Talk:Serbia and Montenegro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Serbia and Montenegro is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Portal:Serbia
 Serbia Portal
Serbia and Montenegro is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Portal:Montenegro
 Montenegro Portal
Serbia and Montenegro is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
History Portal
Geography Portal
Atlas Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).
Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WP Former Countries - Things to do:

Contents

[edit] Independence

I've changed the introduction to past-tense; the rest of the article now needs the same work done. --Golbez 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking I think the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro still exists, it's just that Serbia is now the only member (until it declares independence itself). BovineBeast 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it does not exist any more. According to the Constitutional chapter of Serbia-Montenegro, if one of the states leave the union, the other state became the successor of the union, thus, when Montenegro declared independence, the Serbia-Montenegro was in fact transformed into Serbia. So, Serbia will not declare its independence, it will only adjust its laws in accordance with the current situation. PANONIAN (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly the news sources I've been reading have indicated that Serbia intends to declare independence. Besides, the constitution doesn't say that at all. For a start, the constitution speaks of 'leaving the Union' rather than 'dissolving the Union', and it only says that Serbia (not the remaining state) will be the successor to International agreements. BovineBeast 09:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, you are right, Serbia will declare its independence tomorrow, but, what is one day more? :) PANONIAN (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Minor question : Should all links to Serbia and Montenegro that refer to a town, place, current event being in this country, e.g. Mr. Xcic now lives in Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro - be changed to Serbia // Montenegro, or should we wait a little while longer ? Travelbird 12:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I say change them, except in the few cases where someone was born IN Serbia and Montenegro. --Golbez 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] currency

In the economy section an indication of currency need to be put in. My guess would be USD or S. & M. currency but I cant say. Thanks ----------Ballchef 09:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote along ethnic lines

We currently have this statement in the article:

The vote was mostly along ethnic [citation needed] lines, with "Montenegrins" and ethnic minorities voting for independence, while "Serbs" voted to retain the state union.

Does this make any sense? Is there any way, besides self-identification, to determine which people in Montenegro were "ethnic Montenegrins," and which were "ethnic Serbs"? Are there any objective criteria here at all? Isn't this like saying that "The vote in Austria on anschluss with Germany was mostly on ethnic lines, with 'Austrians' and ethnic minorities voting for independence, while 'Germans' voted to unify with Germany?" john k 16:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The percentage of the population who voted for independence, some 56% roughly outlines most of the the percentage of people to declare themselves Montenegrin with the inclusion of Albanians, Sandžak/Bosniaks etc. and others who benefit from becoming a more significant minority so that they later cry for greater autonomy (a bid for independence). The percentage which voted for unity is in approximation to the figure which declares itself Serb as well as the few Montenegrins (and fewer still Yugoslavs) who wished to remain. This is not proof by any account, but people in and around Montenegro know these facts only too well. Ragusan 04.06.06
It seems like this is kind of a tautology, though. Montenegrins who call themselves "Serbs" vote to stay in a union with Serbia, and those who call themselves "Montenegrins" vote for independence? But Montenegrins who want to stay in a union with Serbia call themselves "Serbs" and Montenegrins who want independence call themselves "Montenegrins." It's completely circular. There's no ethnic difference between a person in Montenegro who calls themselves "Serbian" and one who calls themselves "Montenegrin" - it is already basically a political characterization. john k 19:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, this is like saying (in a hypothetical situation - obviously there was no vote in real history) that the vote on Anschluss in Austria was divided along ethnic lines, with Austrians voting for independence and Germans voting for Anschlus. Or that the people of Moldova's feelings towards unification with Romania are divided along ethnic lines, with ethnic Romanians supporting union and Moldovans opposing it. Whether someone from Montenegro adopts a "Serbian" or "Montenegrin" identity is entirely political - there is no actual ethnic difference between a "Serb" and a "Montenegrin". So saying that the political decision was made along ethnic lines makes no sense. It was made along lines of political identity, which is generally how political elections are decided. john k 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem was with the word "ethnic" - that should be "national". Nationality is opted for, ethnicity isn't. --Joy [shallot] 20:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You're completely right, John, but, as described in Montenegrins, the ethnic (in appropriate sense of the word) division among Montenegrin Slavs (let me use this word) has political causes, not cultural or racial or... Like Joy said, it seems to be the rendering of ethnic that causes trouble, but I disagree with him about semantics: like I say, and nationality and ethnic group articles confirm, "nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country" (they're all Montenegrins by nationality) and "An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry". So, this is kind of tautology, and could be rephrased. Your comparison with Moldovan case is entirely correct. Duja 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
True, but then, ethnicity is irrelevant once nationality is declared different to previous. Save for when the race is totally different, with perhaps a Sub-Saharan African choosing to be Vietnamese, or a White European choosing to identify with the Javanese of Indonesia, it is impossible to point to another human being and say "he is not from my ethnic group", sadly it just happens that when discussing Balkan politics, the various nations living in close proximity are considered ethnicly different even though their identity is based on Slavic descent. Given that Montenegrins and Serbs, like Macedonians and Croats have something of a Slavic past, I agree that the election in Montenegro was not based on ethnic grounds, merely national, hence political. But I will say one thing, there is something of a Montenegrin/Serb distribution in Montenegro. It isn't just a case of a typical Bosnian town in which 46% Catholics call themselves Croat, 22% Muslims Bosniak and so and on so forth left, right and centre. Those with affiliation to the title Serb are mostly concentrated in northern municipalities, particularly the old Sanjak of Novibazaar towns which when liberated from the Ottomans attached themselves to Montenegro more recently than for example Cetinje, which served as a Montenegrin city state for centuries. Evlekis 5 June 2006
This is not very accurate. There are 32% of Serbs in Montenegro and 44.5% of the population voted for independence. This is an error of 12.5%, so it is a generalization that is not correct. Obviously, a number Montenegrins/Bosniaks/Muslims/Albanians/Croats must have voted for the union as well. This makes the guessing game more difficult, although the ethnic component was certainly important, but not crucial - or else the result would have been 68%:32%, instead of 55.5%:44.5%. Finally, these are not "people who opt for Montenegrin ethnicity" or "people who opt for Serbian ethnicity", but Montenegrins and Serbs, as they themselves declared in the national census. Montenegrins 13 June 2006

