Talk:Serbia and Montenegro/Archive 2

Independence
I've changed the introduction to past-tense; the rest of the article now needs the same work done. --Golbez 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking I think the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro still exists, it's just that Serbia is now the only member (until it declares independence itself). BovineBeast 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it does not exist any more. According to the Constitutional chapter of Serbia-Montenegro, if one of the states leave the union, the other state became the successor of the union, thus, when Montenegro declared independence, the Serbia-Montenegro was in fact transformed into Serbia. So, Serbia will not declare its independence, it will only adjust its laws in accordance with the current situation. PANONIAN   (talk)  00:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly the news sources I've been reading have indicated that Serbia intends to declare independence. Besides, the constitution doesn't say that at all.  For a start, the constitution speaks of 'leaving the Union' rather than 'dissolving the Union', and it only says that Serbia (not the remaining state) will be the successor to International agreements.  BovineBeast 09:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you are right, Serbia will declare its independence tomorrow, but, what is one day more? :) PANONIAN   (talk)  14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Minor question : Should all links to Serbia and Montenegro that refer to a town, place, current event being in this country, e.g. Mr. Xcic now lives in Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro - be changed to Serbia // Montenegro, or should we wait a little while longer ? Travelbird 12:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I say change them, except in the few cases where someone was born IN Serbia and Montenegro. --Golbez 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

what exactly did Serbia declare its independence from? thanks Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The same thing Montenegro did, the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, in effect dissolving the union. An analogous thing would be Russia declaring independence from the Soviet Union, even though it was the heavy bulk of the Soviet Union and even contained its capital. Someone had to be the last one in the Soviet Union to turn the lights out. --Golbez (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Vote along ethnic lines
We currently have this statement in the article:


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

Does this make any sense? Is there any way, besides self-identification, to determine which people in Montenegro were "ethnic Montenegrins," and which were "ethnic Serbs"? Are there any objective criteria here at all? Isn't this like saying that "The vote in Austria on anschluss with Germany was mostly on ethnic lines, with 'Austrians' and ethnic minorities voting for independence, while 'Germans' voted to unify with Germany?" john k 16:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The percentage of the population who voted for independence, some 56% roughly outlines most of the the percentage of people to declare themselves Montenegrin with the inclusion of Albanians, Sandžak/Bosniaks etc. and others who benefit from becoming a more significant minority so that they later cry for greater autonomy (a bid for independence). The percentage which voted for unity is in approximation to the figure which declares itself Serb as well as the few Montenegrins (and fewer still Yugoslavs) who wished to remain. This is not proof by any account, but people in and around Montenegro know these facts only too well. Ragusan 04.06.06
 * It seems like this is kind of a tautology, though. Montenegrins who call themselves "Serbs" vote to stay in a union with Serbia, and those who call themselves "Montenegrins" vote for independence?  But Montenegrins who want to stay in a union with Serbia call themselves "Serbs" and Montenegrins who want independence call themselves "Montenegrins."  It's completely circular.  There's no ethnic difference between a person in Montenegro who calls themselves "Serbian" and one who calls themselves "Montenegrin"  - it is already basically a political characterization. john k 19:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is like saying (in a hypothetical situation - obviously there was no vote in real history) that the vote on Anschluss in Austria was divided along ethnic lines, with Austrians voting for independence and Germans voting for Anschlus. Or that the people of Moldova's feelings towards unification with Romania are divided along ethnic lines, with ethnic Romanians supporting union and Moldovans opposing it. Whether someone from Montenegro adopts a "Serbian" or "Montenegrin" identity is entirely political - there is no actual ethnic difference between a "Serb" and a "Montenegrin".  So saying that the political decision was made along ethnic lines makes no sense.  It was made along lines of political identity, which is generally how political elections are decided. john k 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem was with the word "ethnic" - that should be "national". Nationality is opted for, ethnicity isn't. --Joy &#91;shallot] 20:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're completely right, John, but, as described in Montenegrins, the ethnic (in appropriate sense of the word) division among Montenegrin Slavs (let me use this word) has political causes, not cultural or racial or... Like Joy said, it seems to be the rendering of ethnic that causes trouble, but I disagree with him about semantics: like I say, and nationality and ethnic group articles confirm, "nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country" (they're all Montenegrins by nationality) and "An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry". So, this is kind of tautology, and could be rephrased. Your comparison with Moldovan case is entirely correct. Duja 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but then, ethnicity is irrelevant once nationality is declared different to previous. Save for when the race is totally different, with perhaps a Sub-Saharan African choosing to be Vietnamese, or a White European choosing to identify with the Javanese of Indonesia, it is impossible to point to another human being and say "he is not from my ethnic group", sadly it just happens that when discussing Balkan politics, the various nations living in close proximity are considered ethnicly different even though their identity is based on Slavic descent. Given that Montenegrins and Serbs, like Macedonians and Croats have something of a Slavic past, I agree that the election in Montenegro was not based on ethnic grounds, merely national, hence political. But I will say one thing, there is something of a Montenegrin/Serb distribution in Montenegro. It isn't just a case of a typical Bosnian town in which 46% Catholics call themselves Croat, 22% Muslims Bosniak and so and on so forth left, right and centre. Those with affiliation to the title Serb are mostly concentrated in northern municipalities, particularly the old Sanjak of Novibazaar towns which when liberated from the Ottomans attached themselves to Montenegro more recently than for example Cetinje, which served as a Montenegrin city state for centuries. Evlekis 5 June 2006


