Talk:Kingdom of Yugoslavia/Archive 1

"Serbo-Croatian" language is an artificial Serbian creation and has to be removed from this article
The term "Serbo-Croatian" is strongly disputed and therefore must be removed and changed into Croatian and Serbian which is objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.105.7.43 (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Serbo-Croatian is not disputed at all. The majority of linguists refer to the language as serbo-croatian and recognize it as part of the same language group. Furthermore, during the kingdom of yugoslavia that's what the language was referred as and there is no reason to change it. Yugo91aesop (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Serbian Nationalistic Propaganda Page
This article is just ridiculous: Serbs still try to make Yugoslavia seem like a volantary peaceful state. The fact is that the majority of their neighbour nations- Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians, Hungarians and Albanians- all of them never wanted to live with the Serbs in one state. Nowhere's mentioned e.g. that the Serbian King decreed that all Serbian laws be extended onto Yugoslavia. Nowhere is it mentioned e.g. that in 1915 Serbia offered in a secret deal the Croatian cities of Rijeka and Zadar to Italy as exchange for the recognition of their rule over Croatia. Nowhere's mentioned that Croatia was forced into Yugoslavia by Serbia, Russia, Italy and France as Italian troops marched into northern and southern Croatia and Serbian troops marched up from the west. Nowhere is it mentioned that the so called "Yugoslavia project" was just a code form for the Greater Serbian Nationalistic propaganda.

When will Serbs stop trying to pervert history and realize that the other south slavic nations don't want to live with them?

This article is very biased in favor of Serbian Nationalism. Seems like the Serbian nationalistic "editors" like "Holyromanempire" or "Direktor" don't have nothing to do all day except engage in Serbian nationalistic editing wars contributing nothing constructive to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.105.7.43 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And why is in the Demographics section written Serbs (including Montenegrins and Macedonians)?

Dates
It seems to me that the date given - April 1941, is rather POV. The Allies continued to recognize the royal government after the German invasion, and I believe that officially the Kingdom lasts until Tito abolishes it in December 1945. I'm going to change it. john k 17:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right but then so are your dates. Maybe it should say that it ended defacto in 41 and dejure in 45.Dejvid 19:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, the country was officially transformed to Tito’s Yugoslavia in 1945. It was occupied and divided by Axis powers in 1941 but it didn’t cease to exist. It was still recognized by Allays. --N Jordan 09:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversal?
Why is the order of the nations reversed from the state? 203.218.88.120 14:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Because numerality was decided to be the crucial definition: first Serbs, then Croats and finally Slovenes; the state simply named the nations without any order of definition. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? john k 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Serbs - 44,57%
 * Croats - 23,5 %
 * Slovenes - 8,51%

From the most numerious to the least. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Parliamentary Community
From Early Politics, paragraph 3, third last line: "As the opposition continued their boycott the government decided it had no alternative but to rule by decree. This was denounced by the opposition who began to style themselves as the Pa[r]liamentary Community. " as of 29th June, 2006.

What is this? Does this mean the opposition maintained that only they were true supporters of parliamentary system?--User:Fitzwilliam 08:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin of "Yugoslavia"
I am curious as to when the word "Yugoslavia" began to be used to refer to the kingdom. The article states when the name was officially changed, but the name "Yugoslavia" was used at least sometimes on an unofficial basis before then (for instance, the kingdom is referred to as Yugoslavia in the reports of the 1924 and 1928 Olympic Games). Was the term used since the creation of the kingdom? -- Jonel | Speak 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Officially since 1929, but the name "Yugoslavia" was common, even before its creation in 1918 ("Pan-Yugoslavism", everyone expecting establishing a "Yugoslav unified state"). --PaxEquilibrium 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Differences in geography between the two yugoslavias
Can some one try to obtain a larger pic of a map for the first Yugoslavia? I've always wondered what the differences were (geographically) between the first and the second and from the map currently up I can only see that Istria was not included. Thanks. 141.157.193.197 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The history of the Yugoslav state cannot be written without taking into account the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs that merged with the Kingdom of Serbia into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and was later renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It is all on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Slovenes%2C_Croats_and_Serbs 209.2.231.136 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag and Coat of Arms
The current images of the Flag and Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (SCS)are incorrect. The present CoA is nothing more than the current official Serbian CoA of which is also the Coat of Arms of the House of Obrenović Dynasty. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia (SCS)was created and ruled by the Karađorđević Dynasty.

There are several differences between the two Coat of Arms:
 * The Crowns are different in design and decoration.
 * The Karađorđević CoA did not have 2 two golden fleurs-de-lys.
 * Lastly the inescutcheon was also different.

This mistake should be corrected. User:Dim24 12:53, April 13 2007 (UTC)

Dim24 Is correct. The flag had its coat of arms placed in the center and not the hoist side. And most importantly the royal crowns are very different from present day Serbia and the Kingdom of Yugoslvavia. Although its is correct that Serbia did create and rule the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Bluewings 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/yu_shs.html, there is no COA at the flag. The flag with COA was something called "war flag" (naval ensign).--N Jordan 19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes here is a link as well with image and information regarding the flag as well as coat of arms - http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/yu_shs.html Bluewings 12:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User Snake bgd posted wrong images again. I fixed that. Note that national flag of Kingdom of Yugoslavia had no COA. You may check Constitution of Kingdom at http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/yugconst19310903.html: ''Art. 2. The arms of the Kingdom are a two-headed white eagle with outspread wings on a red shield. On the two heads of the double-headed eagle is the Crown of the Kingdom. On the breast of the eagle is a shield bearing: a white cross on a red shield with a flint and steel in each corner, a shield divided into 25 fields, alternately silver and red, and below it a blue shield with 3 gold six-pointed stars and a white crescent.

The national standard is blue-white-red in the horizontal sense against an vertical staff.'' Please stop using current Serbian flag and COA and pretend they belongs to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The difference is not only in shield(s) on the breast of the eagle. --N Jordan 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded a plain blue,white,red flag that is in line with the description of the real KoY flag as it was in 1922. This is the correct version of the flag and should not be changed. I my self and N Jordan have provided references for this change. The CoA is next to be changed as the current one is incorrect. -- Bluewings 10:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The flag with the coat of arms was the state flag of the kingdom. Probably the plain tricolour was used, but the one posted on wikipedia has the wrong type of crown. I believe it would have followed the same colour shades as that of Serbia. The current Serbian flag is almost exactly the same flag as was used in the 1880s to 1918 and after that the state flag of Yugoslavia looked very similar. I will correct the colours of the Yugoslav state flag post an svg image of the civil flag with the Serbian colour shades as they would be the same as Serbia became Yugoslavia, and had little reason to change its shades of blue and red. User:R-41

I uploaded correct COA that we can use for this article. Re state flag, according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/yugconst19310903.html) there is no state flag! --N Jordan 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

R-41, there is no state flag in Yugoslav constitution. You can find it at the web site of former Yugoslav royal family (http://www.royalfamily.org/history/flags/flags_yu.htm), but the size and position of COA is slightly different from current state flag of Serbia. (BTW, the state flag of Kingdom of Serbia was different then current state flag. Check royal family site). I think that constitutional flag of Yugoslavia (without COA) is much better solution for this article. However, if you would like to use flag with COA, edit it according to the flag at http://www.royalfamily.org/history/flags/flags_yu.htm. Thanks! --N Jordan 16:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User N Jordan is right: there was no state flag in the Yugoslav consitution. The official flag was without the Coat of Arms. Viator slovenicus 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Like so many other countries, Kingdom of SHS/YU had official state flag, and that is tha one with the big COA on it. If present day Republic of Serbia page has state flag, the same should be with Kingdom of SHS/YU. It is true it was not in the constitution, but was in use. Agian, the present day Republic of Serbia does not have flag regulated by the constitution. <(User:cinoeye) 22:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Kraljevstvo/Kraljevina SHS
Sometime early in the history of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, the name was changed from Kraljevstvo SHS to Kraljevina SHS. And info on when or why the change was made and on the linguistic issues involved? —  AjaxSmack     18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I have no idea. I remember having seen the denomination Kraljevstvo SHS on some earlier stamps; the first Constitution (the "Vidovdan Constitution" of 1921) states that the official name of the country is "Kraljevina Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca"; so I guess the term "Kraljevstvo" was used some time between 1918 and 1921 as a semi-official denomination. My Serbo-Croatian is not very good, but in Slovenian the term kraljestvo sounds archaic and is mostly used in fairy-tale language (or in a metaphoric use, such as in "pridi k nam Tvoje kraljestvo"="Thy Kingdom come"), while the word "kraljevina" has a much more political connotation and cannot be used in metaphoric sense (you could never say, for example, "*Moja kraljevina ni od tega sveta"="My kingdom is not from this world.") Viator slovenicus 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Thanks. —   AjaxSmack     03:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

End year
We need to assert a correct end year date. --PaxEquilibrium 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For now there are three candidates:
 * 1) 1941, when the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was invaded by the German, Italian, Hungarian and provisional aid Axis forces (Albanian, Croatian Ustasha,...) and torn apart martially
 * 2) 1943, when King Peter II Karadjordjevic in exile recognized the Partisans as the Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland rather than the Chetniks, supporting Tito, whose Communists semi-officially abolished the unitary Kingdom in favor of a federal republic
 * 3) 1945, when the King came to Belgrade to officially renounce all claims to the throne, and the temporary Democratic Federal Yugoslavia formed as the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia which received international recognition upon Stalin's demand after a referendum to choose between a Kingdom and a Republic.