Goodness me, it is a long time since I've been here. I know the percentage of Serbs meant that some Montenegrins did vote for unity. After all, the country wasn't Greater Serbia or Greater Montenegro, it was based on a union, so much so that it was a successor to an earlier even bigger union. There was every reason in the world why a Bosniak or Montenegrin would have wished to remain united. My point is something else, when I say that one "opts for that nationality" I mean just that. That's why he is a Montenegrin or a Serb in the first place, because he has chosen it, whatever his parents are. The continuity of Serbs, Montenegrins, Croats running down the decades has depended upon every generation choosing to keep the name and adhering to some traditions: a Serb who lived next door to a Montenegrin, both from Berane (a realistic example) are not two different species. I'm being neutral in saying that someone has chosen Serbian nationality because if it were known who was he, it is possible to have irate Bosniaks angered that his parents were Muslim, disgusted Croats frustrated by the fact that he is a Catholic from Dubrovnik, or possibly still livid Macedonians who knew for a fact that the declared nationality of his parents was Macedonian, regardless if Muslim religion from Dubrovnik. We've all followed censa and have seen how individuals' ethnic affiliation can change with every submission. Evlekis 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography and past tense

The geography section doesn't read very well now it's been converted to past tense. "The country's terrain was extremely varied" is particularly odd: it sounds more like it's been turned into a uniform desert from that sentence than that the country broke up. Morwen - Talk 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree.... in many ways this article is laid out like an article about a current country rather than a historical one.
Another thing: now that SCG is history, I just realized that we don't have an article on the FRY. We have a separate article on the SFRY, but the FRY period is presented only on the history section of the SCG, which doesn't make sense because the SCG itself is also history now. So I suggest rewriting this article into something that is equally about the FRY and the SCG, so that it can serve as an overview of the entire 1992 - 2006 period. -- ran (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization of defunct entities

This article needs to be fully transformed to that of a defuct state, not an existing country. In the sequence of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes -> Kingdom of Yugoslavia -> Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -> Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -> Serbia and Montenegro we are mainly interested in the transformation of the political entity and its place in history, rather than unchanging, non-political topics such as Geography. For a comparable situation, see the articles we have at Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Great Britain, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (Note that the last does not simply redirect to United Kingdom) In all these articles, the focus is on history, most notably political history, and not unchanging non-political topics such as Geography.

