Talk:Serbia and Montenegro/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Old placement issues

Where should a full article on this country be placed, under "Serbia"? "Serbia and Montenegro", or "Yugoslavia"?

I understand that the term Yugoslavia is no longer used, but it also isn't too clear as of now how united Serbia and Montenegro are any more.

Anyway, I would like to start a longer article here...or under "Serbia".

--24.162.198.210 This is an outrage! My school has been blocked from editting!

  • 'Serbia' and 'Serbia & Montenegro' are 2 different things (much like the UK isn't the same as England). Any infomation on the 'Yugoslavia' page should be completely historical. If your infomation is current, then place it in either 'Serbia' or Serbia & Montenegro' depending in which it is about; the country of Serbia, or the loose political union between Serbia and Montenegro. Grunners 00:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Don't mind those old comments, they were before the time the state union was renamed. --Shallot

I think all the old Yugoslavia subarticles (e.g. Economy of Yugoslavia should be moved here. --Jiang

Just a point - Yugoslavia wasn't established in 1992. It was reformed in 1992, and greatly diminished in size, but it was established in 1919, I think. --62.254.128.6

National motto

And a question; doesn't the national motto "CCCC" (Only Unity saves the Serbs) refer only to Serbia and does NOT include Montenegro? I think that it's not the motto of the commonwealth... You'd make Njegos very, very angry... --Muhamedmesic

it is placed even on coat of arms.

No, but your comment would make him very angry. Even traditional Montenegrin hat has Serbian firesteels (CCCC) on it. Njegos considered himself a Serbian nationalist. -- Obradović Goran (talk 00:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Original date of union

Nikola Smolenski, why did you revert my change to the history paragraph? As it is, it's plain incorrect, because you can't simultaneously claim that the "original" date of S&M union is 1918 (which is the date of the creation of the Kingdom of SHS) and that FRY wasn't necessarily intended to be a continuation of the previous Yugoslavia as your commit on Succession of states theory shows. --Shallot 21:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You know why you wrote it, I know why I reverted, no need to talk about it. Nikola 22:49, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What? --Shallot
Actually wait. Was KoSHS the first time Serbia and Montenegro were in a single state? Then this could be explained. ISTR that this union happened a bit earlier, though, but I could be wrong... --Shallot
Parliament of the State of SHS decided to unite with Serbia on 24. 11. 1918., later in the same day Parliament of Vojvodina did too, and two days later Parliament of Montenegro. However, it was not accepted by Serbia instantly and the KoSHS was proclaimed a few days later. Nikola 14:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wasn't there also something about the Montenegrin king being dethroned a bit before, or something like that? --Shallot
He fled Montenegro when Germans occupied it, I'm not sure did the parliament detrone him before decision to unite. He recognised the state later anyway. Nikola 07:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wording

Would anyone like to guess what "which is precedence to new constitution" means? Morwen - Talk 10:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edit fight

Please stop this edit fight! --ThomasK 07:29, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Stop it! --ThomasK 12:29, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is only a small part of the general quarrel regarding Wikipedia:Country infobox vote etc. --Joy [shallot] 16:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed map

Removed map

I have removed one of the maps of Serbia and Montenegro (M_scg04.jpg), because it was very incorrect.
First of all names are written in Serbian (which is not incorrect – just a bit inappropriate on English Wikipedia :)
2: Kosovo should be Kosovo and Metohija or Kosmet (according to Serbian constitution).
3: it should be stated that Kosovo and Metohija, and Vojvodina are autonomous provinces (on Serbian maps is used abbreviation AP), and administrative border between the Kosovo and Metohija and Vojvodina and the rest of Serbia should be drawn in different manner than for example border between Serbia and Montenegro (thiner or rambling line – look at the other map on this article, Yugoslaviamap.png)
4: According to this map, Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija aren’t part of Serbia (which is completely not true). There are two solutions: 1. Instead of Serbia should stand narrow Serbia or Serbia proper (this solution is bad because of great edit fight it caused on Serbia article); 2. To stretch inscription Serbia across both Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija (optimal solution). -- Obradović Goran (talk 00:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For Obradovic Goran:

1. So what if names are written in Serbian? If we do not have map with English names that doesn’t mean that we should not to include this map into this article.