It's very clear. From legal point of view, country ceased to exist in 1945, when the republic was proclaimed. Occupation of Kingdom of Yugoslavia and creation of puppet states was not recognized by international law. Creation of Tito’s Yugoslavia in 1943 was legalized latter by agreements between Tito and royal Yugoslav government. So, 1945 is the only option.--N Jordan 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the United Nations were created in 1945, so we can't observe it that way. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the predecessor of UN was the League of Nations, created before WW2. --N Jordan (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...which essentially failed in integrating the majority of the world and in all it's attempts, but OK. You should know that in 1943 the Western Allies stopped supporting the Royalists and agreed with Stalin to with all force support the Communist Partisans, which in the same year ('43) decided the future shape of Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The shift from Royalists to the Communist Partisans was gradual and didn’t affect recognition of Yugoslav government in exile. The Allies supported Tito’s partisans but never officially recognized them as legal government of Yugoslavia. Tito’s partisans proclaimed their own government on Nov 29, 1943. That government was never recognized by the Allies. Instead of that, the Allies initiated negotiation between Tito and de jure government of Yugoslavia in exile. The result was Tito-Subasic agreement signed in June 1944, and new provisional government few months later. That government was recognized by the Allies. The monarchy was abolished one year later, in Nov 1945.--N Jordan (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Communist
There's a problem. The "succeeded by PFRY" doesn't work, it only shows the WWII Axis puppet-states, despite being written too. --PaxEquilibrium 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Successor state(s)
The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was succeeded by communist Yugoslavia, not Nazi German or any Nazi puppet state. Please respect international law. For example, Czechoslovakia was not succeeded by independent Slovakia creaqted by occupation forces. --N Jordan 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Predecessors and successors
It seems there is some confusion about predecessor and successor states. The predecessors of royal Yugoslavia are Kingdom of Serbia and State of Slovenians, Croats, and Serbs. Montenegro was independent nation but joined Serbia before creation of Yugoslavia. However, [Banat Republic] and [Baranya-Baja Republic] were self proclaimed and never recognized. Successor states can’t be countries that temporary occupied Yugoslavia or Nazi puppet states. Royal Yugoslavia was recognized country during the occupation.--N Jordan (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not the Banat Republic - that's 1918? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The infobox does not only have to list the legal successors, see United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for example -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  22:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is correct. Succeeding states does not have to be legal successors to be added to the infobox. For a closer scrutiny on this review the instructions. -- Domino theory (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Who’s illegal successor at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Both United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland are legal and internationally recognized successors. The predecessors of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland are Kingdom of Great Britain and kingdom of Ireland – both were perfectly legal: British King was at the same time the King of Ireland (personal union).
 * Banat Republic was just an attempt and nothing else. It was never recognized by anybody and lasted only 2 weeks. --N Jordan (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was recognized by the Kingdom of Hungary. And nevertheless, the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is currently depicted in the article - and yet it was in the same situation as the Banate Republic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As a part of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Kingdom of Hungary was defeated in the WW1. A new government of Hungary was established on October 31, 1918. They officially declared independent Republic of Hungary on November 16. The Banat Republic also was proclaimed on November 1, before the Republic of Hungary officially declared independency. Serbian troops entered the Banat on November 15 – one day before official independency of the Republic of Hungary. So, it was not clear who recognized independence of Banat in the name of Hungary. It was a time of political struggle in Hungary.
 * Anyway, all of this doesn’t matter. The Banat Republic seized to exist on November 15. Banat became the part of Serbia on November 25, 1918. So, on December 1, it was just a part of the Kingdom of Serbia. The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was at that time recognized by the Kingdom of Serbia. --N Jordan (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is official, and it had recognized the independence of the Banat Republic and then proclaimed itself, thus without the Banat (as the Hungarian Democratic Republic).
 * Please refer to the Creation of Yugoslavia article and the lengthy and problematic deep discussions over at Talk:Creation of Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Without long discussions about legality of self-proclaimed Banat Republic, the point is it ceased to exist before proclamation of the new Yugoslav state on December 1. At that moment, (part of) Banat was already part of Serbia. --N Jordan (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eleventhday-AdvancingGermanArmoredU.jpg
Image:Eleventhday-AdvancingGermanArmoredU.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article has too much focus on ethnic strife, not enough information on other material
I am aware that ethnic strife between Croats and Serbs in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is important, but it dominates most of the article. It should be shrunk into one section of the article called "Ethnic strife in the kingdom" or something like that. More information should be given about the economy, about the country's relations with other countries, about culture in the kingdom.--R-41 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, as long as we don't actually remove the info, a reorganization is necessary. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to Disambiguation Page "Union"
I'm fixing links to disambiguation pages as a part of Disambiguation pages with links, and I noticed that there is a link to the disambiguation page union in the infobox for this article. I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure which meaning union takes in this case. If someone more familiar with this topic can look though the list on the disambiguation page, pick out the appropriate link, and fix it here, that would be great. Thanks. Ensign beedrill (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

King Alexander's pre-assassination 'plans'
I'm concerned about this sentence: In late 1934, the king planned to release Maček from prison, introduce democratic reforms, and attempt find common ground between Serbs and Croats. It's not sourced at all; does anyone know if it's true? For all I know it could be, as I don't know much Balkan history, but it sounds suspicious. It's just the kind of thing someone who liked the King / disliked his successors would love to believe, and it would be rather difficult to know what the King planned to do if he hadn't been killed. Perhaps he left notes or had publicly started a process to reverse all his previous policies, and if so, we should reference those. Otherwise I don't think we should leave in such an speculative apologetic-sounding statement without sourcing. --Damgo (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Split?
In the Yug-timeline template at the bottom of this article, it has Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1918-1929) and Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929-1945) separately, while this article deals with both together. Wouldn't it make sense to create a separate article for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes? - 52 Pickup 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because it was simply a change of a name and system of government. In every other way, nothing changed. --Methodius 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But a change in the system of government is a big change. The 6th of January was a major event and the two entities are quite distinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.227.1.14 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kraljevstvo vs. Kraljevina
From 1918 to 1921 the country was called the Kraljevstvo Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca. After the Vidovdan Constitution this was changed to Kraljevina Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca. This info should really be incorporated here. (I'd change it myself, but there's Cyrillic and Slovenian translations that need to be made as well).--Thewanderer (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Economy
The Economy section needs to be improved in my opinion. Firstly, it is completely unsourced. Secondly, the second half of the section has nothing to do with economy as far as I can tell, and sounds like original research and doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view. The first half should be sourced, and the second half, should be deleted if it cannot be sourced. If it can be sourced, then it should be improved to be more neutral, and moved to a different section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.224.219 (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Yugoslavia
I just like to add that that sentence is hard to understand "Slovenia was difficult to determine, since it had been an integral part of Austria for 400 years."

The problem is that The Holy Roman Empire was formally dissolved on 6 August 1806 when the last Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (from 1804, Emperor Francis I of Austria) abdicated. Before that we can talk only about Holy Roman empire and not of Austria as such. And last but not least historical slovenen lands (marks) was part of Charlemagne empire form 9th century and after that of Holly Roman empire untill emerging of Austria (1805) and after that till 1918.

Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.252.115 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

1943 or 1945?
Did the Kingdom of Yugoslavia cease to exist in 1943, as the current article implies? A royal government-in-exile continued to exist, a referendum on the monarchy took place in 1945 and the provisional Partisan government on the ground received royal approbation and concluded agreements with the royal government to legitimise itself. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia only ceased to exist in 1945, when the monarchy was formally dumped. Srnec (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would concur. It's a bit of a complicated situation. The royal government was forced into exile in 1941. In 1943, Tito established his own provisional government called "Democratic Federative Yugoslavia," but the royal government continued to be recognized internationally, and in March 1945 Tito recognized the royal government and in return was appointed as Prime Minister by the king. Then there was a referendum on the monarchy, and the monarchy was formally abolished in November 1945. I'd say that Tito's acceptance of a royal appointment as prime minister in March strongly suggests that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia still existed at that point. john k (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. No doubt about it. Tito established a provisional government, but the internationally recognised government was the government in exile until 1945. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The monarchy obviously existed de jure until the 1945 referendum. I'll go and change the infobox accordingly.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 20:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was saying that also! Kingdom was de jure still official in 1945, so wiki should follow de jure also, and specially in years or duration issues. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am having second thoughts about this. If we go by de jure status, than Kingdom definitely lasted until and ended with the 1945 referendum. But not all sources treat this the same way. Historian of Yugoslavia Sabrina Ramet goes with de facto status, that is, she consistently puts Kingdom's lifespan as 1929–1941 (until the Axis invasion) and then communist Yugoslavia from 1945 onwards. On page 1 of her book The Three Yugoslavias she explicitly says "Yugoslavia was a crisis-ridden state in all three of its incarnations - the interwar kingdom (1918-1941 but only called "Yugoslavia" after 1929), communist Yugoslavia (1945-1991) and the rump Yugoslav state set up by Slobodan Milosevic...". But this opens up the question which entities succeeded it. If we go with de jure and 1945, that means its successor is SFR Yugoslavia, in spite the fact SFRY officially considered its year of establishment 1943, and that neither the Kingdom nor SFRY controlled the entirety of its territory during WWII. If we go with Ramet's interpretation of Kingdom ending in 1941 due to occupation, then its successors listed in the infobox should include all the occupied territories, which in turn preceded SFRY - OR we don't list any at all, if we interpret the 1941-45 break as a period after which the Kingdom was reformed into a different entity, according to Template:Infobox former country/doc). In short, years 1943 and 1945 mutually clash and are both based on de jure reasoning (with 1943 having weaker arguments since the monarchy was obviously still recognized in 1945) whereas 1941 takes the actual situation on the ground into account. This needs to be discussed as any changes might potentially affect a number of articles. Thoughts?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 23:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thats true, though, we should then see what was there between 1941-1945. If we had some other entity, then kingdom's POV (up to 1945) should be disbanded. We have several dates.
 * 1. Date when Yugoslavia surrenders.
 * 2. Date when some other state was established on Yugoslav territory (de facto)
 * 3. Date when it was officially (de jure) disestablished.
 * Usage in sources and facts should decide what should we use. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 11:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But now, when i look at it, it is misleading to say that Kingdom existed up to 1945. It was occupied, destroyed, with several other states established on its territory. - WhiteWriterspeaks 12:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sport
I am sure there is much more that can be added under sport....

