Talk:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Powers of each nation

In the SFRY how much control do each member state have over its own domestic issues and how much was dictated from above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.112.38 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional status

Nikola, when you say "had no special status" it's ambiguous and potentially misleading because this part was actually the Social Republic of Serbia, the others were autonomous under Serbia. I remember we used to call it "uža Srbija" in school, meaning "narrower Serbia" but that doesn't sound too good in English. --Shallot 10:23, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well no, it was not actually SRS, but only a part of it that was not an autonomous province. I don't see that 'had no special statrus' is ambiguous, if you have some better wording apply it. But the status must be explained, if not, whatever you say will mislead anyone not previously informed that this part was also an autonomous province. Nikola 11:29, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. Can we simply say SR Serbia "had these two additional provinces" rather than "was further divided into"? --Shallot 14:18, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
In addition to what? They were as much part of Serbia as the central part. BTW, we surely can't go without mentioning it as some people will think that Serbia consists of only Kosovo and Vojvodina. Perhaps we could say "Part of Serbia (oftenly called "Serbia proper" that was neither in Vojvodina nor in Kosovo was not an autonomous province." and leave everyone puzzled. Or perhaps the topic is so complicated that it deserves an article on its own. Nikola 05:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It seems there isn't a copy of the 1963/1974 Yugoslav constitutions available online and I can't be arsed to go to a library, so I'll defer the judgement on how autonomous they were to you. :) --Shallot 12:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I have some good news! I scanned and OCRed the whole SFRY constitution from 1974; it took me 14 days to complete, but now all of 406 articles are available on-line at Slovene Wikipedia as Ustava SFRJ (1974). Have fun! --Romanm 20:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Great!!!! :DD So, regarding this, "Socialisti?na federativna republika Jugoslavija je zvezna dr?ava kot dr?avna skupnost prostovoljno zdru?enih narodov in njihovih socialisti?nih republik ter socialisti?nih avtonomnih pokrajin Kosova in Vojvodine v sestavi Socialisti?ne republike Srbije." Nikola 05:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
So, yeah, if I guess-read Slovenian correctly, the others were autonomous under Serbia, like I said before. I think we should simply omit the mention of the naming of the central part in this page because it's already dealt with on its page. --Shallot 10:57, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Using redirects

Shallot, instead of linking directly to the Serbia and Montenegro page or allowing the FRY page to redirect, maybe we could put a short explanation of the connection between FRY and Serbia and Montenegro on the FRY page and continue linking to that from here. Tim Ivorson 19:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That occured to me as well, though I wasn't sure if people would think that such a short page would be better replaced with a redirect... I guess we could rid the current S&M page of a fair bit of historic baggage if we moved it to the FRY page. Nikola Smolenski, are you watching this, what do you think? :) --Shallot 20:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] National motto

Wasn't bratstvo i jedinstvo unofficial really? Certainly a popular phrase, but I doubt it was codified. --Shallot 20:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it was unofficial, too. This is what I also wrote in the first version of the table, but someone seems to leave "unofficial" out, obviously. --Romanm 20:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
AFAIK, "bratstvo jedinstvo" was just one of the slogans used to express the ideology of the socialist Yugoslavia, and not a national motto in any sense. I think this should be removed, or ideally dealt with somewhere else. Zocky 20:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
My first version of the table listed "Bratstvo in enotnost" as unofficial motto; ie. of course it was not official (although sintagme "bratstvo in enotnost" appears several times in the Yugoslav constitution), but if there was some motto-candidate, this would be the one. I suggest to mark it "unofficial" again and leave it as it is. --Romanm 21:23, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
No, I think that it's pointless to invent or approximate national mottos when there are none. It's like pronouncing red or blue to be the unofficial national colour - if there is no official colour, the unofficial colour could be any colour. Zocky 22:05, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
UK, for example doesn't have official flag or hymn, yet unofficial ones are listed in the table. By the way, I am neutral about this. Nikola 07:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
That might be true, for a country like UK, which also has no written constitution and whose flag and motto are several centuries old. I don't think it's a comparable situation. Zocky 23:09, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, this motto was only half a century old. But as I said, I don't care, remove it if you wish, mark it as unofficial if you don't. Nikola 23:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Avala's edit

Avala, Slovene and Macedonian were also official languages of the SFRY. You also removed the map of the country showing the political entities and rephrased the passage on Serbia so that it's not clear that the autonomous provinces had any special status in the federation. For this reasons I reverted the page. Please discuss these issues here before you act. --Romanm 13:58, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

They were official on the paper. But ok leave them. Draw the new picture for ne table. Old one is "buggy". Also I just copied the info for Serbia. I will revert and leave it to you to draw the new picture(just change numbers (old one was bad-serbia,croatia,bih,slovenia,macedonia and montenegro by size i think that is the order) Best wishes Avala 16:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC) If you want you can change info for Serbia so that everything can be clear.