I propose that we

  • split Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from this article because the two entities had fundamentally different governmental systems and were seperated by a clear split in history; and
  • purge material not of relevance to the political entity, such as Geography, photographs not taken during 2003-2006, listing of highways. This material can be mentioned in the country articles of the successor states.
  • replace and orphan useless daughter articles that consist nothing but CIA factbook data with a disambiguation page: Demographics of Serbia and Montenegro (Serbia and Montenegro were listed separately to begin with, so we're not losing anything), Communications in Serbia and Montenegro, but keep useful articles such as Foreign relations of Serbia and Montenegro and History of Serbia and Montenegro (which could be merged here since it is not very long and anything to do with S&M is inherently history).

--Jiang 07:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. -- ran (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've done the following:
-- ran (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
NO, it should not be merged, because the country did exist at a time. More important it existed untill now. So it's (maybe) the first country that ceased to existed whil Wikipedia was on the net.
This means Wikipedia has build a good article about this country like all other nations. So that's why it should not go lost or be merged in to another article!
User: Allard Places: 13 June 2006

I don't agree on merging the articles. Serbia and Montenegro is NOT the same as Yugoslavia. One belonged to the other once, but not anymore. It is not good to merge the articles in my opinion (as an example, you cannot merge the article of the history of Texas with the history of the USA, only because Texas became part of the US).

[edit] Say...

...anyone remember this mailing list post ;D? 68.39.174.238 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps the sub-articles history ,geography etc should be deleted and the content inserted into the new countries' articles as soon as independence is formalized. Most "former countries" don't have all these detailed articles either. After all, the history/geography would be EXACTLY the same as those for the new countries.

[edit] FRY split

FRY and SiM are the SAME country. Only the name is different. Do not mix FRY with SFRY. FRY should redirect to SiM. Alinor 14:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That was my opinion (i.e. that the split is unnecessary), too, but I was outnumbered. Duja 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget it. SCG and FRY have different history. FRY 1992 - 2003 SCG 2003 - 2006. Also, they are two different unions created. Serbia and Montenegro were part of FRY but wanted to make a looser union, hence the union of SCG. No duh! Milo 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Again: should we split SFRY article to DFY (Democratic Federal of Yugoslavia, 1943-1946), FPRY (Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia 1946-1963), and SFRY (Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1963-1991) just because they had different official names and constitutions? Duja 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
i dont see why not; we could better elaborate on the political situation--Jiang 06:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that stuffing DFY and FPRY under the explicit title of SFRY is wrong. But, that problem actually has two solutions - either we get someone with a decent knowledge of those particular states and events to write decent new articles about the smaller two (like User:Dejvid dir for Kingdom of Yugoslavia when we needed that); or we rename the SFRY article to something simple such as Second Yugoslavia. I actually used that in the new category name and it seems to have worked out fairly well. --Joy [shallot] 11:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Serbia and Montenegro were NOT part of FRY. They were THE FRY. This is the same country. Only a different name and constitution. By your logic, Milo, we should make different articles for each correction to the constitution of each country... (like Duja said). The history is the following: from the SFRY emerged 5 states: Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, Macedonia, FRY (FRY is NOT a succesor state to SFRY - it even applied for fresh UN seat in 2000). Then every one of these 5 countries adopted multiple changes to its constitution. On of the very notable changes of course is the FRY constitution change that even renamed the country to SiM. But just because this is very notable doesn't mean that we should separate the country in two articles! I propose speedy revert of FRY to redirect to SiM. Alinor 06:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, elaboration on the political situation can be done in the sub-articles like "History of SiM". Alinor 06:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the convention to give successor states, as one political entity succeeding the other, separate articles. we have French First Republic, French Second Republic, French Third Republic, French Fourth Republic, and French Fifth Republic not all redirecting to France. As a result, geographical borders and historical continuity is itself not a reason for keeping things in the same article, while a name change is highly suggestive of a state succession, even though this is highly variable.