How could a fact of winning a 3rd place (bronze medal) on first FIFA world championship 1930 (held in Montevideo-Uruguay) be ignored? Its the biggest historical succes story of both Yugoslav and Serbian fotball. All of the players who presented kingdom of Yugoslavia on that WC were actually Serbian players (as Croats boycotted the national team) mostly from two Belgrade football clubs BSK and SK Jugoslavija. The most famous two players were - Blagoje "Moša" Marjanović and Aleksandar "Tirke" Tirnanić, even a domestic movie and tv show series called "Montevideo Bog te video" and an upcoming 2nd part "Na putu za Montevideo" were made based on that story. this is why i added a new section under sport, and after hard work its finally done, based ofc on true events. (Правичност (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC))

I would really love to put a picture or two under FIFA 1930 article, a pictur eof the national football team from those times... can someone help me with this? (Правичност (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

Ethnic Macedonians and Macedonian language in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1919-1941) ?
During the 20th century, Slav Macedonian national feelings has shifted. In the early 20th century the international community viewed the Macedonian Slavs predominantly as regional variety of Bulgarians. Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. The “Macedonian Question,” became prominent after the Balkan wars in 1912-1913, followed from the withdraw of the Ottoman Empire from the area. During the Balkan Wars and the First World War the area was exchanged several times between Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. The militias of the Macedonian Slavs - IMRO supported the Bulgarian army and authorities, aiming eventual incorporation of the area to Bulgaria. At the end of the First World War there were very few ethnographers, who agreed that a separate Macedonian nation existed. The Macedonian Slavs in Serbian (Vardar) Macedonia were regarded as southern Serbs and the language they spoke a southern Serbian dialect. The policy of Serbianization in the 1920s and 1930s clashed with popular pro-Bulgarian sentiment stirred by IMRO detachments infiltrating from Bulgaria. In 1934 the Comintern gave its support to the ideas, that the Macedonian Slavs are a separate nation, but prior to the WWII they had been of little practical importance. During the WWII the area was annexed by Bulgaria and initially the pro-Bulgarian sentiments among the local population still prevailed. Even the Macedonian communists then refused to define the Bulgarian forces as occupiers and called for the incorporation of the local Communist organizations into the Bulgarian Communist Party. The local communists' resistment power started growing only in 1943 with the capitulation of Italy and the Soviet victories over the Nazi Germany, when a Macedonian communist party was created as a faction in the Yugoslav communist party. In November 1943 the AVNOJ did recognise the Macedonian nation as separate entity. As result the resistance movement grew up and the Macedonian nationalist ideas were popularized by the Yugoslav Partisans. On the other hand, the pro-Bulgarian right-wing IMRO nationalists declared, without success independence on 8 September 1944, after Bulgarian Army, moved back to the old borders of Bulgaria. Because of that, some researchers doubt that even at that time the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians. The crucial point for the Macedonian ethnogenessis was the creation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in the late 1944 and as a consecuence in 1945 the Macedonian dialects were codified. In this way, by the middle of the 20th. century the Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian identities as mutually exclusive. Generally, neither Ethnic Macedonians, nor Macedonian language were presented actually in Kingdom Yugoslavia before the 1940s.


 * Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127.
 * Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, p. 236.
 * The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-85065-492-1, p. 67.
 * The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-691-04356-6, pp. 65-66.
 * Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war. Kaufman, Stuart J. (2001). New York: Cornell University Press. p. 193. ISBN 0-8014-8736-6. Jingiby (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Eveybody knows all this, Jingiby, but to put it simply: we don't write our articles with contemporary terminology - we use modern, up-to-date terms. Please don't make me go through the motions here. -- Director  ( talk )  15:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please Director, eveybody knows all this, is blatant POV. We don't write our articles with contemporary terminology - we use modern, up-to-date terms,  is ahistorical, revisionism, as it projects modern ethnic distinctions onto the past. By the way in your logic, where are the Montenegrins and the Bosnjaks in the statistics in the article? You know Wkipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. See: WP:FORUM. Stop blind reverts and check the sources that are used now into this article:


 * Banac, Ivo (1992). The National Question in Yugoslavia (2nd printing ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. p. 58. ISBN 9780801494932 and Group of Authors (1997). Istorijski atlas (1st ed.). Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva & Geokarta, Beograd. p. 91. ISBN 86-17-05594-4.

Both do not support the changes made yesterday by User:James Lindberg, i.e. the existence of ethnic Macedonians and separate Macedonian language in Kingdom of Yugoslavia. They were simply unsourced POV and thus I have removed them. Ivo Banac uses exactly the phrase: Macedonians or Bulgars in the context of interchangeability as it is now in the article. About the Macedonian dialects, they were never recognized as a distinct language in Yugoslavia and were codified in 1945. There was also not statistic about the number of the speakers of this dialects in Yugoslavia. Check here, please: At the beginning of the newly created Kingdom of Yugoslavia after World War I, the regulation of relations among the languages of the three constituent nations — Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes — was the dominant concern...For its part Macedonian was considered as aither a Sebian or Bulgarian dialect...


 * Yugoslavia, the Former and Future: Reflections by Scholars from the Region", Payam Akhavan, Robert Howse, Brookings Institution Press, 1995, ISBN 0815719787, p. 114.

Please, provide also neutral, academic sources that Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed after 1941 as sovereign state. If I see according to
 * Yugoslavia as History: Twice There Was a Country, John R. Lampe, Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 0521774012, pp. 201-202,

Yugoslavia was totally destructed in 1941 and virtually disappeeared from the political map of Europe. Please, do not answer again with Eveybody knows all this, but provide reliable sources confirming your opinion. Chek also: Identifying reliable sources (history). Keep in mind that historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works, i.e. books published by academic and scholarly presses by historians, as reviewed in scholarly historical journals. I think the issue has to be resolved as per Banac, who is cited in article now: Macedonian Slavs or Bulgarians, and whose opinion was leading into the stabile version, till two days ago. This view is really NPOV. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to waste time here. You're not impressing me with your entirely superfluous history lesson, nor with the willy-nilly ref quoting. I have explained to you fifty times by now that WE DO NOT USE CONTEMPORARY TERMS, and I'm sorry, but I could not care less whether or not you consider that "revisionism" or whatever. Serbs and Croats were called "Yugoslavs" in the unitarianist period of the 1930s, for example - should we change that too? Bosniaks didn't have a national identity also, that doesn't mean that prior to 1992 we should call them "Muslim Yugoslavs" or "Bosnian Muslims" just because you think that using modern-day terms for people is "revisionism" (lol). Most nations didn't really exist in those terms before the 19th century!
 * Again, The facts you list are generally undisputed, but that doesn't mean we are going to use 1930s terminology here. Learn to stop when your new changes are reverted. In short - cut it out with your annoying edit war and take a hike, please.


 * As regards Yugoslavia's end date, that is a much more complicated issue than you realize, and believe me that I am very familiar with this the history of the partition. If you want to discuss that, I suggest starting another thread. But leave this Macedonian nonsense out. -- Director  ( talk )  16:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK then. I have restored the long lasting sourced version from 21 October before blatant POV was added. Jingiby (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The end date is very debatable.. Yugoslavia did de facto collapse in 1941, but #1: de jure it continued to exist in exile, #2 de facto within a few months large swathes of the Yugoslav territory were under the control of resistance movements. If we contend that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia continued to exist after 1941 (in the legal sense, and in Chetnik-controlled regions), then we're looking for the year when the Kingdom of Yugoslavia "became" the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. There, depending on our point of view, we can pick 1943, 1944, even 1945. -- Director  ( talk )  18:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom was divided and significant parts from its territory were legally annexed by some of its neighbours as Hungary, Alabania, Bulgaria etc. New states were formed on its territory. Even de jure it was nonexisting. Jingiby (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well no. The Nazi invasion and occupation was not conducted in accordance with international law, and the new states and annexations had no legal basis. Legally, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was occupied - but in existence, represented by its king and government in London. Such was not the case with countries like Denmark, France, or Belgium, for example. -- Director  ( talk )  11:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On april 17, the representatives of the Yugoslavia General staff and members of its Government capitulated in Belgrade to the Germans. The formal representation abroad was not a representation of a sovereign and existing state. Jingiby (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The military capitulated, essentially surrendered due to being entirely defeated - not the government as such. The King, Prime Minister Simovic and practically the entire government simply fled to London. No Yugoslav institution with the authority to surrender did so (as was the case in some other countries).


 * As for "sovereign" and "existing", that depends on your point of view. De facto Yugoslavia no longer existed, at least until a few months past and Yugoslav resistance movements too control of segments of the country. De jure, it continued to exist and remained sovereign, and was recognized as such by essentially everyone other than the Axis powers.


 * I admit this is a tricky question. Personally I'm not 100% on either side. However, what kinda keeps me on the side of the status quo is the fact that the Chetniks and Partisans really controlled HUGE segments of Yugoslav territory during the war. Its very debatable. As is the start date for the second Yugoslavia (Democratic Federal Yugoslavia), and the predecessor states thereof. -- Director  ( talk )  17:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

To claim Vlado Chernozemski, who was born in Velingrad, Bulgaria, (Northern Thrace) was Macedonian is nonsensical. Jingiby (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be equally "nonsensical" to refer to Gallileo as an "Italian". Yet we do. -- Director  ( talk )  19:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please Director, your ahistorical, revisionism projects modern ethnic distinctions onto the historical past. You know Wkipedia is not a place to publish your own analyses. Stop blind reverts and check the sources:


 * Zielonka, Jan; Pravda, Alex (2001). Democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 422. ISBN 978-0-19-924409-6. Unlike the Slovene and Croatian identities, which existed independently for a long period before the emergence of SFRY Macedonian identity and language were themselves a product federal Yugoslavia, and took shape only after 1944. Again unlike Slovenia and Croatia, the very existence of a separate Macedonian identity was questioned—albeit to a different degree—by both the governments and the public of all the neighboring nations.


 * Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127. During the 20th century, Slavo Macedonian national feeling has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland. They imagined a Macedonian community uniting themselves with non-Slavic Macedonians... Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive. Regional Macedonian nationalism had become ethnic Macedonian nationalism... This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift.


 * Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, Geographical perspectives on the human past : Europe: Current Events, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, p. 236. Up until the early 20th century and beyond, the international community viewed Macedonians as regional variety of Bulgarians, i.e. Western Bulgarians.


 * "The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-85065-492-1, p. 67. Most of the Slavophone inhabitants in all parts of divided Macedonia, perhaps a million and a half in all – had a Bulgarian national consciousness at the beginning of the Occupation; and most Bulgarians, whether they supported the Communists, VMRO, or the collaborating government, assumed that all Macedonia would fall to Bulgaria after the WWII. Tito was determined that this should not happen.


 * The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-691-04356-6, pp. 65-66. At the end of the WWI there were very few historians or ethnographers, who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed... Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity, the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria... The question as of whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when a Communist Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians.