Avala, Slovenian and Macedonian were official on paper (ie. constitution) and in real life. As for your other changes:

  • the original list of republics was in alphabetic order, but you changed that to sort them by area. IMHO sorting them alphabeticaly is the way to go, since this is the way they were sorted in the constitution and is also the way to sort other entities; see U.S. states, for example.
  • you omitted the part about "uža Srbija" and said that it was called "Central Serbia". I think that the usual English name for "uža Srbija" is "Serbia proper" or "Narrower Serbia". This was discussed on Talk:Serbia some weeks ago.
  • the picture was just fine, I don't see why you removed it from the page? If the boundaries between autonomous provinces and other part of Serbia bother you, we can change them to dashed line so that it'll be more obvious that they belonged together.
  • the new table looks bad, especially on small screens. In generaly I prefered the old layout of this page.

I'd like to ask you and especialy the other users to comment this before I revert, so that I won't start an edit war. --Romanm 08:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

First about old "table". I think that majority of today users have 17" screens on which that old text was going over the picture. This one is much better for 17"screen with 1024x768 which is about 80-90% of users. You can buy 17" to change your 15" or 14" for only 100-150euros.:) I don`t really care for the line but OK if you want to do it all right. I already told you that you can format the table if you want(order it alphabetically or whatever).--Avala 13:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that we should go for a list, alphabetically sorted or not. The problem with the list was that the image interfered with it on some browsers, leaving the list which was only two characters wide or so. I can fix it. BTW, Regardless of the solution, I think that we should link as Serbia so that it would be visible what if its official name. Nikola 01:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Nikola, I agree with you. Please include the list and the image, then. The part of linking as Serbia I don't understand, could you explain a bit more, please? --Romanm 21:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I re-added Image:SFRYugoslaviaNumbered.png to this page. It looks good on my monitor in Mozilla with new Wikipedia skin, but if there are some problems on other user's equipment, please let me know. In this case I'd also like to ask Nikola to fix it (I cannot reproduce the problem). --Romanm 12:34, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
What happened :? I wrote Socialist Republic of Serbia. An alternative might be Socialist Republic of Serbia. Nikola 05:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I don`t get it! You are linking to Serbia with Socialist republic of Serbia!

Please explain! Avala 15:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Kako drukcije da objasnis ljudima da se republika zvala "Socijalisticka republika Srbija"? Mada ima smisla to sto kazes, verovatno je ovaj drugi predlog bolji. Nikola 21:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Znam ali ako kliknu na taj link otici ce na danasnju Srbiju i onda ce gotovo sigurno da misle kako je Srbija i dalje Socijalisticka republika.

Inace ovima ovde pogotovo Slovencima je vrlo tesko objasniti i najobicnije stvari kao npr. da neke stvari ne mogu da imaju copyright kao sto je grb ako on izgleda isto kao original...Al' sta da se radi Avala 08:11, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

A pa to se slazem onda neka bude ovo drugo. Za kopirajt, moram da ti kazem da su u pravu, grb naravno nema kopirajt ali slika grba ima kopirajt onoga ko ju je naslikao. To je vrlo glupo ali je tako. Tako je i po nasem zakonu o autorskim pravima.
P.S. Neki ovde pogotovo Slovenci znaju srpski ;) Nikola 11:38, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. But although we understand Serbian, it'll be more useful if we stick to English on the English Wikipedia talk pages, so that others understand us too. We can always talk slovensko or hrvatski or српски on our user pages, if we'd like to have some ex-Yu privacy. :-) --Romanm 19:55, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I know, but as Avala's English isn't the best one, I thought it would be the best to resolve this in Serbian. Nikola 05:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I know that they speak and I don`t really care because I already told them everything on Serbian and English and whatever.

About CoA - on Serbian-mi ne znamo da li je neko nacrtao taj grb ako nije dodao neki detalj koji ga cini razlicitim od originala. Onaj Grb je sa zvanicnih stranica i siguran sam da makedonski predsednicki websajt nece tuziti Wikipediu zbog objavljivanja istog. Takodje nisam siguran da li takav zakon obuhvata grb. A i lepo je rekao Tito da se sudije "ne drze zakona ko pijan plota". A kad on kaze onda nema druge........ ;-) Avala 14:37, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