Subarticles like "History of SiM" do not need to exist: everything about SiM is by default "history"--Jiang 07:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point; however, the French articles are fairly long by themselves and present subarticles of History of France rather than subarticles of France. OTOH, look at the mess at Czechoslovakia, which resembles FRY/S&M situations more closely: apart from "main" Czechoslovakia, there are short Czecho-Slovakia, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.
However, since you and User:Ran have done a rather nice job on clearing up the article scopes (far better than in the first "split" of FRY article)—although they could use some more cleanup— I won't push the issue anymore; consider it settled AFAIC. Duja 10:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the FRY article was already redirected to SiM. It looks like there was such agreement reached before. Now, after the Montenegro referendum (that has nothing to do with the link between SiM and FRY) - someone splitted them again. So, for me it looks like the new split is going contrary to the previous consensus reached. Alinor 13:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There were considerable constitutional differences between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. I see no reason why we should not have separate articles on them. Also, seeing as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed for 10 or 11 years, and the state union of Serbia and Montenegro lasted for only three, and no longer exists, if there's any redirecting going on, it should be in the other direction. But I basically agree with Jiang here. john k 14:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also for separate articles. OzLawyer 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Look for a smaller discussion here Talk:Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#Split. IMHO the period of usage of one name or the other is not decisive in this case. SiM was the later name, so that is why the article should be with this heading. FRY is just a former name of the SiM state. If there was no Montenegro separation (thus dissolving of the SiM state) we would still have a SiM article and FRY redirect to SiM. I don't see why we should change article names, scopes, etc. because of the Montenegro referendum. SiM is just going to "historical status" and that's it. Alinor 08:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's focus on product, not process. I would argue that even if Serbia and Montenegro still existed, we should still keep an article on FRY to describe the entity that was...but this is a moot point. I don't see the precedent or logic behind naming an article at "the later name". The setup has worked well in other state successions so I don't see why a merged article is preferable. We have separate articles for name changes: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland --> United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and for constitutional changes: French Fourth Republic --> French Fifth Republic, so I don't see what is the problem with having the separate articles for both constitutional and name changes. And where do you draw the line between having separate articles and not having separate articles? What is the criteria. --Jiang 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
To those that are opposed to the split: take a look at the last version of the SiM article just before I split FRY out:
Serbia and Montenegro (Serbian: Србија и Црна Гора/Srbija i Crna Gora, abbreviated as СЦГ/SCG), State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, abbreviated as SUSM), was a confederated union of Serbia and Montenegro, which existed between 2003 and 2006. The two republics, both of which are former republics of the SFR Yugoslavia, initially formed in 1992 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbian: Savezna Republika Jugoslavija, abbreviated as СРЈ/SRJ/FRY). In 2003, the FRY was reconstituted as a State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.
If you think that SiM and FRY are the same country, then why was SiM introduced right from the start as a country that existed from 2003 to 2006? Why was the FRY introduced right from the start as a state that preceded SiM? Since SiM and FRY are introduced in this way from the outset, why was FRY a redirect to SiM?
When I read the intro paragraph, the only logical conclusion I could draw was that based on Wikipedia's own definition of SiM, FRY should not be a redirect to it. -- ran (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support the split Avala 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support having two different articles for FRY and SiM. —Nightstallion (?) 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support merging articles for FRY and SiM Bojan 11:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Conditional support for merging the articles for FRY and SiM on the condition that it was rewritten / presented as a history article. The article would have to conform more in style with that of a history article (ie take out the geography, demographics, economy and other similar sections and focus more on the chronological history, see e.g. the French Third Republic, Weimar Republic or, perhaps the best comparison, Czechoslovakia.Osli73 09:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support for merging the articles. S&M is history, so that article should be written in historical style.Space Invaders 11:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. I support the merging of the articles. --Teemu Leisti 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Actually, on second thought, I don't. What I do support now is keeping the FRY and the SiM articles separate, and linking to the SiM article from Yugoslavia. That article already refers to three historical entities: the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (= the FRY article). Historically speaking, SiM is really a coda to Yugoslavia, even though the name doesn't include "Yugoslavia". --Teemu Leisti 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. I am against a merger of this article with the article about the FRY. Three years ago, I set out a vision for a set of articles on the Kingdom, SFRY, FRY, and SCG. This has been done in good ways since then. My arguements for separate articles is based upon two factors. Before the election in 2000, the FRY was basicly shunned by the rest of the world for obvious reasons. This US view on the FRY was made known in this manner:
Serbia and Montenegro have asserted the formation of a joint independent state, but this entity has not been formally recognized as a state by the US; the US view is that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) has dissolved and that none of the successor republics represents its continuation.

I feel people and Wikipedans who are using old data for research will get tripped up looking for data on the FRY look for a article, but find SCG. The sum up, the FRY had a great deal of history from 1992 until they came in from the cold in 2000-01. A good article should detail this.

Now on to my second point. I have read the Charter SCG adopted at the State Union's founding. It seems the framers of the document seemed to think the new State Union as a replacement for the FRY. Here are some examples:

Art. 59:

The property of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia required for the operation of the institutions of Serbia and Montenegro shall be the property of Serbia and Montenegro.

The property of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia abroad shall be the property of Serbia and Montenegro.

The property of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia located in the territory of the member states shall be the property of the member states on the territorial principle.