2. According to 1244 UN resolution, the name is: Kosovo. This resolution is only relevant document, which define current status of Kosovo, and that is: Substantial autonomy within Serbia-Montenegro.

3. The border between Kosovo and Vojvodina is drawn in different manner (with rambling line) then the border with Montenegro in this map and I agree that this is wrong because Kosovo is not part of Serbia (but part of Serbia-Montenegro), according to 1244 UN resolution, but I simply used previous situation (before 1999) for drawing this map. And it was stated in the article that Kosovo and Vojvodina are provinces within Serbia, no matter that this statement is incorrect in Kosovo case.

4. According to this map, Vojvodina and Kosovo are part of Serbia, which is not true in Kosovo case, but this is not a problem, because this could be regarded to be a historic map. Of course, then I should to change name of Kosovo (You are right about that). Listen: can you change this map in photoshop in the way you like, instead of deleting it? User:PANONIAN

I haven’t deleted the map, I’ve just removed it.

I have just read the UN Resolution 1244 (1999.) A to Z, and I believe that you are being wrong about Kosovo not being part of Serbia (but only Serbia and Montenegro). This UN document is referring to, and addressing Serbia and Montenegro because Serbia is not a sovereign state – it doesn’t have its foreign ministry, diplomacy, Embassy, nor representative in UN, and therefore has no means or mandate to communicate with UN and vice versa.

UN Resolution 1244 on several points reaffirms sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia and Montenegro. It doesn’t give any information about Kosovo’s status within Serbia and Montenegro (except that Kosovo has substantial autonomy), and therefore administrative status of Kosovo inside of Serbia and Montenegro is indicated in Constitutional Charter of state union of Serbia and Montenegro and Constitution of Serbia. Both Constitutional Charter of state union of Serbia and Montenegro and Constitution of Serbia are stating that Kosovo is autonomous province of Serbia (Serbia is a part of Serbia and Montenegro, and if Kosovo is part of Serbia, it is by automatism a part of Serbia and Montenegro as well).

And last but not the least, since UN Resolution clearly states that Kosovo is part of Serbia and Montenegro, and since Serbia and Montenegro is consisted of Republic of Serbia and Republic of Montenegro, Kosovo must be part of either Serbia or Montenegro (even if it is under a temporary international administration).

Regarding the change of map in Photoshop – I don’t posses this program, but I will find someone who has it (and knowledge to change the map). It may take up to few weeks though, so I’m asking for a bit of patience :) Best regards -- Obradović Goran (talk 00:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed this map already according to your suggestions. I hope that you do not have more objections. User:PANONIAN

It's much better now, thank you --Obradović Goran (talk 23:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Official language and alphabet

Serbian language is implicitly official language of SCG. There is no such constatation inside of constitutional acts of SCG. Members of State Unity decide about official language. In Serbia, official language is Serbian in Cyrillic alphabet, in Montenegro it is Serbian (by Constitution of Montenegro...) in both alphabets (Cyrillic and Latin). --Millosh 22:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You are completely wrong, and you should really stop your anti-Cyrillic drive. Pay attention to thde third paragraph of the Article 23 of the Constitutional Charter. Nikola 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The SCG Ministry of Foreign Affairs website has a copy of the SCG Constitutional Charter in Serbian and in English. It doesn't mention the official language. It also doesn't have a third paragraph of the Article 23.
Here's what the official governmental page of SCG has to say on this subject:
The Serbian language of the Ekavian and Iekavian dialect is in official use in SCG. The official script in Serbia is the Cyrillic script and the Latin script is used as well whereas both scripts are used on an equal footing in Montenegro. In the areas of SCG inhabited by national minorities, their languages and scripts are in official use as well.
Naive cynic 15:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, now I don't see how where have I seen article 23, anyway it's article 64:
The laws of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia governing the affairs of Ser-
bia and Montenegro shall be enforced as the laws of Serbia and Montenegro.
Upon creation of SCG, all relevant laws of FRY became laws of SCG. This includes laws which regulate use of official language. You may also note that SCG has not enacted any laws concerning use of flag, coat of arms, hymn, etc. yet all the insignia are used, with exactly the same justification. Nikola 20:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Holydays