E, ali to je drugo ako je s drzavnih stranica, onda mozes reci da prema zakonu te drzave (a vecina ih ima tako), sve sto je drzava objavila u javnom vlasnistvu. Jedino ako skines sliku s privatne ili komercijalne web stranice onda oni imaju copyright nad tim konkretnim djelom. --Shallot 15:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Ne vazi ni to za svaku drzavu. Nikola

pa uostalom vidim da ovde sve sto skinu sa state department ili bilo kog drugog gov sajta satvljaju pod fair use. Avala 18:01, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Pa to je zato sto po americkom zakonu drzavni organi ne mogu da kopirajtuju nikakav materijal koji proizvedu. A po nasem zakonu drzavni organi ne mogu da kopirajtju nikakav ZVANICAN materijal koji proizvedu. Da li je zvanican sajt zvanican materijal treba pitati nekog advokata... Nikola 08:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Ne treba.... jer na novom sajtu vlade Srbije npr. pise velikim slovima Dobro dosli na zvanicnu prezentaciju Vlade Republike Srbije. S druge strane sumnjam da ista o tome ima u nasem zakoniku. Jedino da neko posalje mail webmasteru..... --Avala 14:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Takodje pise i Copyright © 2004 Vlada Republike Srbije. Nikola

Da li mogu da prekopiram informacije o okruzima sa sajta na wikipediu? To su vise cinjenice a i sajt je zvanican? Avala 15:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Vec postoje: Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro.

Uzgred, [1] i [2] prema [3] i [4] sugerise da neko treba da izvrsi jedan search/replace na ovom i drugim srodnim clancima (pre svega onim povezanim na njega...). Nikola 10:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

[[5]] evo sajt sa svim informacijama. Ne samo lista okruga vec sve informacije. Pa ako se slazemo da je to sa sajta zvanicni materijal mogao bih da iskopiram i da napravim tekst o svakom okrugu Avala 20:06, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Ja bih ipak pitao webmastera. U stvari, upravo mu pisem. Nikola 07:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Vidim hvale se kao novi sajt, sve super a ovamo ne mogu da odgovore na obican e-mail! Avala 15:50, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Da, nista mi ne odgovara. Ne bi ti savetovao da to radis, sve ce ti pobrisati. Nikola 23:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Lepo cu napisati u fusnoti da je ta informacija zvanicna i da vlada ne moze drzati copyright za to. To je ionako 99% tacno. To nije ni neka umetnost napisati kolika je povrsina, gde se nalazi koji su gradovi.... --Avala 12:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I jos samo da kazem da na svakom sajtu , drzavnom sajtu, na kom sam bio ne stoji znak za C. Od singapurske vlade do predsednika austrije. Pretpostavljam da se to sve odnosi na izgled sajta. Tj da taj kopirajt drzi webmaster. A sadrzaj je verovatno slobodan ali takodje ovo je Srbija :) Avala 19:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Ovdje seru neki ljudi, sto nemaju pojma sta je SFRJ bila... Drzava u kojoj smo svi slavili, pili i jeli i druzili, ali jednog dana su stranci kupili seljake nepismene i izdajice za saku para da ucine sto se je desilo, problai sa Madjarima pa su skontali da je bilo malo, onda sa Albancima na Kosovu, i klupko je poceo da pada niz brdo, zatim Slovenci, Hrvati itd. Zalosno je to, sto danas nam se svi smiju, kazu: MAJMUNI JUGOSLOVENKI, kako glupo, ali sta ces mi bi i svoju mater prodali za 1 euro a ne sta drugo, danas svi zelimo u EU, a Yugoslavija je to vec imala 40 i kusur godina, to tako zvano bratstvo i jedinstvo sto danas EU gradi na. Jos kada nam ukinu granice onda ce Juga opet postojati u pozdini ali razlika ce biti sto je samo vise politicara i fotelja, sto bi u mene djed reko "sva govna su isplivutala na povrsinu" Njemac je godinama hjtjo da zauzme SFRY, 2 svjetska rada, 2 puta se opeko, ali je 3 put mudro nas zajebo i dosao dole i jedino ako narod htjedne letit ce Njemci i ostali napolje, ko eto neke mirovne trupe sta ces mi smo tako smotani da nista ne znamo, a samo pocevski od Tesle, da njega ni bilo, danas bi 100% puhali svjecu. Ja sam proveo u Jugoslaviji ljepe dane, i vjerujem da su to isto i ostali, zato vas sve molim ostavimo Jugu staru nek miruje isto sto pokojniku neskacemo po grabu. Na sjeli smo na igru zapada, ali nemora na ostale, ja apelujem "DRUZIMO SE, NI SMO VUKOVI" Ja bi u svaki cas priskocijo pomoci, Makedoncu, Slovencu, Bosnacu, Hrvatu, Crnogorcu ili Srbinu nego nekom bjednom svabi ili sta ja znam. Budi te dobri svi i molim vas ostavite, nase drzave nako kako i jesu, a jebimo druge ;-) radimo malo vandalizam ovim Nacistima iz Njemacke ;-)

[edit] UZA or CENTRAL

Just for the record if you type

Google search
Uza Srbija 1,500 results
Centralna Srbija 6,480 results
Central Serbia 1,260,000 results
Serbia proper 110,000 results

Avala 13:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Serbia proper for more on this search and why it proves nothing. Morwen 14:19, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Factoids

I disagree in part with the recent edit by Jiang. I think that the obsolete ISO 3166-1 and calling code information should remain if it was true throughout the SFRY's existence. Presumably it was (unlike population information for 1991 or membership of the EU).