 * This is not very accurate. There are 32% of Serbs in Montenegro and 44.5% of the population voted for independence. This is an error of 12.5%, so it is a generalization that is not correct. Obviously, a number Montenegrins/Bosniaks/Muslims/Albanians/Croats must have voted for the union as well. This makes the guessing game more difficult, although the ethnic component was certainly important, but not crucial - or else the result would have been 68%:32%, instead of 55.5%:44.5%. Finally, these are not "people who opt for Montenegrin ethnicity" or "people who opt for Serbian ethnicity", but Montenegrins and Serbs, as they themselves declared in the national census. Montenegrins 13 June 2006

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

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


 * I agree.... in many ways this article is laid out like an article about a current country rather than a historical one.


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

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

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

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


 * I agree completely. -- ran (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've done the following:
 * Split Federal Republic of Yugoslavia out of Serbia and Montenegro.
 * Merge the contents of History of Serbia and Montenegro into either Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or Serbia and Montenegro, depending on time period.
 * -- ran (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * NO, it should not be merged, because the country did exist at a time. More important it existed untill now. So it's (maybe) the first country that ceased to existed whil Wikipedia was on the net.
 * This means Wikipedia has build a good article about this country like all other nations. So that's why it should not go lost or be merged in to another article!
 * User: Allard    Places:  13 June 2006

