. FkpCascais (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Only two times in history Yugoslavia existed. First time as a kingdom, and second time as a socialist federation. In 1990-es it broke apart into 5 new countries, and it ceased to exist. There was no Yugoslavia after that. The fact that Milosevic's Serbia was named Yugoslavia is irrelevant, that Yugoslavia was in the same position as Slovenia or Croatia regarding succession, it was and is not the same entity as SFRY. So please stop this nonsense. Saying that "for an English-language reader "Yugoslavia" were all 3 of them" is like saying "for an idiot the world is made out of candy", if the facts are false they shouldn't be in the article, as it should not be mentioned on Wikipedia that the world is made out of candy. Just to clarify, I am not saying that English-language reader in an idiot. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but it's sad numerous people have to repeat to him the things that already are stated in the article. The things he does not challenge like Anastan. I also think he is wrong, but at least he is discussing in good faith and I always welcome that. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, the issue here is that this article is not about the succession of SFR Yugoslavia. You choose to ignore the fact that a third country officially named Yugoslavia existed till 2003 (irrelevant if it was Milosevic or Napoleon that created it) so you can ignore it,it is your choice, but this is an encyclpedia, and we simply cant ignore such a bold fact. Thank you for your interesting input. FkpCascais (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Situation at this point

I will like to ask all intervenients opposing the adition of FR Yugoslavia to express as clearly and succintly as possible the reasons for their objection. As far as I noteced English-language media and publications refere and refered as "Yugoslavia" to all 3 countries which were officially known as Yugoslavia, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. As I remember, the so called Third Yugoslavia (even our article here redirects to FR Yugoslavia, same case in Britannica) was tremendously often cited as "Yugoslavia" in English-language media during the late 1990s and the Kosovo War that one cannot really ignore that. Actually, talking about ignoring, all I felt while reading the reasons for opposing the inclusion were basically a desire to favor and legitimate linking the previous 2 Yugoslavias to this article and to ignore and deny that right to FR Yugoslavia. I dont think that this is a contest about legitimity. All 3 countries officially named Yugoslavia were different one from another, but also had commun features. They all shared the same national colorsand flag, anthem, same capital, same aspiration of being the unifying vector in the region, all 3 were mostly Serb populated, all at some point got to be criticized of being in one way or another Serbian-dominated, etc.

Earlier Joy in a comment based his opposition on criticism towards Milošević who ruled third Yugoslavia for most of its time. I dont see how personal opinion regarding a certain regime can affect decitions such as this ones. We can oppose, support or even be indiferent towards the policy Milošević-dominated FR Yugoslavia had, however, I dont think no one will disagree with me by saying that Milošević made FR Yugoslavia be a sort of wannaby of SFR Yugoslavia, just smaller and more Serbian-dominated than previos. If he succeded, or not, at what degree, its irrelevant. FR Yugoslavia got to be formed in a way to include the republics that didnt wanted independence and to succede from her, and openly pretended to be the continuity of previos Yugoslavias, continuity that at some organisations got to be recognised, and in some it didnt. Resumingly, this article should be about the 3 countries that were officially named Yugoslavia, and also allways referred to in English as such. The 3 of them share similarities and have differences between one another. The similarties and common features make me believe having the 3 of them here is the right option.