Did the area change during the SFRY's existence? If not, then I think that that should be reinserted.

If somebody does put the ethinic/national information back, I don't think that Muslim should count as a national or ethnic identity. Does Muslim mean something special here? Does it mean something like Muslim-Serb, Muslim-Croat, Muslim-Turkic or Muslim-Arab?

Tim Ivorson 11:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The area changed very little, in the 1950s the surroundings of Trieste were formally annexed. Yes, Muslims by nationality was a legal concept in SFRY. --Joy [shallot] 11:45, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hello Joy [shallot]
I have linked the poulation groups to the relevent pages. I hope that this is appropriate. I have not bypassed redirects at Slovenes or Hungarians, in case there was an important reason for not using `Slovenians' and/or `Magyars'.
Ah, don't worry, all of it is correct, I don't think those English spellings were chosen by anything other than chance. While we're nitpicking, the combination that would fit the original phrasing the best would be "Slovenes" (Slovenci) and "Magyars" (Mađari). --Joy [shallot] 23:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have changed `Muslims' to `Muslims by nationality', but I have linked it directly to Slavic Muslims.
Is there a shorthand for [[Montenegrins (people)|Montenegrins]]?
I looked up Trieste and discovered the 1954 dissolution of the Free Territory of Trieste. Perhaps I should mention it and the area of SFRY in the history section.
Tim Ivorson 12:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm thinking we should also move this demographic data into the main text, like it's in other country articles. It looks crammed in the table, anyway. --Joy [shallot]
I added something about the annexation of Trieste's Zone B. I'm not sure whether what I wrote is accurate. I said "most significant change to the borders" because that's not strictly inaccurate if it was the only change to the SFRY's borders. Tim Ivorson 18:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I looked it up at Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Links_and_URLs and found that [[Montenegrins (people)|]] is the shorthand and that there is no lasting difference between that and what I did, because the shorthand is expanded in the Wikisource when it is saved.
Tim Ivorson 16:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yep, that's just fine. Looks a tad redundant in the source, but hey. --Joy [shallot]
IMO, that article shoul be moved to Montenegrins, a sentnce could be added which explains that in a wider sense, Montenegrins are all inhabitants of Montenegro. Nikola 03:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You might be right. Montenegrins (people) is not the correct choice of title, unless Montenegrins ever refers to something other than people. Tim Ivorson 13:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I went ahead and did that. --Joy [shallot] 16:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SFRY bordered on...?

A non-logged in user changed the article to read, "The SFRY bordered on Italy etc." Is this some dialect with which I am unfamiliar, or is it vandalism? "The SFRY bordered on Italy etc." sounds to me like "The SFRY was similar to Italy etc." rather than "The SFRY was adjascent to Italy etc." Tim Ivorson 16:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Economy, socialism?

What about the economy of Yugoslavia? What about the socialism :) Foant

the socialist yugoslavia page has the pupulation set at 20,522,975 but when you add up all the population of serbia, croatia, bosnia, etc, then it comes out to be 21,597,925. That error should be corrected.

The constitutional nations of the Socialist Republic Croatia were Croats and Serbs, respectivly. HolyRomanEmperor 18:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official language

In the 1963 Constitution the official language was specified as "srpskohrvatskom, odnosno hrvatskosrpskom, slovenačkom i makedonskom." (Art. 11, [6], footnote 10). The wording is somewhat ambiguous (the comma + the word "odnosno" could be translated as "or" or "also"). In practice, all acts were published in 4 versions: Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Slovenian and Macedonian.

In the 1974 Constitution no language was specified as official (except for the obligatory translation of official acts into languages of Albanian and Hungarian minority, the same reference as above). The decision on the official language was left to the republics. --Elephantus 00:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

sources? HolyRomanEmperor 11:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Read the whole text linked above. It's somewhat biased (written by a Yugoslav unitarist) but useful for the facts it states. --Elephantus 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Not really commendable as a valuable source; for many reasons... It isn't official; and it still no where directly supports your claim. HolyRomanEmperor 16:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Data FYI

Source: "Yugoslavia: Politics, Economics and Society", Bruce McFarlane, 1988

====Population:

  • 23.1 million (1985)
  • Projected population 2000: 25.167 million (obviously, now an insensitive joke)
  • Population density: 90 per sq.km, 155 persons per sq.km of agricultural land

====Administrative Divisions:

Serbia (34.5% of territory), Croatia (22.1% of territory, Bosnia and Herzegovina (18.7 % of territory), Macedonia (8.2% of territory), Slovenia (8.3), Montenegro (2.7). Two autonomous provinces - Kosovo Metohia and Vojvodina (known as "SAPs" or 'socijalisticka autonomna pokrajina').