 * Kaufman, Stuart J. (2001). Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war. New York: Cornell University Press. p. 193. ISBN 0-8014-8736-6. The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either "Bulgarian," "Serbian," or "Greek" depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian troops during WWII cured most Macedonians from their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them embracing the new Macedonian identity promoted by the Tito regime after the war. Jingiby (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Crown of Thorns: The Reign of King Boris III of Bulgaria, 1918-1943, Stephane Groueff, Madison Books, 1998, ISBN 1461730538, p. 224. The assassination was attributed to the Croatian Ustashi organization, mortal enemies of Serbian domination, but it was established that the actual assassin was Bulgarian, the IMRO member alias “Vlado the Chauffeur.
 * Now this is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU - your sources address a different issue, and do not apply to our usage of the term Macedonian prior to the official emergence of the modern Macedonian nationality. You're a Greater-Bulgaria nationalist POV-pusher, you have no consensus for your edits, and you will not succeed in pushing them through edit war. Rest assured of that. You can also stop posting templates on my talk, as they will be removed. If you wish to report me (a concept which I personally find rather comical), you should do so as soon as possible. -- Director  ( talk )  12:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Pretty comical.. -- Director  ( talk )  14:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am going to upgrade the article per talk, sources and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎ consensuss. Jingiby (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus, you don't get to just "proclaim" it unilaterally. And no - you're definitely not doing your thing here. -- Director  ( talk )  15:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

DIRECTOR stop edit warring and manipulating the article. As you can read this below is your agreement on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring:

Comment @DIREKTOR When you do a reverts, you should be very careful what part of the edits you revert. In the current situation you've reverted a disputed (by you) information as well as edits which are usually classified as vandalism (census results and exact quote for 1918). Being a Macedonian Bulgarian (by origin) I haven't intervened in your discussion with Jingiby because of a conflict of interests. Trying to help solving this dispute, I can point that in all the of censuses before 1913 (Ottoman) and the Greek, Serbian, German, etc statistics, these people were identified as "Bulgarian", in the period 1913-1931 they were called "South Serbs" (officially - which can be seen in 1921 census - they are part of the "Serbs & Croats" - by mother tongue), in 1931 census as "Yugoslavs" and since 1944 they are called "Macedonians". What you're trying to do is to push the 1944+ nation name to 1918 people. I think you can both agree with "Macedonian Slavs" i.e. "Slavs from the region of Macedonia" as a common name, or the other official terms based on the period for which you're writing and continue with constructive editing of the article. --StanProg (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

'''Sure, yes, I agree... -- Director (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)'''

If you continue, I will report you again. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing
This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falktalk 14:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Bosniaks
Bosniaks is not somehow a "non-neutral" term if its used in a pre-1990s context. -- Director  ( talk )  14:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There were no such thing as an ethnic group called Bosniaks in the time of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, just like there wer eno Macedonians and no Montenegrins.. all of these ethnic groups evolved in SFRY after ww2 slowly. They declared as Muslims, ... my solution to use Slavic Muslims term is good because it doesnt confront historical facts like your solution does when you want to use term Bosniaks, when there were no Bosniaks then... neither do sources mention them. And also because there were and are still more Slavic Muslims than only those from bosnia... take Macedonia for example (nowadays Torbeshi and Pomaks), Kosovo (Gorani), Sandžak Muslims ... etc. .. the term Slavic Muslims counts all of these into one group. In those times, name Bosniaks/Bosnians or anything else had nothing to do with ethnic affirmation, onlyregional one.. so yoiu cannot count them as one of the ethnic groups, in that part of text, when ethnic groups are counted! Try to be reasonable. (Правичност (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC))
 * I agree with Правичност. The opinion of DIREKTOR is somehow biased. He projects a SFRY-nationality back to the time of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Jingiby (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Bosniaks" is a post-SFRY, modern-day name for the Bosnian Muslims. Its not from the SFRY


 * You folks just don't get it. Read this carefully, please: we do not use contemporary names . 150 years ago all Yugoslavs were called "Illyrians", does that mean we should use that term in the context of that period? Etc. Apparently there was some consensus re "Macedonians" because of the ambiguity of the term (it could also refer to Greeks, etc.), but no such consensus exists for "Bosniaks", as the term is distinct from "Bosnians". -- Director  ( talk )  11:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? What are yot talking about? There were no such thing as an ethnic group "Illyrians" 150 years ago, are you saying Karađorđe was fighting for freedom of illyrians or for freedom of Serbs? Was ban Jelačić Illyrian and not Croat? Was Njegoš Illyrian and not Serb? And who fought the Kosovo battle.. Serbs and Turks or Illyrians and Turks? .. This is madness man. If you are counting Bosniaks, then you should also count Šokci, Bunjevci, Gorani, Montenegrins besides Montenegrin Serbs, Macedonians, dont forget the Yugoslavs also, i bet they also existed back then. . . Term Bosnian Muslims is also written in a downer tabelle where figures for each ethnic group estimations are listed (according to a source), we are suppose to write what sources are saying... so why keep pushing for name "Bosniaks"? Slavic Muslims (for all Slavic Muslims in K of YU) or Bosnian Muslims are 2 best solutions. Take mine and Jinglby`s advice. Regards (Правичност (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC))
 * "Illyrians" is the most common, "standard" term for all Slavic peoples of the Balkans from about 150 years ago (perhaps a bit more) all the way back to the Middle Ages. No distinctions whatsoever were made by scholars, nor was there even an effort to name us properly. Does that mean that prior to the 19th century there should be no mention of "Serbs" or "Croats"? I mean you get my drift, don't you? We do not use contemporary terms.


 * Further, in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia - there were no separate nations. There were no "Serbs", "Croats", or "Slovenes", and especially no "Macedonians", "Montenegrins", or "Bosniaks" or "Bosnian Muslims". There was only a single nation, first called the "Serbian, Croatian and Slovene Nation", and then the "Yugoslav Nation". If you really want to use historical contemporary terms, all of these need to go. Bosnian Muslims were only recognized as a "separate nation" well into the SFRY period. By your criteria, they should be stricken from history prior to that point - because they didn't really have a name or a separate nationhood. They should be called "Slavic Moslems" or some other nonsense..


 * Your approach here just doesn't make sense. We do not call nations and people by what they were called in some godforsaken period of history. We call them by the names they have today. The names used in modern historiography. -- Director  ( talk )  18:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bulgarians that want to eliminate Macedonians, Serbs that want to eliminate Bosniaks... can't you two just find some Serbian/Bulgarian issue and fight over it? There's enough of that out there, isn't there? :)) -- Director  ( talk )  18:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - thats 3 ethnic groups, in one country in one kingdom, later the dictatorship ordered all people to be called Yugoslavs.. Illyrians, Wends or whatever else... that doesnt matter how some western people reffered to peoples in western Balkans in only a certain period, starting from Napoleon period and onwards, when one part of the region was called Illyirian provinces, that is a period somewhere between end of 1700s and end of 1800s ... and there were more names, more groupations.. that doesnt really effect any of the ethnic groups. And all i am saying is STICK TO WHAT THE SOURCES SAY AND DONT CHANGE THAT. The soruces mention no Montenegrins, Macedonians or Bosniaks. It is not true we want to eliminate any of these groups, youa re making blind attacks, we jsut want to eliminate false informations .. that somebody wants to write that a Bosniak ethnic group existed in Kingdom of Yugoslavia or before. That is not true and if you are talking about nonsences i rather think the newly incorporated name by Federation BiH politicians, the so calle dterm "Bosniaks" is redicilous, because it makes Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats look "less Bosnian". Bosnian Muslims always were (for hundereds of years, from beggining of the Ottoman occupations) an ethno-religious group, they tended to create an ethnic group out of themselves after the 90s and if they are okay with that i am okay with that, but they can never change their history.. a difference exists here... Serbs were always Serbs, Croats were always Croats, but Bosniaks began to be Bosniaks only 20 years ago, Montenegrins 60 years ago, also Macedonians, while Slovenes were first mentioned in 16th or 15th century. If you havent visited primary school, let me remind you what wrote in those history lecture books when they were talking about Slav migrations to the Balkans - they only mentioned Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians and (for some reason) Montenegrins ... if any of the pupils would ask a question why Slovenes werent mentioned for example.. the answer from the teacher would come, because the Slovene national identity was formed in later centuries after Slavic tribes mostly mixed with Germanic ones in the area of Charantania. The explanation for why "Bosnians, Bosniaks" arent mentioned was because their identity was formed after the Ottoman occupations, when Serbs, Croats and other south Slavs got islamized and turkified. (and let me remind you i grew up in diaspora and still am, so you can see what is the international view on this also) .. anything else is just creating new history and nothing else... "SIMPLE AS PASULJ" .... But what i am manily trying to say to you is... just write according to soruces thats all... dont make anything up. If you really really wish to explain that the then called Muslims are todays Bosniaks (in majority, as some kept name Muslims still) then you can write that in a separate text. Regards (Правичност (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC))


 * Nemoj ti meni pasulj..


 * "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes", that was indeed its name, and the nation was the "Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene nation" - one nation. Even from the start. The language was "Serbian-Croatian-Slovene", one language, etc.


 * Not at home right now, be back tomorrow. the short version of my reply is: modern sources say "Bosniaks". -- Director  ( talk )  22:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Haha... nema jačeg od pasulja. ..Nation and language yes, but you are talking about a country, there were even no separate lands (Slovene, Croatian, Serbian) whole land belonged to all. But the ethnic groups existed separately "Kraljevina Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca" and what is important they existed before the creation of KSHS. The people werent called Serbo-Croato Slovenians lol... no such ethnic group lever existed like that in KSHS. Look.. if you mention them as bosniaks, you might turn some of Yugoslavias history upside down... somebody will ask "hey why were bosniaks ignored as a nation, that was tirany!" ... but its simply because they were either grouped into muslim Serbs or muslim Croats or separately simply being called Muslims, because it was known they as a minor ethnic group speaking the same language belonged to both of these ethnic groups by heritage. Macedonians were counted as Serbs, eventough alot of macedonians considered themselves Bulgarians and montenegrins were naturally Serbs even before their unification with Kingdom of Serbia. Bosnian muslims is a term also used today among bosniaks i fthat will make you feel better, lets use bosnian Muslims - like it is used in a downer tabelle. (Правичност (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC))
 * Look, just to make my own views clear, I pretty much hold that Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins are one nation. Of them, 'Croats' are the western part, 'Serbs' are the eastern part, 'Bosniaks' are the Moslems in said nation, and 'Montenegrins' are a regional identity (kind of like Dalmatians). 'Slovenes' are Slovaks cut off by Hungarians after their destruction of Great Moravia (their name just means "Slavs"), and the northern 'Croats' are obviously 'Croatized' Slovenes. 'Macedonians' are Bulgarians that the Serbs snatched up into their state when they got lucky in the First Balkan War. Of course, while I think this is the most sensible and realistic view - its obviously not in contact with the modern views in scholarship, which ofc tends to accommodate the political situation.