I hope that besides my request for everyone to write bellow their reason/s for the option they support, other, hopefully neutral, participants will join and help us find a solution. I must also be frank and honest and mention that till now most of participants are from the former Yugoslavia, thus some more some less subjective (the one that doesnt admit this is either not being honest or not aware). I am from Serbia, and Serbia was along Montenegro part of FR Yugoslavia till 2003 when it entered into a transitional period and got renamed into Serbia and Montenegro, a country name that lasted 3 years until in 2006 the two countries split. Obviously, I may be tendentious for the support of its inclusion, mainly because it was my country from the time of my birth till 2003, regardless of being SFRY or FRY it was allways named Yugoslavia wherever I went, and cause it its formation was indeed an issue of republics choosing between staying in a new third project of Yugoslavia, or secceding and going on the path of independence. Serbia and Montenegro didnt wanted independence, they stayed and had their country named Yugoslavia for over one more decade, it was not just the name, much of the ideology was kept as well. Some editors mentioned here how all countries could be named third Yugoslavia, well, I disagree, at that historical moment some opted for Yugoslavia, some didnt, some chose to name their country Yugoslavia, some didnt, those were important options that end up being reflected in the history articles. Most of users oposing the inclusion of Yugoslavia, are Croatians, and FR Yugoslavia was in war with Croatia, they certainly dont see any relation between the previous Yugoslavia they were part of, with this third Yugoslavia they were in war against. One can understand these subjectivities and diferent views having in mind the relation and experience each one has with this subject, concretely, with regard to FR Yugoslavia here. For time being I havent seen beng presented any strong objective reasons why FRY should be disregarded, so I will ask again everyone succintly to express their view and hope we can reach consensus orotherwise present the case for dispute resolution. FkpCascais (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia is not disregarded. It is well represented in the article. What exactly do you suggest concretely. After all this wall I can't read the concrete suggestion for edit.188.242.144.157 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais, how many counties are represented in that 3 part image? 188.242.144.157 (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

And which one was named officially Yugoslavia? All of them,or just one? FkpCascais (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So there were more than one. That's interesting and also wrong according to the article. I now think we can close the above's RfC. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Only one of them was named Yugoslavia, the one formed by Serbia and Montenegro. They stayed in union in a country officialy named Yugoslavia till 2003. The others had referendums in which the options were staying in Yugoslavia or becoming independent, and opted for independence and selected official country names which were not Yugoslavia neither any of them was neither colloquially refered to as Yugoslavia. So no, it is crystal clear after 1992 which country was Yugoslavia and which countries were not Yugoslavia anymore. FkpCascais (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I need to say that I am having the impression that certain editors are wanting to leave the article mentioning FR Yugoslavia, but removing it from the map. Sorry, either we include FR Yugoslavia and add a map of it, or we exclude it and exclude the map of it. The solution you pretend is incorrect cause seems you want to have an excuse to say FR Yugoslavia is not excluded as it is mentioned in the article, however you ignore it overall in important presentation aspects such as infobox map.

@Joy: and @Tuvixer:, you both mention Milošević in your objections to include FR Yugoslavia, can I please ask you to explain the relation of Milošević with the decition of excluding FR Yugoslavia map? So if it was someone else it would be OK, but because it was Milosevic, it is not? How is Milosevic involved in the criterium? Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: are you really going to put yourself in a position to defend milošević or was that just an error on your side? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont see his relevance to the discussion here, so I am asking you who mentioned him to explain it. FkpCascais (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to attack or defend anything. I will seek dispute resolution as soon I have some time. FkpCascais (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I watched this debate from the sidelines, and was asked for a comment by User:Anastan, so here it is for what it's worth: I am not for inclusion of FRY in the map, but it surely must be mentioned in the article as one of successor states, and a brief explanation given as to its relationship with "big" Yugoslavia. I must notice that it has not been thoroughly covered in the article even before the current kerfuffle [3], and WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the article contents according to WP:WEIGHT. Basically, I agree with Director above that the topic of the article should determine the title, and not that the title necessarily determines its contents. Ergo: for most people (and sources), "Yugoslavia" was the big country that occupied some 250,000km2 and broke up in 1991; that's the main topic of this article. There was another Yugoslavia indeed, but it was quite a different country, and often referred to by another moniker (Serbia and Montenegro). And it was quite consecutively proven, and later accepted by the FRY itself, it was not the only successor of the former one (the topic of this article). I realize that there are other possible views, but we must make an editorial decision regarding scope of this article (which is not often easy to do in case of historic articles – when does the relevant period starts and ends?), but I gather this is a reasonable one. My 2c anyway.
P.S. I must notice that you guys were so busy debating that nobody noticed crap like this in the very first sentence :). No such user (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No question that the FRY belongs here as a successor state. -- Director (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, although still having my doubts which are fundamentaly based on the fact that my believe is that this article should include all entities which were officially named Yugoslavia regardless of the succession relationship, I will respect what seems to be a view shared by most. PS: I never defended or attacked FRY, Milosevic or anyone, as implied by some, my rationale here was strictly limited to country name. FkpCascais (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You knew that this article isn't an association by name, and you were extremely disruptive by not accepting to discuss in good faith. I'm glad this is settled now. 194.152.253.42 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