====Membership of int orgs:

  • UN since 1964
  • Non-Aligned Movement
  • IMF
  • World Bank
  • Observer at CMEA general sessions
  • member of Balkan Pact with Greece and Turkey (no longer active)

====Economy

  • GDP 62 billion dinnars
  • Growth rate - 1948-85 5.3% per annum; 1981-1985 0.6% per annum
  • Foreign debt 19 billion dinnars (33% of GDP)
  • Total exports 2,258 billion dinnars (1985), 50% raw materials and semi-finished goods, 17% machinery, 33% food, textiles, medicines
  • Size of work-force: 6.5 million socialist sector; 0.14 million private sector
  • Structure of work-force (1985) 38% industry; 38.5% women; 51% women in private sector

====Culture

  • Professional theatres 70
  • Number of cinemas 1298

====Education

  • Adult literacy 85%
  • Primary school enrolment 100%
  • Secondary school enrolment 79%
  • No data provided on tertiary

====Share of Gross Social Product going to defence

  • 3.4% (1984)

====Political structure

  • Constitution (3rd 1974)
  • Highest legislative body Federal People's Assembly
  • Highest executive body Presidency (collective)
  • Prime minister
  • President
  • Ruling party League of Communists of Yugoslavia (Savez komunista Jugoslavije)

====Political organisations

  • League of Communists 2.16 million
  • Socialist Alliance of Working People 15 million (Socijalisticki savez radnog naroda Jugoslavije)
  • League of Trade Unions of Yugoslavia 5.9 million (Savez sindikata Jugoslavije)
  • League of the socialist youth of Yugoslavia - no data

====Key themes in political and economic orientation

  • 1) a belief in rapid industrialisation and a policy of transforming peasantry into a working class
  • 2) market socialism (ridden by tensions between socialist self-management and trade unionism)
  • 3) collectivist control over resources (this is the underlying economic issue of the Croatian spring and inter-republic squables in the 1970s and 1980s, see interviews with Croatian spring leaders on disatisfaction with the investment in primary resources that favoured resource-rich regions for more insight into the issue)
  • 4) non-alignment in world politics, active membership of the non-aligned bloc, anti-militaristic centre-left orientation in relation to the US
  • 5) attempts to cement unity by introducing a 'supranation' - Yugoslav

====What is socialist self-management? (cited from various parts of the book)

A conference on productivity was held in 1959, which recommended increased standardisation of production, the setting up of 'associations of factories' and their cooperation in the manufacturing process of their industry. The workers councils were at this stage 'managing state property on behalf of society'. That is, state ownership prevailed over the menas of production in most areas of social life (although housing and building sites were not nationalised until 1959)... the Yugoslav self-managed economy was a special case wehere workers hired capital for rental instead of capitalists hiring workers for wage labour ... the system avoided the methodology of neo-classical economists and took into account the sociological aspects of corporate behaviour occasioning perverse results such as dimissing workers from the collective as profits rise or gaining when output is reduced.

The neo-classical school of economists analysed the Yugoslav model -- see Ward, Horvart, Vanek, Ward, Meade, Estrin.

====Constitutive nations

Also - constitutive nations (1943) - intially - Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians and Montenegrins - thus, initially coat of arms consisted of five torches, in 1963 the sixth was added to represent Bosnian Muslims, who were later constitutionally recognised as a nation in their own right. Hence, Yu officially had six constitutive nations, not four.

Hope this helps. Cheers. Fomafomich 16:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

====Administrative Divisions:

Serbia (34.5% of territory), Croatia (22.1% of territory, Bosnia and Herzegovina (18.7 % of territory), Macedonia (8.2% of territory), Slovenia (8.3), Montenegro (2.7). Two autonomous provinces - Kosovo Metohia and Vojvodina (known as "SAPs" or 'socijalisticka autonomna pokrajina').

They was not administrative divisions but constitutive elements sice 1974. See the last Constitution of Yugoslavia. Ther is no constitutive nations, this nation was the constitutive nations of the Republicks (SR Serbia,SR Slovenia, SR Croatia. SR Motenegro, SR BandH. SR Macedonia)wich was the constitutive elements of Yugoslavia. So you can intepret tha and say like this, but you must see the different betwen the administrative subdivisions and the constitutive elements.--Hipi Zhdripi 18:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Democratic Federal Yugoslavia → Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

[edit] Proposal

It has been proposed that Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (DFY) be merged into Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), and the DFY article be replaced with a redirect with possibilities.