Could someone confirm about Nov 29th being celebrated in Montenegro, and what is the correct name of the holyday. I changed the name to "Day of Republic", although I am not sure if it is correct. Saigon from europe 12:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Short history"

For a long time anonymous user is trying to put some kind of "short history" inside of this article as well as inside of History of Serbia and Montenegro: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In the 6th and 7th century the Serb peoples from the basin between the Oder and Vistula rivers migrated south and settled in the Balkans, which was then part of the Byzantine Empire. The Serbs fought many wars with the Byzantines and soon secured their independence. The Serbian ruler (tsar) with highest achievements was Stefan Dusan. He drafted the Serbian law codes and opened new trade markets. Serbia flourished, featuring one of the most evolved countries and cultures in Europe.
The throne eventually passed to Lazar Hrebeljanović. Lazar was confronted by a Turkish emissary carrying a declaration of war. Lazar marched his army onto the Field of the Kosovo (1389), which ended in a bloody draw. He turned back the invaders but was killed along with his entire army. Most of Serbia was engulfed by the Ottomans by the end of the 14th century. Belgrade fell to the Ottomans 7. Jul. 1521.
After enduring four centuries of Ottoman rule, Serbs raised in resistance in First Serbian Uprising (Serbian Први српски устанак). Famous leader of uprising was Đorđe Petrović, known much better for his nickname Karađorđe (Turkish for Black Đorđe). It started in February 1804 and ended in 1813 after the Serbian territory was overrun by far more powerful Turkish army, triple the strength of uprisers. Serbia achieved independence in 1878. It became a kingdom in 1882, and received its and democratic Constitution in 1888.
  1. This is described inside of other articles (History of Serbia, for example). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. If anonymous user wants to describe short history about relations between Serbia and Montenegro, then: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    1. This is not history of Serbs, but history of SCG. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    2. It can be said that relations between Serbia and Montenegro starts in 14th century as well as a lot of relations between two countries happened between 1804 and 1918. There is no any word about that. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

So, if anonymous user wants to make some short history of Serbia and Montenegro, (s)he should do it much better then through very bad history of Serbs. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Still, almost every article about a history of a country begins with ancient history or prehistory, even if there is no link whatsoever between early and current events. This includes Liechtenstein or Belgium. Nikola 13:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
You are right, but this "history" is very pure and it doesn't cover the most important parts of history of relations between Serbia and Montenegro. (Relation between Raska and Duklja/Zeta, relation between Serbia and Montenegro during 19. century, the first state union after the WWI etc.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This page was last updated on November 29, 2005 @ 19:51 pm.

--67.177.3.2 02:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)John Bob

COuld someone please tell me if they're splitting or not?

I couldn't find any info on it... Pure inuyasha 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am living in S&M and I don't know :) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Serbia and Montenegro agreed (illegaly but no one cares) that Montenegro can separate from Serbia after a democratic referendum. The government of Montenegro is saying that it is planning the referendum for this year (but it is saying so for past ten years), however it is already obvious that it won't be democratic. So, if they hold the referendum, legally, they won't be able to separate, but they will try anyway and probably succeed after being recognised by the USA. It is an interesting question whether EU will recognise them because it is pushing for the democratic referendum. Nikola 09:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Transfer to standard country template

Someone do it. Please. Thank you. :) --estavisti 05:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not acceptet from UN

The Provic Kosovo is in FR of Yougoslavia. This correct, but how it is now in wikipedia is better to write RS of Serbia.--Hipi Zhdripi 02:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok , I agree. However, it is not "RS of Serbia", it is just "RS" (Republic of Serbia). PANONIAN (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

New Image

I think is wilcomen--Hipi Zhdripi 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No argumet

No argumet!!! please dont inteprete the documents

Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 05:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

sprotect

I've sprotected the article for the moment. Complaints here, please William M. Connolley 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action. Regards, --Asterion 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, Ex Yugoslavia

Edit War, sock puppet, mytology ect. Beacos of thate we need to do:

English

Panonia and Ilir must be 2 temporaly administrators for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia . The page of Ex-Yougoslavia, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo they must be protceted temporelly till the status of Kosovo is not decided. Each user can let his work at the discussion page. These two administrators are going to contol this, if that work is according to the rezolution 1244 and if that must be put to the articel. This is a compromise. This has to do with project, not with sciecne. With the science you can not make compromise. With compromise, you can make a human Law. With the human Law you have chance to make science. I know that this was not planed in this project called Wikipedia. But for the sciene we must do that. With that, we are doing nothing else, just protecting Wikipedia from Edit Wars. This is the Law in Balkan: to protect the Children at War time. Im a Kosovar I dont hate no body, the only thing, what I hate is mytology in science.

Deutsch (German)

Panonia und Ilir muessen zeitweilig die beiden verantwortlichen Adminstratoren fuer Ex Jugoslawien / Artikel in Wikipedia sein. Die Seiten von Ex Jugoslawien, Serbien, Serbien und Montenegro und Kosovo muessen zeitweilig geschuetzt werden, bis der Status von Kosovo sich entschieden hat. Jeder Benutzer kann seine Arbeit auf der Diskussionsseite lassen. Die beiden Administratoren kontrollieren dies und wenn dies inhaltlich mit der Resolution 1244 zu vereinbaren ist, koennen sie entscheiden, ob es in den Artikel uebertragen werden soll. Das ist ein Kompromiss. Das hat mit dem Projekt zu tun, aber nicht mit Wissenschaft. Mit der Wissenschaft kann man keine Kompromisse machen. Mit Kompromissen kann man ein zwischenmenschliches Gesetz machen. Dieses Gesetzt hilft der Wissenschaft. Ich weiss, das so etwas nicht in diesem Wikipediaprojekt geplant war, aber fuer die Wissenschaft, im Namen der Wissenschaft, muessen wir das tun. Damit machen wir nichts, wir schuetzen nur Wikipedia vorm Bearbeitungskrieg von Seiten. Das ist das Gesetz vom Balkan: Die Kinder in Kriegszeiten zu verteidigen. Ich bin ein Kosovar und hasse niemanden. Die einzige Sache, die ich hasse, ist die Mythologie in Wissenschaft.

Importen material for the articel

This is not a mytologie but a argument:[1]

  • Director of the International Crisis Group in Serbia-Montenegro, James Lion, said that if Montenegro wants to enter the European Union in a shorter period of time, it should do so without Serbia.

Without comment this is not one country ther are two contries wich are in bound and they dont have one Capital city but two. This countries have a separetit ekonomy, police, Shcool syste, ect ewerithing but from Serbian Propaganda has bene prasentit als one.

  • The Montenegrin Police Administration has accused Predrag Bulatovic and his supporters of cursing at and insulting police officers who were working as security at the promotional conference of the supporters of the preservation of the federal union of Serbia-Montenegro held in Mojkovac yesterday.
  • 29 Aprill 2006: The Montenegrin Foreign Affairs Minister said that, in a televised debate regarding the relations between Belgrade and Podgorica, he hopes that Serbian officials will accept him at this time, in order to talk about further relations between the two independent states.

Getting ahead of things

How come this article is in the past tense, given only unofficial exit polls? wangi 22:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Young Wikipedians like CrnaGora... Always rushing things... --serbiana - talk 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


The results are not final until they are confirmed by the state referendum commission. Stop edit-warring over speculations. Thanks, Asterion talk to me 22:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I came on Wikipedia to look up background information about the referendum and I find this article crudely changed to the past tense. Counting is still going on, and while the result is looking reasonably clear, the union certainly hasn't been disolved yet. This is so amateurish, Wikipedia, so amateurish. 129.234.4.1 23:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please get over yourself.
What are you talking about? Changing the article to the past tense, without mention of why (the sentence about the referendum was deleted), and when the union hasn't even been dissolved yet is simply amateurish, don't you think? 129.234.4.1 00:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious? Amateurish? The fact that the article is being changed as the event unfolds shows how incredibly unamateurish Wikipedia is. Think about a regular encyclopidia that would change its info on this or any topic until the next edition, and they would charge for it! If you want old, unchanging, "professional-style" encyclopedia of information that is decided on by a few people instead of a rapidly evolving, all-encompassing, democratic forum of information, I suggest you look elsewhere. Helmandsare 03:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You ignoramus, of course I'm serious. My whole point was that just becuase the result of the referendum was looking relatively clear at the time the edit was made it certainly doesn't mean Serbia and Montenegro has been immediately consigned to the history books. We all know that one massive advantage of Wikipedia is the speed with which it can be updated to reflect recent developments, but when that facility is abused by over-enthusiastic editors who change everything in this article to make it look as if the union was dissolved before the result of the referendum had even been officially announced, Wikipedia appears very amateurish indeed. 129.234.4.1 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

