Talk:Republic of Serbia (1992–2006)/Archive 1

January 2008
It's pointless to have a separate article, this Serbia is the very same as the current!

In 1990 was the change from the Socialist to the present one. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars


I noticed that some contributors remove images with referenced description without prior discussion on talk page. This dangerous and illegitimate practice leads us to edit warring and should not be used on Wikipedia. I repeat, please use talk page if you are disputing something. Edit summary is simply not enough for dispute resolution.

So, if someone thinks that this image is not appropriate, let's discuss it here.--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It was explained to you numerous times already. This is so POV that it is almost vandalism. And of course that we will not discuss this picture usage on all articles where you put it. This is problem with picture, not article. --Tadija (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition of various maps
I was reverting what I thought to be an IP sock. However this reversion has been replaced by PANONIAN with this edit. In my view these maps appear to be there purely to reinforce dominance over Kosovo with little discussion or referencing of the actual situation. Also this makes the article far too image heavy and I believe they should be removed on this basis alone. Polargeo (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Kosovo and Vojvodina are already marked in the other map within the article and so these extra maps add absolutely nothing to the understanding of the reader and are totally superfluous to the article. Polargeo (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moreover by what reference do you call Serbia "Central Serbia" is it standard to refer to this as central Serbia? Or is this your own interpretation? Polargeo (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maps "appear to be there purely to reinforce dominance over Kosovo"??? I mean, how can you come to such conclusion in this case? For your information, I am not oppossing independence of Kosovo, but that does not mean that we should falsify history and just delete all historical maps that are showing Kosovo within Serbia. If you proclaim independence from something then it is obvious that you was part of that something before independence proclamation. In another words, this is an historical article that speak about Republic of Serbia within federal Yugoslavia (or Serbia and Montenegro) from 1992 to 2006 - Serbia became independent in 2006, while Kosovo proclaimed independence from Serbia in 2008, so I really do not understand how this historical article could be related to the current status of Kosovo? As for question whether both maps should be included into article, they show two different levels of internal structure of FR Yugoslavia - FR Yugoslavia had two republics (Serbia and Montenegro), while Serbia was further divided into two autonomous provinces (Vojvodina and Kosovo) and statistical territory of Central Serbia (which was under direct jurisdiction of the Serbian government). As for term "Central Serbia", it is official term that Serbian government used (and still use) to describe that territory (although, in this year, that territory will be officially divided into 3 separate statistical regions, so this term will be no longer in use. However, it was in use in the time period to which these maps are refering). PANONIAN 16:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then why do you need two maps to show what one map could easily show? This is excessive. Polargeo (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, maps are showing two different levels of administrative divisions. Whether first map is already covered with second one might be a question of different personal opinions, but maps are useful illustrations to the articles and I do not see that usage of both maps will damage structure or aesthetics of this article. PANONIAN  21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two big maps next to each other showing very little in a small article when one map could easily show the lot strikes me as overkill. It is a matter of style and it is something that would be dealt with if you wanted to ever get this to FA. I am also concerned that the maps like many maps for Yugoslavia give WP:NPOV concerns especially when so prominent and unnecessary. Polargeo (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think that maps are big, we can reduce their thumbnail size. I also do not agree that one map can show everything here: this is article about Serbia in FRY, so we have one map showing Serbia with its entire state territory and another one showing administrative divisions. You obviously do not agree, but perhaps other users should say their opinion about this as well. Also, if you think that my maps are POV, please elaborate because of which reason you claim that. PANONIAN  12:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge
"The Balkans produce more history than they can consume", or how did Churchill actually phrase this? So Wikipedia produces more articles on History of Balkans than it can reasonably maintain. I fail to see the point of this content fork: this is the same country as Serbia or Socialist Republic of Serbia, which comprised 90% of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. Why oh why do we need this article -- all of the information exists on above-mentioned articles, Breakup of Yugoslavia and elsewhere. Some repeating of history contents across articles is of course unavoidable, but this one is purely unnecessary. I propose it to be merged into Serbia or History of Serbia, where it would find a suitable context. Even the title is misleading -- "Republic of Serbia (federal)" implies that Serbia was a federation itself, while it was actually a federal unit within another federation. At the very least, it should be renamed to History of Serbia (1991-2006) and rescoped as a sub-article of History of Serbia. No such user (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article exists for the former country and should not merely be a section of Serbia or History of Serbia. The article name complies with the de facto standard for former countries. I agree that History of Serbia (1991-2006) and History of Serbia (1991–2006) should both redirect here, but I do think that this article title is broadly correct; compare with the WPFC examples. I could definitely be persuaded that the "(federal)" part is misleading, but it should be Republic of Serbia (1991–2006) or something similar, imho. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It should not be merged because the article of Republic of Serbia (federal) is not about the present day independent country of the Republic of Serbia, but is referring to Serbia when it was a constituent republic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, in which Serbia was not a independent country, but part of a federal state. This is like the article on the Socialist Republic of Serbia when Serbia was a single-party-led constituent republic of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I would support renaming the article to Republic of Serbia (1990—2006), as the Republic of Serbia officially replaced the Socialist Republic of Serbia in 1990 as a constituent republic in Yugoslavia, and then it ceased to be a constituent republic in 2006 when the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro ended, making the Republic of Serbia an independent country.--R-41 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose --II-- -- S T E V A N (talk)  00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * History of Serbia (1991-2006), but strongly ✅ move to Republic of Serbia (1990–2006). It is much better, clearer and easier like that, and year is correct. :) -- Tadijataking 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I'll remove the tag and move the article. No such user (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