[edit] Rationale

The DFY article is made up of text and images copied solely from the SFRY article.

[edit] Community response

Please note your support or objections below.

  • Support as proposed --Kralizec! (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no need to cut on legal encyclopedia material Avala 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I do not completely follow you; what do you mean by "cut on legal encyclopedia material?" I am not proposing that any material (encyclopedic or otherwise) be removed from wikipedia. Everything in the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia article was cut-n-paste from the History section of this article. Since this article (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) already covers everything contained in both articles, I am proposing that the DFY article simply be re-directed here. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. Duja 19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not quite sure if I fully understand the situation, but I will post to what I feel is the situation. I do not believe that these two articles should be merged as they technically cover two different stages of Yugoslav history. Whoever wrote the history of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia should have undertaken more effort then to just copy and paste the history section of another article. These two different stages of history deserve their own articles, and it would be nice if someone with a proper knowledge of the history of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia write an article. The Yugoslav people have already lost enough, let us try to preserve their history for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SAWGunner89 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That history is already in this article. Since even the creator/forker of DFY article doesn't seem interested to cover it in more detail, it may as well be reverted to the original state (redirect to here). Besides, Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was a far longer period and it is a redirect. I don't mind having separate articles describing different periods of history, but that should occur when the main article becomes overlong, not "just-because-I-feel-like-it". Duja 07:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose DFY was sort of a transitional phase between KofY and FPRY/SFRY and can not be viewed in continuity with either one. It definitely deserves its own article. It has as much to do with the former as with the latter. Unfortunatelly, the DFY article doesn't do a decent enough job in explaining all of the historically significant events surrounding DFY (when I've got more time I'll try to expand it), but it should definitely remain separate. Zvonko, 23 July 2006
  • Support as proposed. Djido 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed UberVash 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed Foant 12:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed Bigz 19:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distortion of facts: The mentioning of the Roma people

Let me remind the author of the following statement in the article:
Yugoslavia used to be described as a country with seven neighbouring countries, six republics, five languages, four nations, three religions, two alphabets and one party. (Though this is fairly incorrect; the country had several languages and nations not accounted for, like Roma and their language. Muslims (Bosniaks) received recognition as being a nation in 1971.)(end of quote)

The former Tito's Socialist Yugoslavia was the first country on the planet Earth in the history of humankind that broadcasted TV program in Roma language (it was on TV Prishtina) and I should add that Yugoslavia had the "Queen of the Roma music" Esma Redzhepova who was and still is spreading the Roma folklore culture all over the world (among other things she was invited to perform in front of some most famous world politicians when they were visiting Tito, incl.(just to name a few) Muammar al-Gaddafi) and Indira Gandhi who decorated her with a medal in India, the cradle of the Roma people.
However IT IS TRUE that the Roma language didn't have the status of an official language but as a language of a minority ethnic group (which undoubtely it is, with all my respect to Roma people) so that doesnt mean that their language and nationality was not recognized. I recommend checking the book: "The Gypsies" by Angus Phraser, blackwell publishing, ISBN: 0631196056 . Find the latest edition (if several exist) and check the section about the Roma people in Yugoslavia. Also Yugoslavia was the first country where the word "Cigan"- Gypsy (which Romas themselfes consider as insulting/pejorative) was replaced in the media with "Rom". And I would add also the following which can be veryfied: It was in Yugoslavia (particulary Socialist Republic of Macedonia) where for the first time in history a TV program has been broadcasted in Albanian language, by TV Skopje (at the same time Enver Hoxha's Albania didn't have television at all). Im certainly not favorizing Yugoslavia claiming that it was a "heaven on earth" but a fact is a fact. Delete the errouneus statement.--Vbb-sk-mk 06:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you are wrong

Yugoslavia had 3 languages: Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Slovenian as official languages.

obviously you haven't read what I wrote.--Vbb-sk-mk 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I find the former country infobox to be deficient in some ways (see the talk page of the project) and would like to revert the change until it is agreed on more thoroughly. I'm not going to revert Duja however. Just adding this to register my complaint :) - Francis Tyers · 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved it down, looks better now. - Francis Tyers · 15:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More?

Why not add the Republic of Serbian Krajina and the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Hersegovina to the secessionist part (the "->")? They too were formed at the brake up of Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four languages?