thumb|right|200px

Yes, it definately is amatuerish. The issue at hand is not resolved at all. There has been no official action on part of either government. These are still only preliminary results. In fact, not all of the votes have been counted. There has been NO official, final and definitive result as of 03:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC). What would you say if during another election, perhaps in Britain or the US, Wikipedia refreshed the results every time the exit polls changed. Remember what happened in 1945, during the Truman-Dewey election? By the way, a few months ago, on the Serbia article, you reverted four of my edits, all at once, without reason, even though they were spaced out over a few days. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 03:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of amateurish, Truman beat Dewey in 1948, not 1945. WJC, 19:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that that little mistake was made in a comment on the talk page, used in illustration of an unconnected matter. The issue at hand is an amateurish error made in an article by people who ought to be reading Wikipedia instead of presuming they have sufficient knowledge and understanding to be editing it. 129.234.4.1 14:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The results are now official with 55.4% for independence. PANONIAN (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The political union still exists. The tense stays present until it is formally dissolved. --kingboyk 17:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (UK)

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia = Serbia and Montenegro?

Aren't these two separate (now historical, apparently) state systems that deserve separate articles? I should also note that the latter will now merit categorization in Category:Short-lived states.--Pharos 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, we should have two separate articles about Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006) and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992-2003). I think much of the content of the current Serbia and Montenegro article could be used in both. PANONIAN (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagree; I don't quite see the point. I don't think that the reasons that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia redirects to Serbia and Montenegro ceased to exist now. It was one state, with the same borders throughout, different name and slightly different political systems. And why repeat the information which is 90% shared? Duja 10:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just started new article about Federal Republic of Yugoslavia based on the this one. I do not agree that it was same country. More correct definition is that it were two countries with same borders. Serbia and Montenegro article should describe only events between 2003 and 2006, and another article that I started should describe situation between 1992 and 2003. Besides that, if we accept your view to have only one article then the natural name for it would be Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since for most of its existence it had this name. However, we still should retain some article about Serbia and Montenegro so the readers of Wikipedia could read something about what Serbia and Montenegro was. PANONIAN (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What was so different in situations before and after 2003? The contents of the article, remind you, are: 1 History 2 Political divisions 3 Geography 4 Demographics 5 Economy 6 Transportation. Of all that, only History and, to an extent, political divisions have something different. Call the article whatever you like but, again, there's no need to split it. Duja 13:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
...remind you, Yugoslavia since 1945 was called "People's Republic of Yugoslavia", "Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia" and "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", each time with different constitutions. Should we now split that also because they had different constitutions and different names? And each of those lasted much longer than S&M. Duja 13:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia had been around earlier, I'm sure we would have just moved Kazakh SSR to Kazakhstan for convenience sake, but with historical perspective the necessity for the two articles would become apparent. Now we have to consider how future history will see these two states: it will certainly see SM as a sort of transitional state between FRY and the imminent period of separation. The contents of the two article should not overlap too much; the bulk of it will be at the FRY article as that's where most of the history occured.--Pharos 10:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
If (in the long term) one is to be a redirect to another, it'd be more sensible to redirect Serbia and Montenegro to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, not the other way round. (But obviously not yet). Morwen - Talk 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, we must first agree about the question whether we should consider these two as two different countries or as one country with two names. Can somebody help with this problem? PANONIAN (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd consider it the same country (1992-2006?), just having changed it name in 2003. It may be better to get the Wiki Community to vote on this topic. GoodDay 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Except that the form of government also changed quite significantly, going from a strong federation to a weak confederation. I'm not saying we should have all the separate specialist articles like Transportation in... for both, but I do think at the least 'Serbia and Montenegro' deserves its own article separate from the 'Fderal Republic of Yugoslavia' article as in many ways it constitutes a distinctive state system.--Pharos 02:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree the the change in state system justifies separate articles. We didn't even change Passports and IDs in 2003, for God's sake. Why did the end of union's existence suddenly changed the principle according to which one was a redirect to other? Duja 08:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, some of my personal documents claim that I am still citizen of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but that does not mean that it is same country as Serbia-Montenegro. :) I agree with Pharos, the main article about the country should have name Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while we should also keep Serbia-Montenegro article dealing only with 2003-2006 time period. Of course, the articles dealing with transportanion in SCG, politics in SCG, etc, should not be doubled. They should be subarticles of FRY only. PANONIAN (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather that you put the issue to WP:RM than to do it unilaterally. Personally, I'd prefer the title "Serbia and Montenegro" (not to dwelve into reasoning). Duja 14:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What will this country be called now?