SFRY != FRY
This is another article that needs to be fixed to avoid the implication that you can have a lower-level entity span several higher level entities. It may be true that the transition in Serbia in 1992 was largely smooth, but the change from SFRY to FRY is not a triviality nonetheless. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Information about the higher level entity issue is well clarified in this article. The current title is result of the consensus reached in section above. Please remove inappropriate tags you placed on this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see consensus above for the inference that an administrative unit article is permitted to span two state periods. It's also unclear from Talk what the actual changes in 2010 were, I'll have to fish it out of the page history. There's talk about it being a general history article, but that's a different perspective and should be titled differently. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Found it - it was a proposal to merge the article into the Serbia article. That's quite clearly not what I'm talking about here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right, the above consensus is not about if this article should be splited to "Serbia 1990-1992" and "Serbia 1992 - 2006". This article deals with Republic of Serbia which was regulated with constitution of 1990. This constitution is replaced with another one in 2006. But if you believe this article should be splited please follow wikipedia guidelines and propose such split. Until you get support for your position please remove the tag. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I take issue with the interpretation that the Republic of Serbia (of 1990-1991) was constitutionally unaffected by the 1992 federation. Even if we subscribe to the idea that an assertion of sovereignty (assuming we're talking about the same thing that was done by SR Croatia in 1990) equals actual sovereignty, the entering of a sovereign entity into a federation is a not an event that has no constitutional impact. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In which terms "fixed"? What is wrong with "the implication that you can have a lower-level entity span several higher level entities", since this is what actually happened in the case at hand? I don't think that our articles about historic polities must be bound to some specific rules, because every individual case is different, and there is a huge variety in ways (expanding, splitting, rejoining, changing name, changing the system, changing the ruler...) how entity A came to be entity B. We should decide how to structure our articles on case-by-case basis. In the case of Serbia, there are several points which could (but not necessarily have to) be considered as "cutoffs". We decided (consciously or not) to go for the 1990 constitution, which included name change (erasing "Socialist"), flag change and system change (from socialist to democratic, at least nominally). I don't think it would be necessary or useful to further split it into 1990–1992 period and 1992–later. Did SFRY actually exist between e.g. June 1991 (independence of Slovenia and Croatia) and April 1992 (formation of FRY)? Why should we deal with these questions in an article about Serbia, whose internal structure was largely unaffected by the breakup of the federation? No such user (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it's simple: sovereignty is more globally important than administrative division. The encyclopedia articles need to be general enough to provide a worldwide view of a subject. It's unreasonable to expect arbitrary English readers to land on this article and then automatically know the entire context of the specific article such that it's clear to them why we're talking only about some internal structure that doesn't appear to fit into the common taxonomy of states, countries and regions. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm with No such user and Antidiskriminator on this one, I think. Whilst the article should make it clear that the legal entity (and, more importantly, the legal entities of which Serbia was a member) changed in this 16-year period, I don't see any fundamental problem with the article covering a constituent republic of SFRY that became a constituent republic of FRY, when its internal structure didn't really change that much during the collapse of the federation. I'm afraid I see no reason to split the article in twain. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * On the particular point of splitting, I'm not suggesting we create an entire new article for the 1990-1992 period, but instead that we describe that content appropriately here and move any details to the existing SFR Yugoslav article - SR Serbia. Heck, if the whole argument rests on there not being many changes from SFR Yugoslavia to FR Yugoslavia, then it stands to reason that the Republic of Serbia of 1990-1991 is not sufficiently distinct from the Socialist Republic of Serbia of 1943-1989 to have its own article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note also the analogous change to the Montenegrin republic article - effective consensus since May 2010. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Restoring the original scope
First of all, in response to above, I don't think anyone is proposing, or will propose, any kind of article "split". What's being proposed is a slight decrease in scope for this article, coupled with a slight increase in scope for Socialist Republic of Serbia. Restoring the boundary year between these history articles from 1990 to 1992. And nothing could be more logical: The question is what's the more significant milestone in the history of Serbia? a) The adoption of yet another (fourth) constitution within Yugoslavia, or b) the complete disintegration and dissolution of that same country whereof Serbs and Serbia were a part for 74 years?
 * 1990: on 28 September 1990 Serbia adopted a new constitution in Yugoslavia, as it had done also in 1947, 1963, and 1974. For all those changes, we use a single history article that covers Serbian history in Yugoslavia: Socialist Republic of Serbia.
 * 1992: on 3 March 1992 the breakup of Yugoslavia was completed, and on 28 April 1992 Serbia entered into a new country, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