Art. 63:

Upon the entry into force of the Constitutional Charter, all the rights and duties of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia shall be transferred to Serbia and Montenegro in line with the Constitutional Charter.

Art. 64:

The laws of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia governing the affairs of Serbia and Montenegro shall be enforced as the laws of Serbia and Montenegro.

The laws of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia governing the affairs other than those of Serbia and Montenegro shall be enforced as the laws of the member states pending the adoption of the new regulations by the member states except for the laws which the Assembly of the member state concerned decides not to enforce.

(emphasis is mine.)

After reading these parts of the Charter and US Gov documents of the 1992 to 2000-01 period, it seems to me that the SCG was a completely new attempt at picking up the pieces of what was left of the SFRY. In short, SCG and the FRY were not the same. - Thanks, Hoshie | 08:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

8. Support merger - KSCS article is part of KY and DFY and FPRY are part of SFRY.  AjaxSmack  00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alinor said that the FRY was "NOT as successor state to SFRY", however, from 1992 until 2000 the FRY did claim to be the successor state to the SFRY and had wished to inherit the SFRY's seat in the UN (which the UN didn't accept). The FRY only applied for a fresh UN seat in 2000 only because there was a major change in government (and thus policy) in the FRY. Thus for most of its history (1992 - 2000 or eight years) the FRY claimed to be a successor to the SFRY and only in its final 3 years did it drop this claim after which it became reconstituted as Serbia-Montenegro (which itself implicitly claimed to be the successor state to the FRY through its constitution). I don't see why the articles have to be merged however....it seems odd to want to merge these but still have United Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as separate articles. All of the 3 different British states were monarchies, with the same national anthem, motto, system of government, and currency (and in the case of the last two, the same flag) the only difference being in the extent of the territory. In fact there was much more of a difference between Serbia-Montenegro than between UK Gr. Britain and Ireland and UK. Gr. Britain and Northern Ireland (between 1922 and the present) since the "UK Gr. Britain and Ireland" was only officially replaced by "UK Gr. Britain and Northern Ireland" a full 5 years after (southern) Ireland had left the Union, so literally almost all that happened in 1927 was a name change (the coat of arms remained unchanged). In addition, if a simple re-naming is not enough to warrant a separate article then Zaire should redirect to Democratic Republic of the Congo (and the difference between FRY and Serbia-Montenegro is more than just a name, there was also a difference in how the constituent parts related to each other in the federal FRY and looser Serbia-Montenegro). AjaxSmack mentions the KSCS being a part of the KoY and DFY and FPRY being part of SFRY, but as Jiang would probably agree, those precedents are a part of the problem not examples to be followed. Ideally there should be separate articles for DFY and FPRY unless everyone here who supports the merger of Serbia-Montenegro and FRY would also supports the merger of: 1) Zaire and DR Congo, 2) UK of Gr. Britain, UK of Gr. Britain and Ireland and UK of Gr. Britain and Northern Ireland and 3) the French 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Republic articles with France and so forth and so forth. 72.27.72.163 05:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Were there ever FRY or S&M flags with coat of arms on them?

I have seen the official flag of the old Kingdom of Yugoslavia and saw that it had a coat of arms very similar to that of the FRY/S&M. I have looked a lot of places, however I have not seen any official FRY/S&M flags with the coat of arms on them. Do no FRY/S&M flags have the coat of arms on them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.163.158 (talk • contribs).

No, except maybe the president's standarta, but one rarely sees it. Duja 06:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Keep this as a History Article

This article should be kept as a History Article. I disagree that it should be merged with another historical article. This state was a seperate state from the old Yugoslavia. During the Serbia and Montenegro period , Yugoslavia was dropped!

Agree with a separate article. Can be linked to the Yugoslavia article. -- Ryanjo 03:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Either way, the article needs to/should be rewritten to conform more in style with that of a history article (ie take out the geography, demographics, economy and other similar sections and focus more on the chronological history, see e.g. the French Third Republic, Weimar Republic or, perhaps the best comparison, Czechoslovakia.Osli73 09:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree too... --Wladimir 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree.--Jusjih 08:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Me too, Serbia and Montenegro was in my eyes a seperate entity to Yugoslavia. Jamandell (d69) 21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yugoslavia really ceased to be Yugoslavia after Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia left, what was left was Greater Serbia really and the name was gradually even abandoned by Serbia, if it was going to be merged with anything surely it would be better to merge it into the article about Serbia after all the overwhelming majority of the population were in Serbia which had close to 99% of the total population.--Lord of the Isles 20:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Serbia and Montenegro topics

Template:Serbia and Montenegro topics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] 23:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCG is in Area and population of European countries.