"Yugoslavia used to be described as a small country with big problems: seven neighbouring countries, six republics, five nationalities, four languages, three religions, two alphabets and one political party." -- from the article

What is the "four languages"? Serbo-Croatian of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro, Macedonian of Macedonia, Slovenian of Slovenia, and Albanian of Kosovo? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Further more, article states that there 5 official languages: Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian, Albanian, Hungarian. There for there is something wrong with the statement in the article, or was any of the counted languages declared official lange after the phrase (Yugoslavia used to be described as [...]) in question came to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rdi (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There were only 3 at the time of the original statement. Religions and languages seem to have gotten swapped over the years as people forgot the Jews and distinguished the Serbian and Croatian languages. An earlier Time article described "that paradoxical land of six republics, five nationalities, four faiths, three languages and two alphabets." A paper by Robin Davies on the UNDP web site quotes Tito: "I am the leader of .....One Country ...which has Two Alphabets; Three Languages, Four religions, Five Nationalities, Six Republics....surrounded by Seven neighbours. A country in which live Eight Ethnic minorities." http://harmony-themovie.ca quotes him similarly. Not R (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My screen is not displaying the flag anymore it just shows a deleted link symbol is this the same for others?

With all the changes happening to Wikipedia's templates recently, I'm noticing that images are not showing up in some articles, they appear as deleted links such as this page with the Yugoslav flag. But when I press on them, the images are still there. Is anyone else having this problem or is this just a problem with my computer?--R-41 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics section

I'm having problems with the following paragraph:

Ethnic nationalism which had deeply divided Yugoslavia as a kingdom, was repressed under Tito. Ethnic nationalism was not tolerated, and outspoken nationalists were either arrested or killed. However, one nationalist uprising, the Croatian Spring, managed to put pressure on the Yugoslav government to change the constitution in 1974. Among the changes were the right of any republic to unilaterally secede from Yugoslavia as well as the controversial internal division of Serbia, which created two autonomous provinces within it, Vojvodina and Kosovo. Each of these autonomous provinces had voting power equal to that of the republics.
  • I'm not sure that Croatian Spring was the main reason for 1974 constitution.
  • The republics didn't have right to secede from Yugoslavia; the right was granted to peoples of Yugoslavia.
  • Vojvodina and Kosovo were not created, they existed before, but as autonomous areas, not provinces.
  • It is very important to note that each of the provinces could veto any decision of Serbia, while Serbia could not affect any decision of the provinces. Nikola 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olympic Games

I changed a fact on the olympics in the "Post-Tito Yugoslavia and the Dissolution of the State" section. Previously, it had stated that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the first Communist State to hold the Olympic Games. This is incorrect, as the 1980 Summer Olympic Games were held in Moscow, RSFSR, USSR. The USSR was clearly a Communist State in 1980. If the original author meant to say that Yugoslavia was the first Communist State to hold the Winter Games, that would be a true statement. However, it is hard to determine the original intent and therefore I changed the article accordingly. Tbkflav 18:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.98.193 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 October 2007

(I didn't start this section.)
The article has been carefully checked and edited many, many times, so I think everyone would like a little explanation as to exactly what you think is POV in this article? Be careful, no nationalist outbursts, there's already too many of those around here! DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name of country

I'm a bit confused about the name and continuity of the country. The first paragraph says "The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ... was the Yugoslav state that existed from the end of World War II (1945) until it was formally dissolved in 1992" and then the second paragraph says "the country was proclaimed in 1943 and named Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. In 1946, it became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia[1] and in 1963 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." Then the history section says "on November 29, 1945 the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia was established" (not Federal, not 1946).

The article on the Constitution of the SFRY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia) says the Constitution of the SFRY became 'defunct' in 1990. Did the SFRY have no constitution from 1990 to 1992? If so, was it a country?

To summarize, I am confused by some inconsistencies in dates - 1943/1945/1946 and 1990/1991/1992 (from the article on the Constitution) and Federal/Federative,

I came to this article from an article about Mila Mulroney, which directs to FPR Yugoslavia. Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The myth that Croatian Serbs had no constitutional rights explodes!!!!

I eliminated the blurb under Tudjman's picture which stated that the Serbs had no rights in Croatia and Tudjman "refused" to negotiate otherwise. You can do one of a few things: Call me a "ultra-nationalist" of that i'm not - I especially deplore the crimes of the Ustase - both my grandfathers fought for the partizan's. Option No.2 you can delete the facts that I have presented.

MYTH: "SERBS HAD NO GUARANTEED RIGHTS IN CROATIA"

Myth: The government of the Republic of Croatia denied basic civil, cultural and linguistic rights to the Serbian minority in Croatia, forcing them into revolt in 1991.

Reality: On the very day it declared independence, Croatia granted extraordinary rights and privileges to Serbs and other minorities in Croatia.

By 1996, it was evident throughout the world that Serbia was the aggressor in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Hercegovina during the break-up of Yugoslavia. The transparent endeavor of the war was the preservation of a Greater Serbian state retaining the name Yugoslavia against the expressed will of the majority of the people. Serbia's intentions were less clear to many during the early days of aggression in the Fall of 1991 and Spring of 1992.