 * That brings me to my point: "Bosniaks" is how these people are referred to in modern scholarship. This is their modern name. Obviously it doesn't apply only back to 1993, but throughout history. -- Director  ( talk )  17:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting views, i actually agree on your thoughts about Slovenes and Montenegrins (Serbs), though the way you explained Macedoninans isnt quite the deal, that part was inhabitted by Serbs from medieval ages already, among bulgarians - and in exchangeable rulership throughout centuries, Serbs got Bulgarized and bulgarians gor Serbianized, while both of them got also Turkified by Ottomans. You know what is Slava ("Samo Srbin slavi slavu") and what is Imendan... aproximetly half of Macedonians celebrate Slava (from Serbs) and half celerbate Imen den (which they incorporated by Bulgarians) .. so that is another proof about their origin, eventough my calculations probably arent correct, it might be rather 30% for first thing and 40% for second .. idk.. but however i agree they are more Bulgarians than Serbs also according to the way they speak. Northern Croats you mean Zagorci.. yes i will agree to that also. I cannot however agree we are all same nation, (especially Serbs and Croats) we can only be as same as Russians and Polish are, eventough linguistically alot more related. .. thats my point of view. I however cannot accept a term "Bosniak" to be used in this historical matter, because these "Bosniaks" counted far less than Serbs did in Bosnia in that time and a bit more than Bosnian Croats and that makes them look "more bosnian" than the other 2 groups (something in favour of bosniak modern historians who also want to claim how all bosnians are actually Bosniaks and the rest got Croatized or Serbified and that is quite unacceptable and out of mind, because no historical documents even mention any so called "Bosniak" ethnic group or nation in our whole history except by reffering to it as a regional affirmation). If we would use term Bosniak in every historical sense on wikipedia, we would turn history upside down and make it look like they always existed there, but were (idk lets say9 perhaps ignored or werent given rights, or who knows what questions would evolve after this... eventough we clearly know this group started to exist after the Ottoman rulers came- and if we look that "then called" Muslims made up only about 250,000 people at the end of the 18th centruy (if i remember demographics correctly) then we know that they counted aprox. 2 times less 150 years before, which would make them an absolute minor minority versus Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats. Lets just ask somebody neutral for an opinion in this matter, shall we? You are already 1 vs 2 in opinions and if one mor eguy agrees that term "bosniak" shouldt be used for K of YU (KSHS) then it would be fair that we leave it just as "Bosnian muslims" dont you agree? Pozdrav (Правичност (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC))
 * Its not a matter of democratic voting, its an issue that concerns the prevalent terminology for said nation in modern-day sources. Though, if you want to post an RfC, I'd be happy to participate.


 * "Slav" actually seems to come from "slovo" not "slava". Re the rest, I myself find it very hard to imagine that Serbs and Croats (and Bosniaks and Montenegrins) are separate peoples in more than their divergent history and religion. The definition of a "nation" is entirely arbitrary, so if someone wants to claim that the difference in culture (Croats being more polite and hard-working ;D) constitutes a separate nation - one really can't debate that. However, in terms of history, I believe (and many scholars agree) that we're the same group of Avar slaves :). Btw, many believe the word "Slav" actually does come from the word "slave" (or rather its root); Slavs were very much used as slaves in history.
 * Re the Bosniak historian theories, I trust them no more than the similar nonsense peddled in Croatia. Or Serbia for that matter, where our similarity is often used as a pretext to declare us all "Serbs"... -- Director  ( talk )  04:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the cited in this article Academic publication: Banac, Ivo (1992). The National Question in Yugoslavia (2nd printing ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. p. 58. ISBN 9780801494932, Professor Banac used the term Bosnian Muslims. Bosnian Muslims itself is a neutral term that redirects on English Wikipedia to Bosniaks. I support the idea to use reliable terms, assotiated with Academic publications. Jingiby (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well of course he does. As I told you already, the term only originates from then. I'm talking about modern sources usage, post the actual introduction of the term. "Bosnian Muslims" was the name of a constituent nation of the SFRY period. Without that official status, it means nothing but "Bosnians" who are "Muslim". Therefore, it is highly inaccurate: according to statistics, many "Bosnian Muslims" are agnostic/atheist. -- Director  ( talk )  11:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Director, "Slavs" term might have origins from word "slaves", but you are forgetting that term "Slavs" has been first mentioned in ca. 6th century, while term "Serbs" was mentioned first in 1st century and term "Croats" in 2nd century, so i dont agree with you we were anyones slaves, afterall as far as i know, the internationally recognized history tells us that Serbs have gained territory in the Byzantium area (which was later called Servia) after they have defeated the same Avars you have mentioned and that was in ca. beggining of 7th century... Btw, look at it this way, since Macedonians are mentioned as Macedonian Slavs and Montenegrins arent mentioned because they declared/counted as Serbs it wouldnt be fair to use modern name for Bosnian Muslims, they shouldnt be any exception, not only would it be unfair to other "modern name groups", but it would also be unfair to the sources and to the history (široko gledano). for 400-500 years when they started to exist they actually werent nothing more than "Bosnian Muslims -they declared as Muslims and called themselves Muslims, in few periods they even delcared as Turks, then as Serbs and Croats of muslim religion, later as Yugoslavs (because their status was disputed) and then again as Muslims and now in last 15-20 years as Bosniaks... just because Bosniaks is their new name, we cannot call them this way for the times when they were called/ declared as Muslims - or bosnian Muslims - they were an ethnoreligious group and eventough some are agnostic or atheist today, they were born and raised in Bosnian Muslim families 98% and they carry Muslim names and surnames; we anyway arent reffering to the modern Bosniaks in this article, but to Bosnian Muslims that existed back then. I think my arguments are pretty strong this time and i wish we end this debate. Pozdrav (Правичност (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC))
 * There is no way in hell Serbs or Croats were mentioned in the 1st/2nd century AD :). Period. I'm just so sure of it I can tell you that, no matter what you heard - its not true. Side note: as you might've heard, according to some scholars "Serbs" also comes from "servi", meaning "slaves" or "servants" (ostensibly of the Avars). Whether or not the names themselves originate therefrom, we were definitely a subservient ("slave") people to the Avars, and that's how the civilized world first encountered us. Tbh, I could be a bit more comfortable with all this stuff since my ancestry is mostly non-South-Slavic :). -- Director  ( talk )  21:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no way because you say so? ... Well you are wrong, it is official history and there are historical documents that exist, you can even read it on wikipedia and what you said about name origin of Serbs is nonsence, there is no such nation in world who would inherit a name slave for themselves, Sirbi-Serbi-Servi-Sorbi-Sarbi-Srbi-Serboi etc... originates from various ancient languages meaning same or similar things like " -to guard, -guardians, to -watch over, to -defend/protect, even -hero" .. Serbs were first mentioned in 1st century AD, 5 centuries before that they were mentioned under some other names. In various schools it is being teached how Serbs were always "battle-people, war-people" - that is described throughout historical events, always resisting occupators, always going into war even against much tougher opponents, all for their freedom - you might look upon my words with laugh, but if you learn our history you will aknowledge this. We anyways gotten away from the subject too much... we are to discuss the terms for bosniaks.... so we agree, that we will use term Bosnian Muslims - is that right? (Правичност (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC))
 * I figured you had some stuff from the "it sounds similar - it must be us!" brand of Balkans nonsense. The Serboi are not liked to Serbs by anything other than a similar-sounding name. The same goes for "Montes Serrorum". These are nonsense claims akin to the "Charahvatei" inscriptions and such. These could be references to Serbs or Croats, but they also could not be: these are not falsifiable claims hence they are unscientific nonsense (typical of Balkans "historians"). No historian of any worth would make anything even resembling the definitive claims like those you make. If you subscribe to that, you might as well subscribe to the "servi" theory - that also sounds similar. Since we definitely were subservient to the Avars when we were first encountered by Roman culture, I think it not unlikely that the name actually derives from "servi". Then again, it might not be the case.. but its certainly far more credible speculation than "hero people", which smacks of obvious wishful thinking. I.e. you want that to be true, because then you're a member of the "hero people" or the "guardians", bla bla...


 * Serbs did not "resist occupiers" any more than others did. In the middle ages you resisted the Turks about as much as everyone did. The Austrians fought them for literally centuries. Croats fought them everywhere, etc.. All that "we're untamable!" pride comes from the 19th century when you were on the fringes of a thoroughly decaying Ottoman state and rebelled constantly. But then - every other Balkans people under the Ottomans managed to win their independence from the Turks. The WWI episode is really the only extraordinarily "resisty" episode in all your history, and there all must tip their hat to the Serbs - but even there it must be noted that Austro-Hungary fought on two other fronts besides the Serbian front, and that the latter was really a sideshow. Do not get carried away into these "national mentalities", they are always 90% bull piled upon 10% historical fact.


 * We do not agree re Bosnian Muslims. Imo the next step for you, if you wish to continue this, is to show that the modern-day term is still "Bosnian Muslims", and/or post and RfC. -- Director  ( talk )  02:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe every nation`s name meanings derive from some "good personalities or atributes" ... please post the rfc yourself for usage of term Bosniaks as you want to use the modern name instead of the way sources say and history says. (Правичност (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC))

Reversions, self-published source on abdication
This edit had the edit summary "Replaced the statement on refusal to abdicate which contained no reference, and an outdated (1955) source on the Regency Council, with an abdication section that has most recent references. See also updated: Peter_II_of_Yugoslavia#Abdication_and_exile"

I reverted it with the edit summary "Abdication seems fringe view, cited source is self-published; and part on date is about post-Kingdom, and not supported by 2nd source."

The reversion was reverted with the edit summary "Publisher belongs to Penguin, according to their Wikipedia article. Besides, replaced statement had no references so that one was fringe. Also, new ref is western"

I'm reverting the change again, as the problems have not been addressed. The material contains two problems:

1) The fringe view that Peter II abdicated the throne. It seems uncontroversial among mainstream historians that this is inaccurate, or at best is a contorted way of describing his temporary transfer of power to the Regency Council. He was ultimately unwillingly deposed, or however you want to phrase it, and did not abdicate/relinquish/resign/step down as King. There's are fringe beliefs that he stepped down in 1941 or 1945, but I found none published in reliable sources. The source cited is the self-published work:

It does not contain most of the information contained in the Wikipedia edit, though it does claim that "KING PETER II abdicated the thrown" [sic].