My question was why wouldnt the article have a wider scope? It is a question that, honestly, I still wander. FkpCascais (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't discuss in good faith, and you were disruptive. You made me open a RfC for this meaningless edit. I put it very simple for you. The article speaks of ONE country when speaking of "Yugoslavia", and it clearly says FR Yugoslavia is a whole different country. You didn't want to answer my question that would put a stop to this. I'm frankly fed up with your disruptions. You made me open this RfC, you made me open the RfC on Serbs of Croatia, and you lost that one as well. You don't want to accept the consensus over there. You followed me to Djokovic article, where you entered the info I suggested to the article and now you play dumb when that other POV pusher had attacked you. You made me open an edit request on Austro-Hungary, and you also play dumb and you left that discussion as well. You are a disruption to Balkan articles. You are simply not discussing in good faith, but instead you try to manipulate and push POV everywhere you appear. 94.253.23.60 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you noteced how much of your comments is you making personal remarcs about other editors? Are you aware that each one of us has an opinion about everyone else but most of the time keeps it for itself? Plurality is such a wanderfull aspect of life. One needs to expect forehand that at any situation will be confronted by people with diferent views. At that point the ideal situation is to debate the issues having in mind all their aspects, their different understandings, and to try to express your view in a clearest way. One also needs to be prepared to the fact that life is a continuos gathering and acumulation of information and knolledge. Instead of attacking people that think different than you, it is always better to canalize the effort to better explain the matter which is being discussed. One of the caracteristics of people from South-Eastern Europe (I hate generalizations and cliches, but this one is really trouth) is that they are so intolerant towards different opinions, and often understand it as a personal insult, and will more likely have a reaction of attack rather than making an effort to understand why that person thinks differently. Regarding us, if I see you making less personal remarcs, I will suport a lifting of your block if you go and appeal at your master account. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not about respecting the different views. You weren't discussing in good faith, otherwise it wouldn't come to this. I'm not the only one who complained you are not discussing in good faith. Well you backed down for now, but you keep doing the same things on other articles. For instance, on Serbs of Croatia you openly define a consensus so what's the point for this comment that tonnes down your behavior by suggesting it was only the case of you having a different view. That was not the case, but the case was that you were discussing in bad faith. You backed down from here, but you keep doing it everywhere you appear, even now when you are trying to tone down your behavior on this talk page. Someone should really report you for all those disruptions, otherwise you'll keep doing what you have been doing for a long time. I already said I'm going to look trough your contributions to see the cases where you were successful to push your POV with this pattern to block the other side. Are we forgetting you blocked the editor who started this discussion. Are we forgetting you tried to block me and the other editor who started the discussion on Serbs of Croatia? Thank God I didn't back down, as you successfully deferred one editor and managed to block another. Otherwise you would have your way. God knows how many times that had happened before I joined the Serbs of Croatia article and noticed it. I will take time and go trough your discussions on the Balkan pages to see if this had happened before. 94.253.23.60 (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting how one talks to you normally and you abuse imediately. Wanna check my edits? Sure, do whatever... FkpCascais (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I noted your toning down in that comment and I already said I'm glad this is settled. But you're toning down in this discussion, while having a couple more where you exhibit the same disruptive behavior as in this one for the past few days. 141.138.59.64 (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on "including predecessor teams"

Please see Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Should 'Yugosphere' have a separate article?