A full-scale Serbian propaganda campaign repeated time and again that a "civil war" was being fought to "protect the Serbian minority in Croatia" despite the fact that the Serbs had lived peacefully with the Croatians for a half-century. To reinforce its case, Serbia let it be known that the new Croatian government had made no provision for the rights of Serbs in Croatia. Some in the Western media accepted the mythology as fact, and in some cases continued to repeat it well into 1996. "The Croatians wrote a new constitution, giving no special rights to Croatia's Serbs..." wrote a major daily in late 1995.

Croatian Declaration of Independence, June 25, 1991

In reality, with the very first document to emerge from the new Croatian Republic, its Declaration of Independence on June 25, 1991, the Croatian government guaranteed not only civil rights, but unique rights, to the Serbian minority. The first two articles of the Declaration established the rights of Croatia to declare independence and to defend its territorial integrity. Article III of the Declaration stated:

The Republic of Croatia is a democratic, legal and social state in which prevails the supreme values of constitutional order: freedom, equality, ethnic equality, peace, social justice, respect for human rights, pluralism and the inviolability of personal property, environmental protection, the rule of law, and a multi-party system.

The Republic of Croatia guarantees Serbs in Croatia and all national minorities who live in this territory the respect of all human and civil rights, especially the freedom to nurture their national language and culture as well as political organizations.

The Republic of Croatia protects the rights and interests of its citizens without regard to their religious, ethnic or racial belonging. In accordance with customary and positive international law, the Republic of Croatia guarantees other states and international bodies that it will completely and consciously uphold all its rights and duties as a legal successor to the previous Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the extent that they relate to the Republic of Croatia.''''

In order to avoid bloodshed and insure a peaceful transition, the Croatian declaration included:

The Republic of Croatia calls upon the other republics of the former SFRY to create an alliance of sovereign states on the presumptions of mutual recognition of state sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual respect, recognition of political pluralism and democracy, pluralism of ownership and market economy, and the actual respect of human rights, rights for ethnic minorities and other civilized values of the free world.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/nno17565/myth/mser01.htm

[edit] Note on Yugoslav romanticist ultra-nationalism

I think another Wikipedia entry needs to be added that of: Yugoslav ultra-nationalism - these people worship the faultless Tito and call anyone who doesn't worship him, ultra-nationalists and says for example that Stepinac's trial wasn't rigged despite all the evidence to the contrary. I would have fought for the Partizan's if I was involved simply because they were the lesser of three evils, I certainly wouldn't have wanted a pseudo-independent - fascist - Nazi aligned Croatian state built upon the murder of innocent Serbs and I accept the fact as a consequence of that, that Croatia had to be enslaved in Communist Yugoslavia before she could rightfully have her independence recognised when she did. I respect Tito (he's the totalitarian dictator that organized the chaos and rightly so) whilst I look upon Pavelic as a murderer but the fact is that wars have been fought and thats is that. Lets stop with all this romanticized garbage about what was, concentrate on what is and that is that Croatia is independent - bloody wars have been fought and many souls have been wounded but for God's SAKE lets look to the future! Stepinac's is my hero - he spoke against all injustices, and never compromised the truth (Yugoslav super-nationalists can't humble themselves to acknowledge this great man!). He said before WW2 that he would have to denounce nationalism if a Church Council was convened, he was a patriotic, a Christian patriot and it's on his blood that Croatia should be built upon! Amen!

[edit] Kosovo: Map

The map of Kosovo in the Administrative divisions section of the article should clearly reflect the Republic of Kosovo, as it reflects Croatia, or Bosnia. That is, the border line should be continuous... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DataOpen (talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tuđman

Text under his picture was ultranationalist Serbian POV... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.36.200 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV under Tudjman blurb

Again having accepted the truth in regards to the myth that Serbs had no constitutional rights an additional myth that Tudjman "controversially allowed the expulsion of Croatian Serbs during Operation Storm" has to be corrected or eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective Truth (talk • contribs) 05:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath section

The aftermath section really simply highlights of the worst things that happened after SFRY ceased to exist. As such it is off topic and edit-war magnet to boot. As these events are covered elsewhere I propose they be cut.

[edit] Merge proposal

The section on the dissolution is disproportionately large. On the other hand it is better referenced that the Breakup of Yugoslavia so maybe stuff could be moved there.Dejvid (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

The Culture subsection is one of the worst that I have ever seen. Where are all those writers, painters, poets, musicians, intellectuals?? Instead, I see Lepa Brena (?!) and moreover, she is described as a folk rock artist. No personal offense to anyone but this is absolutely terrible.--Dzole (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fixup

Very nice work R-41, finally someone's actually improving the quality of articles around here... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R-41

R-41, could you replace the "[]" with "<ref></ref>"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)