Talk:Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia

# of deputies
How many deputies did it have?

Its not writen in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:AVNOJist (talk • contribs)

Yugoslav Citizens and Germans
The Danube Swabians, who called themselves Shwoveh, and were called by their ethnic Hungarian and ethnic Serbian countrymen Shwabeh, remained Yugoslavian citizens even when they were expelled or plaed in internment camps. The AVNOJ resolutions in 1942, 43 or 44, did not have the force of law and the laws of 1945 and 46 did not include removal of citizenship. This is thoroughly discussed in Janjetovic's books and papers, which should be referenced in the article.

== Absence of appropriate references.

The lack of apprpriate references in this article underlines the general looseness and inaccuracies of the comments. References to all sides of the dispute, the Shwovish, German, Hungarian, Serbian, and Croatian, are now possible and a thoroughgoing revision of this article from all perspectives is needed. The historical inaccuracies in this version (July, 2012) are appalling. Imersion (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120324191704/http://www.vloe.at/geschichte/downloada.htm to http://www.vloe.at/geschichte/downloada.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Translation in lead
The matter of translation in the lead is not something related to history. It's simply a translation to relevant languages. Fkp, you can't go over articles and replace Croatian translation with Serbian. Just add Serbian translation next to Croatian or Croatian next to Serbian. I don't know what's the deal with Wikipedia and pushing of Serbo-Croatian as one language, but that's another matter to discuss. Just don't go removing Croatian translations. 89.164.229.190 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then dont remove the ORIGINAL naming in Serbian Cyrillic and Latin, and feel free to add translation of the minorities. But you know perfectly well SFRY institutions used in its naming Serbian ekavian. So stop removing it and replacing it with Croatian. Also, stop calling Serbian ekavian version a "translation". Translation is the Croatian version you are adding, Serbian ekavian version is not a "translation" but the official name as seen in all documents. FkpCascais (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FkpCascais, I don't want to go over numerous articles and correct mistakes you leave after such edits, so let's come to agreement on what to do in this situations. You already had Director correcting you. The name is a translation since this is English Wikipedia. Translations can be done for multiple relevant languages. If you feel that Serbian translation is missing, please add it, but don't replace Croatian translation with Serbian. Can you agree with that? I'll revert you again, and please don't remove translations in the future, but add Serbian ones.89.164.229.190 (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, you clearly dont even know what "correct/mistake" means and what "official name/translation" is... or you play not to understand on purpose. FkpCascais (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will clarify:
 * There was a political organisation in Yugoslavia called "Antifašističko veće narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije – AVNOJ / Антифашистичко веће народног ослобођења Југославије – АВНОJ"
 * We have an article about it here on en.wiki. We traslated the original native name to English and used it as article title.
 * So things are the other way around, I am adding the ORIGINAL name of the organisation, while you insist in missleading readers that the original name was in Croatian. To push in your edit, you insist calling the original name "translation".
 * Conclusion: official documents and sources such as britannica confirm my edit. Official native name must be present. While translations can be added. So stop removing the official name and replacing it by the Croatian translation. FkpCascais (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I get that. I have nothing against Serbian official name, but if Croatian translation had existed before, don't remove it. I saw your two recent edits where you removed Croatian for Serbian translation. I can correct that by adding Croatian translation, but come, on. I can't watch over you all the time. Just don't remove Croatian translation if it had existed before. I know that Serbian was preferred in Yugoslavia. That kind of Serbinization of Yugoslavia made many Croatians want to Croatia to leave Yugoslavia, but that's another discussion. The fact is that Serbian language was preferred and Wikipedia can reflect that. It would be interesting to see whether ZAVNOH had official name on Serbian. 141.136.246.131 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at this source,, I can see that Croatian name is used. This is a valid source, so I guess that each nation used their own language. I'm not so sure about your theory, but that's ok, since my stand is that each translation can stand in the article.141.136.246.131 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Invalid source for what you pretend. Of course a Croatian author in its book in Croatian will write the name in Croatian, but find non-Croatian source which calls AVNOJ vijece istead of vece. That source only confirms that in Croatian the organisation was known that way, but Croatian version of S-C was not used for official names of the organisation anywhere out of Croatia, while Serbian was. FkpCascais (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "That kind of Serbinization of Yugoslavia made many Croatians want to Croatia to leave Yugoslavia..." exactly. So at least now dont play the card that Croatian names were the official ones, or, as Director does, pretends Yugoslav Air Force was named Zrakoplov and so on. Yugoslavia recognised regional languages and variants and allowed its use. However, on national level, nattional institutions were named in Serbian variant of Serbo-Croatian. Why? Because Serbs were majority in Yugoslavia. So, that is why we had duing Yugoslavia TAZ (Tvornica Autobusa Zagreb) and no one will certainly add "Fabrika" translation for "tvornica", but regarding national level, institutions were named in Serbian ekavian. The issue is about the native official name. Yugoslav regional institutions and companies were officially named in its regional language, but Yugoslav national official institutions were named in Serbian ekavian (which when presented displays both variants, Cyrillic and Latin). Resumingly, I have nothing against the addition of the other languages