Other Wikipedias - notably the Italian - have long pages dedicated to the Yugosphere. I feel it would be better explained on a separate page. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugosfera

Also, the article says The Economist coined the term - this isn't true - The Economist's Western Balkans correspondent coined the term, but he did so while at the LSE, and only later did he start using the term in his articles in The Economist http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeaninstitute/research/lsee/pdfs/publications/yugosphere.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobchip (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is there so many lies in breakup chapters?

Sentences "In turn, the Slovenes, supported by Croats, sought to reform Yugoslavia by devolving even more power to republics, but were voted down. As a result, the Slovenian and Croatian delegations left the Congress and the all-Yugoslav Communist party was dissolved." is not true. Slovenian and Croatian delegations have left the Congress, because Serbian party was refusing to sanction Milosevic, for his breaking of agreed economical plan of recovery. While in other republics bankrupt companies were shut down, and workers layed off, he would break in (literary) into federal reserves, and order printing of new money for salaries of Serbian owned bankrupt companies. First 2 times they have tried to reason with him, and he was promising he will not do it again. But, third time they've said "bye".

"The Croat quest for independence led to large Serb communities within Croatia rebelling and trying to secede from the Croat republic" is also not true. President Tudjman didn't really want independence at that time. He wanted confederation. But as Milosevic was playing on nationalistic card, in order to keep his power, he has managed to rebel Croatian Serbs by scaring them with "fascist return". Only after they police has tried to return control of territory held by "rebels", and Yugo army has clearly showed whose said they are on (Plitvice Lakes incident), Croatian parlament has voted for separation. And Slovenians were still angry about economy issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.158.162 (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Good luck trying to make any edit without a few months of spare time to discuss with nationalistic editors. Take a look at the above RfC. 141.136.243.56 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A nationalist like Tuđman who formulated the Croatian national programme whose primary goal was the establishment of the Croatian nation-state not wanting independence? Get your facts straight then report back to your parole officer. Individuals with so much twisted ideas should have regular interviews with the dungeon keepers of their contorted realities. And please do learn your respective languages. People with nationalistic tendencies tend to simply neglect and denigrate the comments by anonymous know-it-alls that have never heard of the letter đ in Tudjman. Especially when such polymaths band together with their fellow (non-)nationalistic compatriots. --79.175.69.146 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

GDP and Economic Figures

GDP and the Yugoslavian economic figures seems to be missing from these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.204.34 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

The very last sentence of the article goes:

There are still people from the former Yugoslavia who self-identify as Yugoslavs; this identifier is commonly seen in demographics relating to ethnicity in today's independent states.

…and what exactly is being talked about? It took me quite a moment to make it out: "people can still choose "Yugoslav" on questionnaires whenever nationality is asked about" 195.187.108.4 (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120212164932/http://www.ohr.int:80/ohr%2Dinfo/maps/ to http://www.ohr.int/ohr-info/maps/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110192905/http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/ESAU/esau-46.pdf to http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/ESAU/esau-46.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Slovene and Croatian do not use the Cyrillic alphabet; and Serbian and Macedonian do not use the Roman alphabet. Correcting on the page. Tomaz.slivnik (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done. What exactly should be changed? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Serbian and Montenegrin declared independence dates are the 5th and 3rd of June 2006 respectively Source --86.145.60.182 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Vanjagenije (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Question

Shouldn't this just be a disambiguation page for Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

Its an "overview article", I've been told...

Shouldn't you have a proper username, Mr. 2003:86:6f21:a533:1090:b33d:e9e4:e725? -- Director (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslav Wars

First and third paragraph either contradict each other or are worded somewhat confusing. First paragraph states: "in August 1990, Croatia attempted to replace police in Serb populated Croat Krajina by force"

While the third paragraph states "Serbian uprisings in Croatia began in August 1990 by blocking roads... almost a year before Croatian leadership made any move towards independence"

Isn't trying to replace the police, by force, considered a move towards independence? As is, the third paragraph gives the impression Serbian uprisings in Croatia "just happened", giving no connection at all to Croatian attempts to replace police by force mentioned in the first paragraph, which happened around the very same time. As somebody trying to read up on the history, this is confusing to me and should maybe be worded better or clarified more? Were these events not connected at all? 2003:86:6F21:A533:C2F:3A43:60A6:B7DC (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