The publisher, Trafford Publishing, is a self-publishing company; the "rebuttal" reversion points out that it is owned by Penguin Publishing, which is essentially true but irrelevant. (Pearson, which owns Penguin Group, bought Author Solutions, Inc., which owns Trafford). Trafford's recent self-description said "Trafford Publishing, an Author Solutions, LLC self-publishing imprint, was the first publisher in the world to offer an 'on-demand publishing service' and has led the indie publishing revolution since its establishment in 1995."

According to WP:SELFPUBLISH, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."

Here are some RS characterizations concerning the transfer of power:


 * "Peter bowed to the inevitable and signed an agreement with Tito on 1 November 1944 which involved representing himself through a Regency council. However Tito declared a Republic on 29 November 1945 and Peter never returned to his country." ref


 * "King Peter II refused to recognize Tito's government but finally consented on January 29, 1945, through the formation of a regency rule of government, in which Tito participated." ref


 * "'We [King Peter II] have decided to transfer our King's authority to a Regency Council until a decision is made by the Constituent Assembly.'" ref


 * "In the November 1945 elections for a constituent assembly, the National Front headed by the Partisans won 96 percent of the vote. The assembly promptly deposed Peter II and proclaimed a republic." ref


 * "Peter went into exile in London (1941) but in 1945, after the allied victory, Marshal Tito abolished the monarchy." ref


 * "After the liberation of Belgrade in November 1944, Tito and King Peter II agreed to form the nation's new government until the country could hold an election. In early 1945, Tito became premier. ... In November, the Communist-dominated government deposed King Peter and declared Yugoslavia a republic." ref


 * "Peter II spent the war in exile and was deposed when peace was declared." ref

There are more and less detailed accounts, and detailed accounts cover his transfer of power to the Regency Council, and may point that he wasn't "officially" deposed until 1947, but no detailed account suggests that he abdicated the throne.

2) The information on the 29 November holiday is about its celebration after 1945, after the Kingdom was abolished, and simply isn't relevant to this article. While I think the Wikipedia article mischaracterizes the cited source, I'm not correcting it because it should be removed either way.

Agyle (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I added disputed-inline to the relevant paragraph. Apparently sources you provide say that King Peter unwillingly tranfered power to Tito's government, but it neither confirmed nor denied King Peter's de jure abdication, so the issue remains undecided. May be it would be better to rephrase the paragraph to avoid speaking of abdication? P.S.: Pettibone's self-published book can't be used to support challenged claim. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUBLISH does not state that self-published books are not acceptable but "largely not acceptable". Besides, this was the only western source on the subject I was able to find that contained an explicit (yes/no) abdication statement. The book merely summarizes known facts, as the opposing user correctly noted himself, such as the list of the new Yugoslav cabinet. It is clear to me and to anyone who had studied international law that at least de jure abdication did occur in this case: the king named Regency Council rather than Advisory Council, Regal Council, etc. Regency in this case does imply abdication I'm afraid, and that should be clear without saying. If the young king changed his mind as he realized that communists had schemed him out of power, oh mine that is just too bad. However it was his problem, so I do not see how this could be of any relevance. Secondly, I do not see consensus among historians, or lawyers for that matter, at least not in the west from what I could tell. This is English Wikipedia, you know. I looked around and all I was able to find were some Yugoslav references unavailable in the west either due to language barrier or the fact that they have been long out of print since most are older than the 1990 dissolution of Yugoslavia. At any rate, I was unable to locate Yugoslav references that state in clear terms whether this was an act of abdication or not. I suppose Yugoslav historians too knew very well that 'regency' in 'Regency Council' could only mean that an abdication procedure was taking place, so they never bothered to state that which was obvious. Furthermore, they continued doing so consistently for half a century. Until Mr. Karadordevic Jr. showed up that is, with his fringe claim. I find this to be a rather curious coincidence, to put it mildly. Perhaps he now found some young, eager historians who would hold his view rather than their own or that of their predecessors. I repeat: even the local historians have never (up until recent times, it seems) explicitly stated a triviality such as 'regency council = abdication' probably because they would have risked embarrassment in the eyes of their peers for stating the obvious. Thus it appeared to me that today's historians over there adhere to lower standards than normal, for who-knows-what-reasons of course, but with the poverty and corruption in that region I dare speculate that perhaps financial or/and political gain is involved. So I say stick to the western reference in this case, even though it is a self-published book which otherwise/overall does seem all right too. 178.79.190.148 (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The "largely not acceptable" lists some of the exceptions, for example when the author is a recognized expert in the field; in this case the author is a retired schoolteacher with an interest in WWII.


 * The December 7 1944 agreement between Subasic and Tito referred repeatedly to the King. If was "implied" and "should be clear without saying" for 70 years that it was really an abdication agreement, it doesn't belong in this article. I'll remove the text Dmitrij D. Czarkoff flagged as disputed, as it seems equally baseless. Agyle (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please also remove the statement on "deposing" of Peter II. Surely you can not depose someone who has already abdicated via his own Regency Council or otherwise. That should go without saying as well. Besides, the "deposing" statement cites no references either, let alone western references stating in clear terms that Tito or his communists indeed deposed Peter II. 109.74.200.208 (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * While there is not currently a reference cited for "deposed", several sources state that (three are quoted above); do you think they're sufficiently clear? I agree you can't depose someone who abdicated, but as discussed, no reliable sources say he abdicated. If different reliable sources say he was deposed and not deposed, or something similar to that, the article can include both views.


 * Just a note regarding western references, since you mentioned them a couple times: while it's preferable to cite English-language references when practical, you are allowed to cite non-English references. If you're citing offline resources, use a detailed reference (e.g., ISBN if available, publisher, location/country for obscure publishers, etc.), and I'd request a short quote/excerpt of the supporting source material, to allow other editors to verify that the source was reflected correctly and in context. Agyle (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You misinterpret those three references, to say the least. The Rand McNally is an encyclopedia, which normally translates as "a compilation of interpretations; not to be taken as a reference". Even worse, this particular encyclopedia mentions Peter II and 'deposed' only once (your last quote above) and in a by-the-way fashion in an unrelated paragraph detailing Hitler's invasion of Yugoslavia and 1941 events rather: "Peter II spent the war in exile and was deposed when peace was declared. In March 1941 he assumed full royal powers after his regent, Prince Paul, had been overthrown. Germany's prompt invasion forced Peter to flee and he eventually settled in London. Peter supported Mihajlovic's Cetniks in Yugoslavia but the Allies supported Tito's partisan movement and this led to many disputed." It is not useful to this discussion if you will just take the first and rather carelessly coined sentence out of context and "forget" about the type of reference entirely. The other two "references" are not worth noting even: one is a collection of war stories by a Canadian author published in a juvenile edition under 100 pages in volume. The other is not about World War II at all, but Cold War which began in 1947. We are talking 1945, when the Cold War perhaps started brewing but was far from obvious to anyone.  In addition to the fact that the third reference is not authoritative on the subject matter, the third reference is also biased: "Although superficially there appeared to be a coalition government in Yugoslavia, Tito dominated. In the November 1945 elections for a constituent assembly, the National Front headed by the Partisans won 96 percent of the vote. The assembly promptly deposed Peter II and proclaimed a republic." Namely, here you again omitted a key sentence (highlighted) though it claims that Peter didn't know what he was doing. Oh mine, but he was not a minor in 1945 so his or his Regency Council's signature has the same weight as Tito's. In other words, this reference is hand-waving just as the first one.  Sorry but the three references, two of which you rather misquoted and one is a storybook for youth, would not support your case. I still expect you to either remove both the abdication and deposition parts, or return them both, along with my "obscure reference" and your McNally encyclopedia "reference" if you like.  Again, it is remarkable that there are no real (scientific) references on the alleged deposition, but there are many on Peter's Regency Council, which by definition means an abdication procedure.  109.74.202.237 (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "you omitted a key sentence"; you're just challenging that he was deposed, right? This seems like a commonly accepted fact. As I said, a couple sources will list different dates for when he was deposed; I read one that said it in reference to when he went into exile, and one or two which mention 1947 when the sale of his property was authorized, but most say it was when the monarchy was overthrown. Here are some, most of which use the word "deposed", to consider.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * All of this is getting pretty lame: the only source supporting abdication theory is self-published book, which is shallow at best. The theory that "regency' in 'Regency Council' could only mean that an abdication procedure was taking place" is naïve: per Oxford English Dictionary definition regency council is "[a] group of persons selected to act as head of state because the ruler is a minor, not present, or debilitated" (emphasis' added). Really, there is now a lot of evidence in favor of "was deposed", and literally nothing in favor of "abdicated". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why you responded on behalf of Agyle and felt offended by my exposing his misinterpretation ("you omitted a key sentence")? Are you his personal secretary, perhaps? Interesting indeed, just as I exposed one of you in his attempt to subvert normal discussion while trying to teach us all that an encyclopedia or a children's storybook are valid references, another shows up with further misinterpretation of my words and offers additional bogus references (quantity never substitute quality though) such as an incomplete dictionary definition. All right, let us see what Mr. Karadordevic's crew has put together this time. Because that must be who you are, correct? I mean given the passion for unloading truckloads of bogus references on this discussion.

As I have just mentioned in the above, you too misinterpret my words and also an incomplete dictionary definition: I never claimed the deposition reference was the only problem (on the contrary, I list many problems), besides we all know what regency means thank you very much. Also, we all know that regency does not mean just the things your misused dictionary definition mentions, but also (and here most importantly, as you too are trying to omit key parts) a situation in which a monarch is incapacitated like in this example of a British regency.

So on to the crux: the reason why Peter II appointed his Regency Council in 1945 was not because he was merely absent as you try to misinterpret it, but because, as a monarch who had lost control over "his" territory (to Hitler, in 1941), Peter was also legally incompetent in addition to the fact that his previous regent prince Paul sided with Hitler (on Peter's behalf of course, which is legally the same as if Peter II himself had sided with Hitler). So again, legally (which is what this discussion is all about; not about history or who has got stronger references), Peter II was a Nazi collaborationist. He also came to power via coup d'etat as one of your references above notes, meaning Paul has abdicated to Hitler for Peter or else there would be no need for a coup d'etat as a simple notice to Paul to vacate the office would have sufficed mind you. To make things even more unfortunate for Peter though, unlike Francisco Franco in Spain who by the war's end had kept his country's territory firmly under his hand, Peter has lost control over Yugoslavia voluntarily in 1941 to Hitler, not 1945! So the return of powers to Peter in 1945 would have set a legal precedent enabling any Hitler's ally to get back in power too. Peter gave up his reign twice: once to Hitler (via regent Paul) as he fled to London, and then to Tito after the war. What a record for such a young king and one rather short-lived reign!