If your answer was "b)", congratulations! :) Gentlemen, please note that this article was originally named "Republic of Serbia (FRY)", and that its scope started at 1992. Thus it remained until an IP unilaterally changed the scope without anyone noticing the problem . No such user's move to a chronologically-defined title was of course a good idea as such, but unfortunately, the dates were wrong. The purpose and scope of this article is to describe a subdivision of the FRY, and I submit that said scope was never changed by any kind of consensus. The start date is naturally 1992, not 1990. Its not really even a "scope restriction" its such a tiny modification. -- Director  ( talk )  13:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No not really, Antid. I believe that may be wishful thinking on your part.
 * What we have here are two countries: Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro (FRY). Each have their set of articles dealing with their subdivisions: that's why this article was created in the first place - to cover Serbia in the FRY. Without covering a subdivision of Serbia and Montenegro, this article really loses purpose: we might as well then do as every other ex-Yugoslav country has done and bring in the modern-day Serbia article at 1992. Alternatively, if we keep it following the "constitution logic", we would require two or three additional articles to cover all the other equally-significant (indeed pivotal) reforms that took place in Yugoslav Serbia in 1947, 1963, and 1974. Each time fundamental reforms covering the same issues (state name, government structure, autonomy of provinces, etc.) were enacted, and all these supposedly-separate "Serbias" are included in the Socialist Republic of Serbia article. -- Director  ( talk )  13:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't move it 'unilaterally', it was proposed by two other posters in the merge discussion above. If I had been acting really "unilaterally", I'd have merged this whole damn article somewhere. Why? Because we have all important information about this polity already elsewhere, mostly in Serbia and Montenegro. In effect we need less longer articles, not more short ones, with fragmented history. But I digress. As I said, the cutoff points are a point of consensus and rather arbitrary, so whatever. If you really feel bad about the current scope, go ahead and change it. No such user (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He already did. Unilaterally.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nsu. I understand that, I corrected my post before you posted that one. And you know full well its not about what I feel. I think I've outlined in good detail the objective problems and lack of logic in the IP's scope expansion. -- Director  ( talk )  19:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * DIREKTOR, you renamed this article although Requested moves says that move request procedure should be started for potentially controversial moves. Please respect this instruction and restore previous name for this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in principle, but if the scope was changed way back in 2008, then any reading of effective local consensus now - can't ignore the status quo of the last five years. You could have held back on the move while this discussion was in progress. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If this proposal is going to happen then the article titled "Socialist Republic of Serbia" is a misnomer, the state changed its name to "Republic of Serbia" in 1990 and ended a one-party government institution - these were massive changes to the very basis of the government - they were not a petty name change of the polity. Therefore that article would need to be renamed "Serbia in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" as that is what the topic really is about then, not just the one-party government Socialist Republic of Serbia.

Symbols
Can you explain your thoughts instead of just reverting with no edit summary ?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Anthem
I reverted your edits because: (a) Hey, Slavs was the anthem of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro, but it was never anthem of Serbia, (b) Your edit summary God of Justice was adopted after independence is not true. It was adopted in 2004, two years before Serbia became independent.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)