For a detailed chronology of events see breakup of Yugoslavia. For details of events in August 1990 see Log Revolution - these were preceded by parliamentary election in April and May 1990, and the new parliament majority's proposals in June and July 1990 to change state symbols of Croatia's (which was still part of Yugoslavia). Following the Log Revolution in August 1990, Croatia replaced its representative in the collective Presidium of Yugoslavia, changing Stipe Šuvar to Stjepan Mesić who only took his seat in October 1990. In the fall of 1990 Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia proposed transforming Yugoslavia into a looser confederation of states, which was rejected by Slobodan Milošević, who had by that time already gained control of a voting bloc of four out of eight representatives in the Yugoslav Presidium, on account of the earlier Yogurt Revolution. In December 1990 Slovenia held an independence referendum. Croatian parliment voted for Croatia to hold its own referendum four months later in April 1991, and it was held in May 1991 (boycotted by ethnic Serbs in Croatia), which was then followed by parliament's declaration of independence in June 1991. The effect of the declaration was put on hold for three months upon the urging of the European Community, and in October 1991 Croatia officially severed all ties with Yugoslavia.

So yes, both statements are correct - the self-proclaimed SAO Krajina autonomous region was established in parallel with the Log Revolution in August 1990, and the local police which joined it were seen as rebels by Zagreb, hence the removal attempt. But Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia at the time and no political moves towards its independence would be made before the April 1991 parliament decision to hold an independence referendum. Granted, there were a lot of events going on in the meantime and one could speculate that Croatia's independence and the virulent nationalist character of the newly independent country seemed inevitable once HDZ won the May 1990 election - but the fact is that no concrete decisions on independence have been made until at least eight months after the roads had been blocked. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that detailed breakdown! The police officers joining in, beeing seen as rebels by Zagreb, seems to be the context I've missed. Maybe that's something that should be added to that paragraph? I don't dare to edit the actual article myself because this whole Wikipedia editing thing is quite intimidating to me, even more so with such a complex topic. 2003:86:6F21:A533:1090:B33D:E9E4:E725 (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Flag

@Director: Why did you remove the flag of the Kingdom [4]? This article is about the whole period of Yugoslavia, both kingdom and republic. We have a separate article about the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is an "overview article" of two countries. It is not about a former country as such, it does not use that format. It should not have a country infobox. But, IF it is to have it, then you have to use that infobox as it's supposed to be used. I.e. we don't include all former flags of the country being presented...

Frankly this article is weird and pointless and should be incorporated into the two Yugoslavia country articles... or the two country articles should be merged into it. One of the two, don't know (probably the former). -- Director (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we can make WP:request for comment about the infobox? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please God no, not another vote...

*grabs hard liquor*... ..We could have an RfC, but it should be about its scope, i.e. about maybe splitting this article off into the two proper ones, or (perhaps less wisely) merging the two here. The current scope consensus is that this is an "overview article", as long as it is such we really shouldn't have a country infobox. Or if we kinda let that fly because who cares, then at least it ought not include all its previous symbols (to do that the infobox would need at least one more flag and two coas, from what you had...).... -- Director (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But, IF it is to have it, then you have to use that infobox as it's supposed to be used. I.e. we don't include all former flags of the country being presented... – well, why not? I can agree that the Infobox Country is not exactly tailored for the situation at hand, but as we can tweak it to present two flags and arms, I don't see why not. I think you're violating WP:BROKEN for no particular reason – to me, that it's not supposed to be used like that and we don't normally include all former flags is not a compelling reason not to IAR here, because none of the two sets of symbols comes out as recognizable enough for the whole period. And it's not as if we have five of them, the box happily accomodates the two. No such user (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We obviously "could", but it's not how historical country infoboxes are done. It's not stylistically consistent. We're not required to be consistent, but infoboxes being a catastrophe even as they are now, adding more problems is a bad idea in my book. Even an article like Czechoslovakia, which is as close a case as you can find, just picked one emblem...