Serbia?--Greasysteve13 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This article does not at any point provide a comprehensive (or even close) summarization of the areas in which the governments of Serbia and Montenegro, respectively, cooperate or do not cooperate, which makes for an article that doesn't really inform the reader of the significance/scope of the State Union designation. Tomorrow, of course, this could be a moot point. Escheffel 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Escheffel, the problem is that the federation itself hardly even functions and the constitution is not the most respected one. I hope that now, it all ended, we will be able to get a better perspective on what worked and what didn't. Anyhow, yes, Republic of Serbia is legally continuing Serbia and Montenegro. So, tomorrow it will be Serbia and Montenegro :) --dcabrilo 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this country does not exist any more. So, this article will retain its name just it will not be geographical article any more, but historical. PANONIAN (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but according to the Montenegro article, independance has been voted on but not yet adopted. Therefore technically, Serbia and Montenegro is still a country and it's article should not've been put in the past tense. Small but important facts. User:SuperWikiman 8:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is why I did not yet changed name of Serbia and Montenegro in another articles that mention it. Seems that we will have to wait a little. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Serbia and CG are still in a union. What is the constitutional process for ending it (assuming that the preliminary referendum results hold)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Not sure, but we need to keep the present tense until the union is actually dissolved, just as we would wait until a president or prime minister is sworn in/appointed. Morwen - Talk 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It cannot be stated that the state union does not exist anymore, since the 55.4% Yes vote does not include 25000 ballots, which are still to be counted.

Serbia & Montenegro ARE seperated

As a citizen of former Serbia & Montenegro, I say that these 2 countries ARE seperated. There were the news on the TV that said that those 55.4% of positive votes for seperation of these 2 countries are enough to conclude that this union WILL be broken. News also said that during the next 3 days (during whom the votes will still be counted) the votes won't change much, so we could freely say that IT IS FINISHED. Boky 09:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The referendum gives Montenegro the right to declare independence. As far as I'm aware the declaration hasn't been made yet - until it is then Serbia and Montenegro still exists. Cynical 09:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Landlock issue is valid and very important for the article!

It is very valid and should be discussed in the article that Montenegro's breakaway was organized by foreign powers with the aim of landlocking Serbia. The fact that great powers always wanted to deny sea port access to Serbia is proven history, there were several balkan wars and armed annexations during 1880-1912 with this sole aim. Austro-Hungary was especially active in containing Serbia landlocked in order to prevent slavic alliance with Russia in the era of collapsing ottoman turkish empire. The onset of WWI was in no small part about the constant desire to destroy or marginalize Serbia. History teaches us the new isolation of Serbia will likely result in a new war, the serbs have been humiliated too much by the mighty, even though they kept the balkan united and chaos-free for 80+ years. The new fragmented balkan is like a hand grenade, where the many new mini-states are like splinters ready to explode and injure anyone nearby. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs).