So it is not this discussion that is getting lame, but your lot's shoveling of "references" by ton, while thinking that it will somehow improve your position and make you appear informed. It actually makes you look uninformed at best. So I stand by authority of my argument, rather than argument of authority (not that you demonstrated any authoritative references). So in effect, Peter has abdicated not once but twice: first to Hitler and then Tito. Even the Karadordevics' own dynastic law stated clearly that he who leaves the country for more than 6 months loses the royal status and all privileges, period. Your attempts (including manipulating the sources) to make all those facts disappear from legal stage are amusing at best. The Yugoslav assembly's "deposing" of Peter in 1945 and 1946 was as formal as it can get, and it merely stated the facts that he had relinquished his territorial rule to Hitler in 1941, never to regain it again unless you count a coup d'etat a legal way? Cry all that you like, but legally speaking Peter's subsequent wishful thinking while in refuge (not really exile) means nothing past his legal deeds coming into effect.

Here are comments on your "references", shot down one by one (except for #6 and #7, which are actually in my favor, thanks, very kind of you!):
 * "King Peter was formally deposed" is legally different from "King Peter was deposed", because his uncle-regent had previously already abdicated (to Hitler), and if that was not an abdication then no coup d'etat to put Peter in power would have been necessary either.
 * "abolish the monarchy" is totally different from "depose the king", see below explanation.
 * "King Peter II was deposed" -- unauthoritative source (leisure read on "famous assassinations"), besides I could not open the link to a quote as you stated it.
 * "The assembly promptly deposed Peter II and proclaimed a republic." -- unauthoritative source (on Cold War), besides assemblies cannot depose monarchs but they can and quite often do change the system, as your ref. 2 above correctly states. See below paragraph for further explanation.
 * "King Peter II of the domestic Karadjordje dynasty in Serbia-Yugoslavia, and the Albanian King Zog were all deposed, and exiled for half a century. Some of them died. King Simeon II and the son of Peter II, crown prince Alexander of Serbia, however, have returned to live in the old Royal Residence of Vrana and the Royal Palace of Belgrade, respectively." -- unauthoritative source on unrelated subject covering topics from 1973 onward, by a rather romantic/wishful monarchist. By the way, the royal palace was not returned to Alexander, and he is just a tourist attraction there.
 * "The teenaged Peter became king in 1941 in a British-supported coup d'etat against his uncle Paul, who had aligned the country with Nazi Germany. When the Germans invaded later that year he fled and formed a government in exile. He was formally deposed by the postwar Yugoslav parliament in 1945" -- oh mine, your reference "forgets" to mention that Paul was Peter's regent with full powers, so your reference admits that Peter came into power illegally (via coup d'etat)! Thanks for this one, I really appreciate it!
 * "Peter II left Belgrade fleeing from the Germans. He was deposed in 1945 by the Tito regime." -- again, collective bodies like "regimes" don't depose, so it should say "Tito deposed Peter" if you want to counter my reference that states "Peter II abdicated to Tito" (which is also a legally correct statement which is pretty amazing for a "self-published reference").
 * "Yugoslavia: King Peter II, in exile since 1941, is deposed as communists take power." -- illustrative juvenile edition under 50 pages in volume. Please!
 * "Communist-dominated government deposed King Peter" is legally meaningless since, again, no collective body such as a government or an assembly can depose an individual; for example, assemblies do change the system and dissolve monarchies, but they cannot take individual's existing rights defined under international law.
 * "(monarchists) escaped Yugoslavia with Tito's Partisans in deadly pursuit and pledged loyalty to the deposed and exiled king Peter II. In King Peter's veins ran Karadjordjevic blood," -- romanticized monarchist gibberish. Only scientific references count in this case, sorry. I never saw any of you cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper from a reputable law or history journal, why is that? Guess!
 * "King Peter, who never returned to his country, was formally deposed in March 1947" -- exactly, formally; see comment to ref. 1.
 * "An early victim was King Peter II of Yugoslavia, who was deprived of his throne in 1945, when the communist guerrilla leader Josip Broz, better known as Marshal Tito, formally abolished the monarchy. King Peter never got over the shock, which overshadowed the rest of his life" -- another monarchical romanticized gibberish. Note also how inaccurate it is: Tito did not abolish monarchy, the assembly did as your own ref. 2 above claims, or not? Please, at least try not to support your stance by using references which contradict each other.
 * "Peter II, the last Karadjordjevic king, who had been overthrown by the Communists in 1945" -- an unauthoritative source (on Milosevic's dictatorship of 1990s), besides a political party cannot and most certainly did not overthrow this or any other king; note again that your other references do claim (incorrectly mind you as I explain below, but for the sake of argument only) that the assembly did this? Oh mine, you are so confused.

In conclusion: regal right can only be vested in an individual, never in a group of people such as assemblies. So "assembly deposing a king" is legally meaningless. For example, a monarch always abdicates to someone. Otherwise, he/she "abandons the throne", in which case someone from a competitor dynasty may fill the abandoned throne, or the monarchy has to be abolished properly, meaning by assembly or in referendum. Furthermore, the fact that Peter has created his Regency Council in 1945 rather than acting alone means that he too was aware of his lack of real powers by that time, and that his previous regent (his uncle, no less) screwed him up by siding with Hitler so that Peter himself has got in power via a coup d'etat, which is quite illegal mind you. Also important point: the fact that the assembly abolished the monarchy (your ref. 2) means the throne was previously abandoned, not that they were deposing him. Ah, that law. But again, I do like your reference on Peter getting to power illegally in a coup d'etat in the first place! Which makes any discussion pointless so much so in fact that, in light of your own new references, you should now remove (throughout Wikipedia) all text that mention Peter as a king past 1941, as well as all text that mention his son Alexander as a prince. 178.79.190.148 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I even started seriously responding to this comment, but it is so rediculous, that I can't believe you yourself take it seriously. Just several short notes:
 * Peter's coming to power is completely irrelevant, as he was recognized as king.
 * Abolishing monarchy includes deposing the king (unless there is no king, which you never proved).
 * The rest of your comments don't make any sense at all. The "I don't like it" bits (every comment with word "romantic") are baseless and useless for the purpose of discussion. More so the comments with the word "legal", which are either blatantly false (eg. "King Peter was formally deposed" is legally different from "King Peter was deposed" – they are legally equal) or irrelevant (eg. So again, legally (which is what this discussion is all about; not about history or who has got stronger references) – quite to the opposite, this discussion has nothing to do with law, only with history and references).
 * Before rushing to answer, please read WP:OR (based on your argumentation I would suggest reading it at least twice), and then finally provide at least some references supporting your position. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not expect me to take your own reference listing seriously? Why then bother listing them in the first place? You hoped to create an impression of your "vast knowledge" in the area by shoveling references on this discussion by truckload. After I shot one-by-one all of your bogus references (youth literature, encyclopedia, incomplete dictionary definitions, refs on unrelated subjects and periods), you began hand waving and pointlessly crying 'ridiculous'. Oh mine, rarely does one encounter someone as manipulative. After I remained calm to all your tricks and manipulation, now you went on to claim WP:OR on my part. How was I doing original research, by shooting your references down or by stating that a regal right is a legal matter? Besides, who is rushing here: me by responding after a few days, or you who respond within hours?  You are not even ridiculous, you exceeded that "expectation" by any measure. Here I shoot down your bogus arguments yet again:
 * "Recognized as king", by whom? There is no international body that recognizes kings. Within the inside arena, Peter has lost his regal right (to rule as a sovereign over his people and land) when his own regent-uncle Paul abdicated to Hitler. If that was not an abdication, then no coup d'etat would have been necessary, correct? Try logical thinking for a change; that hardly constitutes original research by any stretch of imagination. Besides, those who do coups do not need recognition, do they. You again demonstrate that you have no idea what your are talking about here.
 * Monarchies can be abolished either through revolutions, legislative reforms, coups d'état, or wars. On the other hand, a deposition can be by done by coup, impeachment, invasion, or forced abdication. How are those two the same or even similar? Obviously again, you have no idea what you are talking about since: Yugoslav monarchy was abolished through legislative reform because it was the land's highest assembly that did it; nobody has forced Peter in 1945 to abdicate (or to create his Regency Council for that matter); nobody has invaded his land in 1945 (he did not have any since he fled already in 1941 and his regent abdicated to Hitler); nobody has impeached him; and most certainly nobody has organized a coup against him in 1945 since he was already out of the country for 4 years. Quite the contrary, it was Peter who came to power in a coup d'etat in 1941 supported by the British after his regent abdicated to Hitler according to one of your own references, remember?
 * When I say that some reference speaks in 'romanticized' fashion (not 'romantic'; sic) I call it, of course, irrelevant, bogus, fringe, non-scientific, etc. Have you ever heard of a law journal, a history journal, or any scholarly journal whatsoever? Are you familiar with the concept of a vetted, peer-reviewed source that normally speaks in scientific language freed from emotion? To your surprise, we are here looking for scholarly references because the issue is that of legal science; for instance, and to your surprise, "King Peter was formally deposed" is legally different from "King Peter was deposed", because the former term involves de jure powers only, while the latter term involves both de jure and de facto powers. According to the Wikipedia rule on vetted scholarly references: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars." References that are vetted but not on the subject (like yours on: Cold War, Milosevic's rule of 1990s, and what have you not), are considered irrelevant in this case. I cannot believe I am actually discussing this with someone so ignorant. You are gutsy though, I grant you that. 109.74.202.237 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox languages
The infobox in this article uses Template:Infobox former country. Unlike Template:Infobox country used for many current countries, which contains separate parameters for "official_languages", "languages_type", "languages", and "regional_languages", the former country infobox template contains just a "common_languages" parameter. In its example on the template page, for the German Empire, it lists a variety of languages under this heading, with descriptive headings separated by linebreaks including "Official language", "Unofficial minority languages", and "Colonial languages".

I followed this approach for the common_languages parameter, listing:
 * Official language: Serbo-Croato-Slovenian Unofficial languages: Serbian, Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian

I included references to support those, a footnote for the official language noting "its legitimacy as a language is disputed", and a footnote for the unofficial languages noting "consideration of Serbian and Croatian as distinct languages was disputed", along with references supporting the footnotes. My intention with the latter footnote was to clarify why there were separate links to Serbian, Croatian, and Serbo-Croatian, and it included a reference citing the government's 1926 position that "in spite of many statements to the contrary, Serbian and Croatian are one and the same language."