Further. If we'll treat the topic as a single entity, at least to some extent, and have a country infobox... we should at least try to keep our position straight in not making it (look like) an infobox for two separate countries. -- Director (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I can agree to remove the infobox. I think that is the best solution at the moment. I don't think there is any chance we can make consensus to change the scope of the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Meh... I'm open to leaving it having seen Czechoslovakia... Who cares.

Besides, now I worked on it a bit! :) -- Director (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2018

68.15.29.164 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Not done, since no requested edit has actually been specified! --BushelCandle (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

|Creation of Yugoslavia=September 11,2018

In the upper table on the right side named "TODAY A PART OF", where there is a list of succeeding countries, there is one country missing: Montenegro. Zemljevidec (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

}} 2601:446:C201:24E4:C0B:5B47:D6B3:C58 (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Vanjagenije (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019

I need to edit the end year of Yugoslavia. My friend from Serbia, and he told me that Yugoslavia ended in 2003, not 1992. 3z0o0o0zi (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2019

{{edit semi-protected until may 23 ,2019|Yugoslavia|answered=no}}

96.87.148.89 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Jugoslawien listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jugoslawien. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Population?

As far as I can see, although there are mentions of numbers or percentages of population that were a certain religion, race, working status, there is nothing in the text or infobox that states what the population of this country was at the start, end, or any time of it's existence. I was interested to know how many people lived in this country whilst it existed. I am quite surprised it is not mentioned. I might, if I'm really lucky, be able to find an old atlas I had from school in the 1990s that listed the countries and demographics including population at the back, to use as a reference. But maybe not. Can anyone else help find a reference for Yugoslavia's population at one or more years of its existence and add it to the article? If you "ask Google" it says 23 million (1991) which I imagine to be correct, but something better than a Google search would be nice. [5]  Carlwev  20:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a link to the demographics articles of both Yugoslavia´s, and each does provide different numbers for different periods, in the later one you even have a year-by-year diagram. But, I do understand what you mean, this article could have like a table indicating total population at least by decades or similar. FkpCascais (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"Jugoslawia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jugoslawia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2019

Kosovo GDP for 2018 is way overestimated. It should be 8,047 bn USD. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/kosovo/nominal-gdp 94.253.192.213 (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done thanks, all the figures are incorrect, have fixed all with World Bank stats. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

"Yugoslawia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Yugoslawia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#Yugoslawia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

JB Tito's "rule"

President Josip Broz Tito did not rule in Jugoslavija until his death. He retired from active involvement in politics back in 1974, and was declared by the Jugoslav Parliament as a President for life, which was largely a ceremonial function with no executive, nor any other, power. SO that detail should be changed to reflect the factual state of his presidency. Since 1974 the federal executive power was in the hands of the Parliament and its executive bodies. President J Broz Tito had no role whatsoever in any of these agencies and organs of the federal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.251.248 (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Provide a source to prove your claim 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

Please change some incorrect references in this page to the "Republic of Macedonia" into the "Republic of North Macedonia". The following Wikipedia page provides the background. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Macedonia Milios.evangelos (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The uses of "Republic of Macedonia" in this article long pre-date the name change. CMD (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The maps

Regarding the two maps on the right side of the page - they look virtually identical - and not very helpful.

MarkinBoston (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

Please remove the 1992-2003 date in the infobox per the consensus seen in the multiple discussions on the talk page. Yours truly, Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Vanjagenije (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

I need to remove a civil flag of Austria-Hungary on the infobox, but there is over a consensus for the flag had been WP:STATUSQUO. 49.150.116.127 (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"Yugosphere" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yugosphere and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Yugosphere until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Need to update Macedonia to North Macedonia

FYROM/Macedonia’s official name was changed to North Macedonia. Needs to be updated on the page 89.201.183.205 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I see no instance of "FYROM/Macedonia" that needs that change. They all refer to their historical entities. -Vipz (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)