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

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

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

FRY split
FRY and SiM are the SAME country. Only the name is different. Do not mix FRY with SFRY. FRY should redirect to SiM. Alinor 14:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my opinion (i.e. that the split is unnecessary), too, but I was outnumbered. Duja 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget it. SCG and FRY have different history. FRY 1992 - 2003 SCG 2003 - 2006. Also, they are two different unions created. Serbia and Montenegro were part of FRY but wanted to make a looser union, hence the union of SCG. No duh! Milo 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Again: should we split SFRY article to DFY (Democratic Federal of Yugoslavia, 1943-1946), FPRY (Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia 1946-1963), and SFRY (Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1963-1991) just because they had different official names and constitutions? Duja 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * i dont see why not; we could better elaborate on the political situation--Jiang 06:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that stuffing DFY and FPRY under the explicit title of SFRY is wrong. But, that problem actually has two solutions - either we get someone with a decent knowledge of those particular states and events to write decent new articles about the smaller two (like User:Dejvid dir for Kingdom of Yugoslavia when we needed that); or we rename the SFRY article to something simple such as Second Yugoslavia. I actually used that in the new category name and it seems to have worked out fairly well. --Joy &#91;shallot] 11:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Serbia and Montenegro were NOT part of FRY. They were THE FRY. This is the same country. Only a different name and constitution. By your logic, Milo, we should make different articles for each correction to the constitution of each country... (like Duja said). The history is the following: from the SFRY emerged 5 states: Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, Macedonia, FRY (FRY is NOT a succesor state to SFRY - it even applied for fresh UN seat in 2000). Then every one of these 5 countries adopted multiple changes to its constitution. On of the very notable changes of course is the FRY constitution change that even renamed the country to SiM. But just because this is very notable doesn't mean that we should separate the country in two articles! I propose speedy revert of FRY to redirect to SiM. Alinor 06:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, elaboration on the political situation can be done in the sub-articles like "History of SiM". Alinor 06:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Subarticles like "History of SiM" do not need to exist: everything about SiM is by default "history"--Jiang 07:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You do have a point; however, the French articles are fairly long by themselves and present subarticles of History of France rather than subarticles of France. OTOH, look at the mess at Czechoslovakia, which resembles FRY/S&M situations more closely: apart from "main" Czechoslovakia, there are short Czecho-Slovakia, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.
 * However, since you and User:Ran have done a rather nice job on clearing up the article scopes (far better than in the first "split" of FRY article)&mdash;although they could use some more cleanup&mdash; I won't push the issue anymore; consider it settled AFAIC. Duja 10:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the FRY article was already redirected to SiM. It looks like there was such agreement reached before. Now, after the Montenegro referendum (that has nothing to do with the link between SiM and FRY) - someone splitted them again. So, for me it looks like the new split is going contrary to the previous consensus reached. Alinor 13:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There were considerable constitutional differences between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. I see no reason why we should not have separate articles on them. Also, seeing as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed for 10 or 11 years, and the state union of Serbia and Montenegro lasted for only three, and no longer exists, if there's any redirecting going on, it should be in the other direction. But I basically agree with Jiang here. john k 14:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also for separate articles. Oz Lawyer  16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Look for a smaller discussion here Talk:Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia. IMHO the period of usage of one name or the other is not decisive in this case. SiM was the later name, so that is why the article should be with this heading. FRY is just a former name of the SiM state. If there was no Montenegro separation (thus dissolving of the SiM state) we would still have a SiM article and FRY redirect to SiM. I don't see why we should change article names, scopes, etc. because of the Montenegro referendum. SiM is just going to "historical status" and that's it. Alinor 08:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on product, not process. I would argue that even if Serbia and Montenegro still existed, we should still keep an article on FRY to describe the entity that was...but this is a moot point. I don't see the precedent or logic behind naming an article at "the later name". The setup has worked well in other state successions so I don't see why a merged article is preferable. We have separate articles for name changes: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland --> United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and for constitutional changes: French Fourth Republic --> French Fifth Republic, so I don't see what is the problem with having the separate articles for both constitutional and name changes. And where do you draw the line between having separate articles and not having separate articles? What is the criteria. --Jiang 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To those that are opposed to the split: take a look at the last version of the SiM article just before I split FRY out:
 * Serbia and Montenegro (Србија и Црна Гора/Srbija i Crna Gora, abbreviated as СЦГ/SCG), State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, abbreviated as SUSM), was a confederated union of Serbia and Montenegro, which existed between 2003 and 2006. The two republics, both of which are former republics of the SFR Yugoslavia, initially formed in 1992 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Savezna Republika Jugoslavija, abbreviated as СРЈ/SRJ/FRY). In 2003, the FRY was reconstituted as a State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.
 * If you think that SiM and FRY are the same country, then why was SiM introduced right from the start as a country that existed from 2003 to 2006? Why was the FRY introduced right from the start as a state that preceded SiM? Since SiM and FRY are introduced in this way from the outset, why was FRY a redirect to SiM?
 * When I read the intro paragraph, the only logical conclusion I could draw was that based on Wikipedia's own definition of SiM, FRY should not be a redirect to it. -- ran (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Support the split Avala 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support having two different articles for FRY and SiM. &mdash; Nightst  a  llion  (?) 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support merging articles for FRY and SiM Bojan 11:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Conditional support for merging the articles for FRY and SiM on the condition that it was rewritten / presented as a history article. The article would have to conform more in style with that of a history article (ie take out the geography, demographics, economy and other similar sections and focus more on the chronological history, see e.g. the French Third Republic, Weimar Republic or, perhaps the best comparison, Czechoslovakia.Osli73 09:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support for merging the articles. S&M is history, so that article should be written in historical style.Space Invaders 11:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) I support the merging of the articles. --Teemu Leisti 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Actually, on second thought, I don't. What I do support now is keeping the FRY and the SiM articles separate, and linking to the SiM article from Yugoslavia. That article already refers to three historical entities: the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (= the FRY article).  Historically speaking, SiM is really a coda to Yugoslavia, even though the name doesn't include "Yugoslavia". --Teemu Leisti 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) * On a more careful rereading of the Yugoslavia article, it already refers to Serbia and Montenegro. So I guess I support keeping the present situation. --Teemu Leisti 14:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) I am against a merger of this article with the article about the FRY. Three years ago, I set out a vision for a set of articles on the Kingdom, SFRY, FRY, and SCG. This has been done in good ways since then. My arguements for separate articles is based upon two factors. Before the election in 2000, the FRY was basicly shunned by the rest of the world for obvious reasons. This US view on the FRY was made known in this manner:


 * Serbia and Montenegro have asserted the formation of a joint independent state, but this entity has not been formally recognized as a state by the US; the US view is that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) has dissolved and that none of the successor republics represents its continuation.