That is true, the bosnian crisis of 1909 and Treaty_of_Berlin,_1878 machinations were all about slavic sea access. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs).
Well, gee, independence will not change the fact that Montenegro will still be a Slavic country with access to the sea. —Manlalakbay 14:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If it is important add it to the Serbia article, as this includes montenegro, which whatever way you look at it has a nice slab of medditeranean right in front of it. And also you said, "Austro-Hungary was especially active in containing Serbia landlocked in order to prevent slavic alliance with Russia in the era of collapsing ottoman turkish empire.", surely these things are completey irrelavent to the recent break up of Serbia and Montenegro, as there is not ottoman empire, and the chances of Russia formin and alliance with serbia are not only slim but pointless, what would they be allying over? Philc TECI 19:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Except that Serbia and Russia are centuries long natural allies and Russia is already getting strong very swiftly on oil, gas and ore revenues skyrocketed by the chinese economy. Soon Russia will reclaim its place as a major military power and Serbia will be there to welcome them. The EU explicitly excludes Russia form European integration, while welcoming Turkey and other pagan countries. This makes it impossible for Serbia to come closer to EU even if they behave well as the west wishes, as they will not betray their long term ally in Moscow and the turks are their historic arch-enemy. (Serbia and Russia are the only triple-slavic country: genetic slav, cyrillic, orthodox = holiness untainted by western lifestyle). The UN better require a land-swap or corridor from montenegro before accepting the new country, in order to prevent future conflicts by granting the serbs a useful sea exit. The balkan is a barrel of gunpower ready to explode and has always been for many many decades. I am hungarian and my country hairline avoided getting dragged into the 1990's balkan conflict. No gesture is too expensive to maintain peace in the Balkan, if there is a new war there, that will be a world war as Putin's Russia is getting into shape once again, not the agonizer it was back in 1999.
>Russia forming an alliance with serbia, what would they be allying over?
Russia would love to have a major naval base in the Adriatic, so the turkish military dictatorship cannot control the russian fleet's access to the mediterranean sea in time of peace and conflict. This fordward post would give Russia stance to effectively oppose US Navy threats and gunboat diplomacy against arab and north african countries (like bombardments of Lebanon and Libya in the 80's etc.) Russia is already funding with aims for new, major aircraft carriers for 2012-2015.
OK. But the issue of Serbia sea access over Montenegro should be mentioned at least in the history sections of SFRY, FRY/SiM, Serbia, Montenegro... Alinor 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What will happen with this article now?

Since the countries have split, should the article now be named "Former Serbia and Montenegro"? I know it may sound stupid, but it's like with Former Yugoslavia, right? Serbia has its own article and so does Montenegro. So... The Runescape Junkie 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's fairly obvious, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and State Union of Serbia and Montenegro will be chapters in the histories of Serbia and Montenegro. The only issue is which name to pick (the former name actually existed for more years than the latter). --Joy [shallot] 17:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One more day

Tomorrow in 20:00 hours by the local time Montenegro will officially declare its independence, thus Serbia-Montenegro will be former state and we will have to change all articles related to it. I hope that more Wikipedia users will participate in this because it is pretty big job. PANONIAN (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Montenegro need to enact some legislation before it is actually independent or is that is what is happening tomorrow? So independence happens before all the issues are resolved. If I remember correctly Czecholsovakia split with a timetable (see Velvet Divorce). I suppose that Montenegro has been pretty much independent for the past 9 years or so (except diplomatically, militarily, sports etc) Phil -- 18:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I just read in newspaper that Montenegro will officially declare its independence tomorrow. I think that future history books will mark that day as end of Serbia-Montenegro, no matter that it will take some time to fully dissolve its entire structure. PANONIAN (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As Serbia is taking the place of Serbia and Montenegro in all the international bodies I assume we can simply delete "and Montenegro" from the relevent pages or add an appropriate footnote. Once Montenegro itself becomes a member (for example of UEFA, FIFA, CoE, UN etc) then it can be added. Phil -- 12:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a "Serbia and Montenegro" team in the World Cup this year? Will it stay as the "Serbia and Montenegro" team, or will it compete as simply the "Serbia" team? john k 16:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/r/Talk%7ESerbia_and_Montenegro_Archive_1_34ae.html"