Area and population of European countries

why is serbia & montenegro still there? Pure inuyasha 02:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

lfjdfogh;drktlubj'pdrgpoiu sgsv nedhrgklvu hdf;kugvu;esklgvbhb.kmfrvghb.kjfdgvbh;kjvxb

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. -- Chuq 07:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I Strongly Oppose this. Just because the country doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean it doesn't deserve it's own article. --'GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 09:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well get to work writing articles because the Democratic Federation of Yugoslavia and Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia are both part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes is included with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in one article. -  AjaxSmack  00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How

I would like to know how Serbia & Montenegro and Yugoslavia are different coutries, as it seems like the only differences are a change in name, and a removal of a coat of arms. What else had changed? Please will someone tell me!

The balance of powers between the constituent republics and the Federal Union changed significantly. AndrewRT - Talk 23:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of link

I removed the government link since it's outdated (links now the serbian gov.)--Petrovic-Njegos 14:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Debt

What happens to the debt of Serbia and Montenegro now? Is it all inherited by Serbia? 206.45.175.201 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)En

I believe that shortly after independence Serbia and Montenegro met to come to a financial settlement. I believe debts were included in this settlement. - Thanks, Hoshie | 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... ah.. no. --PaxEquilibrium 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominate for this artical to be deleted

i nominate this artical to be deleted because the two republics of Serbia and Montenagro are two seprate country's now and their is no need for this artical anymore. --Marbus2 5 08:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. It's an historical article now, so what? —Nightstallion (?) 08:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Erm... West Germany, Saar, Rhodesia, and for that matter Yugoslavia are not "around" anymore but I can't see their deletion requests going down well doktorb wordsdeeds 15:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

How about a merge to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? It seems weird that the two are separate articles (they're not even that long). --PaxEquilibrium 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it. They're separate entities. —Nightstallion (?) 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they should be merged. Legally and constitutionally they were quite different entities. We have separate articles for the historical entities of the Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom so I think we should do the same here. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am in favor — but maybe a best alternative would be a name that could embrace both periods of History, maybe something like History of Serbia and Montenegro (1992-2006), Serbian-Montenegrin state (1992-2006) or Serbian-Montenegrin union.--MaGioZal 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I vote against the merger. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And I don't see who and why has split the articles. SCG and FRY are one and the same country with different names. I'd add that SCG was not a "confederated union" of Serbia and Montenegro as this article claims. Nikola 21:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About meaningless “See also” links — and external links, too

First of all, let’s face the essencial fact: Yugoslavia and Serbia-Montenegro are former countries that don’t exist anymore.

OK. Second: if this is a self-evident truth, I think this article should be reformed to match in a better way to a defunct country, not to an existing one.

So, I can’t see any reasons to maintain the folowing links in the “See also” section:

Because they’re just disambiguation pages, and as such it shoudn’t be cited as a specific link — it’s simply meaningless, and it doesn’t add any new or relevant information to the article.

Now, let’s see the “External links” section. To a country that is no more, is more relevant to add to this section links refered to maps and some history, like these:

Sincerely, I think these links are more relevant to most of the English-knowning people around the world interested about Serbia and Montenegro than religious sites written in Serbian Cyrillic (ununderstandable in language and alphabet for most people who browse English Wikipedia) like Projekat Rastko: Biblioteka srpske kulture (It’s really hard to understand why this link was placed in a special “General links” section) and the co-related Vijesti Fondacije Rastko-Boka, Herceg-Novi, Boka Kotorska. I am suspicious if these links should even be in this article, since they seems to me to contradict WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOS-L#Foreign-language sites rules.

Anyway… I’ve tried since yesterday to make modifications to the article based on the assumptions above, but the problem is that editors like Lord Eru (talk • contribs) and Laughing Man (talk • contribs) has been reverting all my edits sometimes just one minute after, giving no explanation to a and even accusing me of vandalism — which is not my intention, really.

Well, I am also very suspicious about the utility of placing the “sister projects” template, the “Black Sea Economic Cooperation” template and the links to Demographic history of Kosovo, Demographic history of Vojvodina and Demographic history of Montenegro.--MaGioZal 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; many of those links are semi-defunct and/or not relevant to the former country (although I can see why bad faith is assumed). Duja► 08:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/r/Talk%7ESerbia_and_Montenegro_d21b.html"