versions, however, I have against presenting it as official native name. FkpCascais (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To try to make it clear. A Yugoslav national institution such was the Yugoslav Air Force was named RV PVO (Ratno vazduhoplovstvo i protivvazdušna odbrana / Ратно ваздухопловство и противваздушна одбрана). The amblem of the institution confirms it. So saying it was named RZ PZO is nonsense. RZ PZO is just a translation to Croatiann, but not the official name. I know Director, a Croatian editor fan of Yugoslavia would have liked it to be RZ PZO, but it wasnt. Same here with AVNOJ. Official documents and the official name of this political organisation are the initials of the Serbian variant of S-C version of its name. FkpCascais (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I never did try to impose that Croatian names were official nor did I try to remove Serbian ones. I reverted you so that you notice and stop removing Croatian translations if they are already present in the article. I think that Director's point is that the lead on English Wikipedia just list translations on relevant languages. It doesn't state what was the official name. I also don't know what's the deal with Wikipedia pushing Serbo-Croatian as one language. I'm not a linguist but, not am I familiar enough, but somehow it seems to me that neither Croatian nor Serbian colleges are teaching "Serbo-Croatian" language. The distinction between those two languages made is present as seen in this disputes with official names. 141.136.246.131 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, I am not even in the dispute of S-C being one language or not. From what I know, for a long period there was an atempt to make it one language. Even then, each variants didnt ceased to exist. It is more than obvious that within S-C language there are plenty of differences. Direktor and some other editors insist in adding S-C for aticles that deal with subjects from Yugoslav time when S-C was being imposed as single language. I am personally OK with that.
 * However, the issue here is the native official name which needs to be pointed out. We have the English translation as title, and then what we need highlited is the native official name. At Yugoslav Air Force article that is notorious. What happends? That official names of institutions of Yugoslavia were in S-C. So the problem comes when editors want to replace Serbian spelling version with Croatian one. However, in practice, nationally, we know namings and names with initials were created from the Serbian variant of S-C which was dominant. Right? That is why we have national air force called RV PVO and not RZ PZO. Yes, I am aware this Serbian dominance in Yugoslavia was a factor for many Croatians wanting independence, but that is a fact to be dealt with all its repercusions.
 * What I am saying here is that if you look at plenty of articles troughout Wikipedia, you will see that they all start with article title and then subjects official name in native language. In this case, AVNOJ needs the native official name, and original documents and also other sources confirm the political organisation named AVNOJ is called after its Serbian spelling of S-C language (same as RV PVO for Yugoslav Air Force). We need to inform the reader what is the official native name. That is where confusion comes, if you claim organisations native name was in Croatian version of S-C, that comes to be incorrect, as widely seen at RV PVO exemple clearly not being RZ PZO. I understand that for Croatian editors AVNOJ meaning Serbian "vece" instead of their "vijece" may be stone in the shue, but, as you said " That kind of Serbinization of Yugoslavia made many Croatians want to Croatia to leave Yugoslavia ".
 * Result, lets make readers see what were the names of the Yugoslav institutions in native language (Serbian variant of S-C, tough luck for Croats, sorry, and also Serbian variant uses and displays both, Cyrillic and Latin version, so both should be displayed and none replaced). For instance, Parliament of Yugoslavia was known as "Savezna skupština/Савезна скупштина". We know skupština/скупштина is a Serbian variant of S-C for naming "Parliament", and not Croatian version "sabor". Serbian simply had predecent and whenever a name was needed for national institutions, Serbian variant of S-C was used for its name. So, Direktor, sneakingly, tried to remove Serbian Latin variants of the names and replace them by Croatian ones, making readers beleave that the original name of the institutions was in Croatian. It is wrong, there is a much more used Serbian variant which is being removed, and replaced by a hardly-used outside Croatia, Croatian variant. The excuse for eliminating Serbian version by saying "Serbian officially uses Cyrillic" is ivalid, because Serbian, back then, and nowadays, uses both.
 * To finalise. When we have an article like Tvornica Autobusa Zagreb (TAZ) we are obviously going to add the native name explaining TAZ. We dont need Serbian, Slovenian and Macedonian translations despite probably finding in Serbian sources the mention of the company as "Fabrika" and not "Tvornica". The issue is the difference between the name and traslations. At TAS we dont need translatins, just the mention of native original name, at AVNOJ or RV PVO we can add translations, but we need to know what native official name is, and what tanslations are, and dont mix the two. AVNOJ official documents were written as "Антифашистичко веће народног ослобођења Југославије – АВНОJ" (in Cyrillic, even toughest luck for Croats) so we must indicate to reader the article is about "Antifašističko veće narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije – AVNOJ / Антифашистичко веће народног ослобођења Југославије – АВНОJ". This shouldnt ever be removed or replaced. However, the organisation is refered differerntly in other minoritarian languages or variants of S-C, that is OK, it can be mentioned, but dont misslead readers it was the official native name, add it properly. FkpCascais (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok.89.164.105.24 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Where is the mention of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia in the emblem?
The emblem consisted of five lit torches burning as one flame representing five united nations; this was framed by sheaves, topped by a red five-pointed star, and crossed by a blue stripe bearing the name of the country, Democratic Federal Yugoslavia.



Where is the name "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" in the emblem? Radu talk  13:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)