The common_languages parameter was stripped down to just "Serbo-Croato-Slovenian", with an edit summary stating "Removed the nonsense about disputed legitimacy – it belongs to the article about the language, where it is already discussed length". There is almost no discussion in Serbo-Croatian on the topic of Serbo-Croato-Slovenian; it is simply treated as a synonym of Serbo-Croatian, which itself is questionable, but that's another issue.

I just restored the official and unofficial languages in the infobox, but left out the disputed footnotes in the interest of avoiding a tussle over what should be discussed in this article. If there are objections to the change, please discuss them here. Agyle (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the list including both Serbo-Croato-Slovenian and Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian is inappropriate, because the these terms are not homogeneous: the former is collective term for latter three. There was (and still is) a discussion of whether Serbian and Croatian (along with Bosnian and Montenegrin) are separate languages or standard varieties. At the time of Yugoslavia, the dispute included Slovenian language as well, which was seen by some as dialect of Serbo-Croato-Slovene. Later the opinion that Slovenian is separate language gained more support, so that "Serbo-Croato-Slovenian" evolved into "Serbo-Croatian".
 * Listing all of this misleadingly implies that these are different languages, which is rather fringe theory. If discussion of language naming issue is deemed appropriate for this article, it should come in prose.
 * So, ultimately I see three options for the infobox field:
 * Serbo-Croato-Slovenian
 * Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian
 * Croatian, Serbian, Slovenian
 * Each of them may be ammended with "Unofficial: Macedonian", as well as a note, which would state alternative options and wikilink to some prose with detailed explanation. But mixing it all together with a short note is just misleading and inconsistent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your point, and I think some exposition in prose on the topic would be a good way of clarifying some of the issues surrounding the languages. I think there was only one "official language" during the kingdom's existence, and even if it's the only language listed, it seems important to clarify that it is an official language in the infobox; the infobox template page's example suggests that clarifying the type of language was the intent behind the infobox's "Languages" section.


 * The four languages I listed as "unofficial languages" are described in reliable sources I read as being widely used in state institutions and referred to as languages by those names during the SCS era, which is how I decided which to include. (Hungarian was spoken, for example, but all Hungarian-language schools in the country were closed). It was the tri-partite legal construct of the Serbo-Croato-Slovenian language that allowed Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian schools to continue to operate in the SCS, or Slovenian deputies to speak Slovenian in parliament, and Serbo-Croatian was nationally standardized only after the country's 1929 "reboot", until then encompassing what were treated and considered by many as distinct languages. However, I haven't seen a reference that clearly states "these were the unofficial languages during the SCS", so my criteria may be considered WP:OR, and it is a messy issue to neatly summarize inside the space of an infobox, so I'm amenable to omitting unofficial languages.


 * I didn't look into Macedonian much, but didn't happen to see any sources that suggest the term Macedonian was applied to a language during the era of the SCS, or was considered a separate language in that era. I'm not saying it wasn't, I just didn't find an RS that clarified the 1918-1941 views. Agyle (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the following scenario of resolving this dispute would be most appropriate: let's extand to include this material and add a brief mention of "Serbo-Croatian vs. Croatian and Serbian" dispute with a link to corresponding section of Serbo-Croatian. When prose description of the issue is more or less complete, I believe, the set of unofficial languages will be more obvious, so we could rewrite the unofficial common_languages with better understanding of the issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623224051/http://www.corfu.gr/en/profil/theatro.htm to http://www.corfu.gr/en/profil/theatro.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Serbo-Croato-Slovene
I believe that wikilinking parts of the word is inherently wrong (confisuing, hard to detect). May be it would be viser to create a stab at Serbo-Croato-Slovene, or at least a section at Serbo-Croatian, explaining that there was a fringe view, which was officially endorsed in Kingdom of Yugoslavia for political reasons? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

False dilemmas
Please, do not introduce false dilemmas (like with this section) so to bury my edit after you reverted it without justification after you lost argument in the previous section. Also: you are illiterate in English, so please do us all a favour and leave this Wikipedia. Why not go to Wikipedia in your Balkans languages; your attempts to Balkanise this Wikipedia will fail. 109.74.202.237 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood the situation: I stopped arguing with you because your view remains unbased an unsupported, and you ignore others' arguments. It is still the same situation: two editors specifically stated that they disagree with you and are not convinced with your evidence. Please, gather consensus for your edit per WP:BRD first, and don't hijack other talk page sections. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're the one who misunderstood. Actually, I don't think you're capable of rational thinking. Mentally challenged, perhaps? 178.79.149.253 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. FactStraight (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who cares if a hundred of you agree on evident incorrectness? 178.79.149.253 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You had better care, if you intend to edit Wikipedia articles. At present you have no consensus for the edits you've imposed and to which you keep reverting, engaging in repeated violations of rules on due weight, incivility and disruptive editing FactStraight (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

IP edits (13 July 2015‎)
An anonymous editor has recently added several notes containing quotes (including broken English). These quotes are inaccurate because they have changed the wording and punctuation of the original sources, which can be checked using Google Books. The quotes should either be removed or be corrected so that they are accurate. Links for Note 20, Note 21, Note 22. Doremo (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Article
Shouldn't it be 'Kingdom of the Serbs, the Croats, and the Slovenes'? The names of nations are usually preceded with the definite article. --Eleassar my talk 23:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No; the structure is " the Kingdom of [the [Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes]] ". The article is not repeated. For a grammatical explanation, see here. Doremo (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Macedonians
User:Anaxagoras13, has added the words "or Bulgarians" to the category of Macedonians in the table of ethnic groups. He does not provide a reliable source on an issue that is contentious. He refuses to seek consensus for his change and has dubbed my reversal as vandalism. (while I'm Dutch, and not a Vandal). I will not revert again within 24 hours. I'm pretty sure this is WP:OR and also goes against WP:NPOV. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. The revisions are based on nationalist dogma which holds that all Macedonian Slavs are in fact ethnically Bulgarian. While this theory has both its merits and its flaws, the Yugoslav census labeled the Macedonian Slavs as Macedonians, not Bulgarians. This is not about what they actually are (ethnically speaking), but what the census labelled them as. Numerous reliable sources clearly reflect that the Yugoslav census says Macedonians, and not Bulgarians (just as it says Muslims and not, say, Bosniaks, Gorani, etc.). Revisions to the contrary are nationalist vandalism and should be treated as such. 23 editor (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OMG, what a nonsense, the revisions are based on the principle, that sourced information must match the source and not being changed.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 23:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You are lying, I don't have added "or Bulgarians", you have deleted this words. Thereby you have changed the source given for this table!--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 23:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And I have a reliable source, so you are lying again!--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 23:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Turns out that the words were in the table but, (rightly so imo) were removed by user: 118.165.30.202. User:Anaxagoras13 restored them and was challenged by me. I apologise for suggesting that User:Anaxagoras13 originally introduced them, but I don't think that changes the matter all that much. It's still unsourced material, it's still not NPOV it's still OR and you still shouldn't call people liars or vandals!Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think the source is not suitable, then you have to delete the table, but not change the content of it!! As long as the table is in the article with it's source given, the table must be remain the same as in the source!!!--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 23:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies to User:Anaxagoras13. Turns out he's right and I acted too quickly. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at the book this table is taken from. Right underneath the table the text in the book quoted actually says the classifications (among other things) are badly flawed . I would indeed suggest taking the table out altogether. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is complicated:During the 20th century, Slav Macedonian national feeling has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland. They imagined a Macedonian community uniting themselves with non-Slavic Macedonians... Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive. Regional Macedonian nationalism had become ethnic Macedonian nationalism... This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift. Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127. 46.238.25.84 (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Milan Šufflay
I've been asked by to comment on his edit, which has apparently been challenged as WP:UNDUE.

I definitely don't think that the mere mention of this event violates WP:UNDUE. I feel, however, that the original edit goes into more detail than is appropriate for the topic. I'd generally support the current version:
 * That same year, Croatian historian, Milan Šufflay, was assassinated in Zagreb. As a response, Albert Einstein and Heinrich Mann sent an appeal to the International League of Human Rights in Paris condemning the murder, accusing the Yugoslav government. The letter states of a "horrible brutality which is being practiced upon the Croatian People." The appeal was addressed to the Paris-based Ligue des droits de l'homme[19] (Human Rights League).[20] In their letter Einstein and Mann held the Yugoslav king Aleksandar explicitly responsible for these circumstances. [20][21][22]

I'd say the above is about right regarding length and detail, which doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon.

I'm watching this page and I'll be available for further comments. GregorB (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated GregorB. New version sounds fine.Seems about near ehat I had initialy wrote. Its main focus is the targeting of Croats against the government of the time. Sufflay was just an example and trigger of the letter. The Wikipedia article seems lacking on this subject matter. Regards Maxforige77 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Added this bit of context to make it a bit clearer. GregorB (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

London as a capital of Kingdom of Yugoslavia?
Could someone explain why is London considered as a capital of Kingdom of Yugoslavia in a given period? Is it because of King went into an exile and is this enough to legally (by law) consider city where he went as a capital for country he ruled before? There’re no references and it cannot stay there as simply as that till it’s get clarified 100% (since subject of capitals is a very delicate thing). Thank you! --Obsuser (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously nonsense. I removed it from the infobox. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wo, wo... Do you have any explanation and reference except simply stating own opinion by using "obviously"? --Obsuser (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's totally unsourced and the capital of a country is obviously not abroad. This is so unusual that it needs a source. There isn't one. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gerard von Hebel was agreeing with your observation and acting on it. No one is expected "to prove a negative": the burden of proof is on the assertion, not the removal thereof. FactStraight (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did intentionally posted this obesrvations as it is. I don’t want to pull anywhere but to reference either only Belgrade or both cities. Why was it so long in the infobox and who put it there? Maybe there are some reasons, maybe not. For now we didn’t do anything except giving a bit different still unsourced information... I don’t have sources and cannot find them but I am still asking for sources because someone else might resolve this by finding some. --Obsuser (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It probably originated in the fact that London was the seat of the Government in exile during WW2. However, the seat of a Government in exile is not the same thing as the capital of a country. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Italian empire
Hello to everybody, please, I have one sugestion to improve text. Italian empire was not only consist of annexed teritory of Dalmatia ( Governatorate of Dalmatia) and Ljubljana Province, but consist also from Montenegro and teritory south of demarkation line in Indepedent State of Croatia asore 19:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ante.sore (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this question is better suited for Talk:Kingdom of Italy --ViceChairman6492 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)