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

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

Art. 59:

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

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

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

Art. 63:

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

Art. 64:

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

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


 * (emphasis is mine.)

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


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

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

Were there ever FRY or S&M flags with coat of arms on them?
I have seen the official flag of the old Kingdom of Yugoslavia and saw that it had a coat of arms very similar to that of the FRY/S&M. I have looked a lot of places, however I have not seen any official FRY/S&M flags with the coat of arms on them. Do no FRY/S&M flags have the coat of arms on them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.163.158 (talk • contribs)
 * No, except maybe the president's standarta, but one rarely sees it. Duja 06:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep this as a History Article
This article should be kept as a History Article. I disagree that it should be merged with another historical article. This state was a seperate state from the old Yugoslavia. During the Serbia and Montenegro period, Yugoslavia was dropped!
 * Agree with a separate article. Can be linked to the Yugoslavia article. -- Ryanjo 03:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * I also agree.--Jusjih 08:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too, Serbia and Montenegro was in my eyes a seperate entity to Yugoslavia. Jamandell (d69) 21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yugoslavia really ceased to be Yugoslavia after Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia left, what was left was Greater Serbia really and the name was gradually even abandoned by Serbia, if it was going to be merged with anything surely it would be better to merge it into the article about Serbia after all the overwhelming majority of the population were in Serbia which had close to 99% of the total population.--Lord of the Isles 20:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Serbia and Montenegro topics
Template:Serbia and Montenegro topics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Joy &#91;shallot] 23:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

SCG is in Area and population of European countries.
Area and population of European countries

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Debt
What happens to the debt of Serbia and Montenegro now? Is it all inherited by Serbia? 206.45.175.201 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)En
 * I believe that shortly after independence Serbia and Montenegro met to come to a financial settlement. I believe debts were included in this settlement. - Thanks, Hoshie | 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... ah.. no. --PaxEquilibrium 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominate for this artical to be deleted
i nominate this artical to be deleted because the two republics of Serbia and Montenagro are two seprate country's now and their is no need for this artical anymore. --Marbus2 5 08:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. It's an historical article now, so what? &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 08:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm... West Germany, Saar, Rhodesia, and for that matter Yugoslavia are not "around" anymore but I can't see their deletion requests going down well doktorb wordsdeeds 15:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I'm against it. They're separate entities. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should be merged. Legally and constitutionally they were quite different entities. We have separate articles for the historical entities of the Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom so I think we should do the same here. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in favor — but maybe a best alternative would be a name that could embrace both periods of History, maybe something like History of Serbia and Montenegro (1992-2006), Serbian-Montenegrin state (1992-2006) or Serbian-Montenegrin union.--MaGioZal 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote against the merger. Хајдук Еру   ( Talk  ||  Cont ) 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Oppose both very much different Ijanderson (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

About meaningless “See also” links — and external links, too
First of all, let’s face the essencial fact: Yugoslavia and Serbia-Montenegro are former countries that don’t exist anymore.

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

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


 * Geographical regions in Serbia and Montenegro
 * List of cities in Serbia and Montenegro
 * List of mountains in Serbia and Montenegro

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

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


 * Serbia and Montenegro at the CIA World Factbook
 * Profile: Serbia and Montenegro at BBC News
 * Maps of Serbia and Montenegro at Perry-Castañeda Library of University of Texas

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

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

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


 * Yes, I agree; many of those links are semi-defunct and/or not relevant to the former country (although I can see why bad faith is assumed). Duja ► 08:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Federal Republic Of Yugoslavia
Can Someone Please Make A Seperate Article For The Federal Republic Of Yugoslavia. Serbia & Monetengro And FRY Are NOT The Same Country !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigzomack (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. This is crazy, and there were two separate articles until very recently. The lead sentence says that "the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was proclaimed by Constitution on April 27, 1992", but what that Constitution proclaimed was "the Federal Republic Of Yugoslavia", not "the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro". Territorially, they are the same, but they were called the FRY during all the time when their union had any practical meaning; to call them "S&M" retrospectively is like calling the 17th century North American colonies "US territory", or the Soviet Union of the 1950s "Russian Federation". Even NATO called it FRY during the 1999 bombing. It was extremely marginal practice to call it "Serbia and Montenegro", only common in very anti-FRY discourse, yet it has been imposed here as the correct one. I'm sure this is part of a general push by some rabid Croatian and Bosnian POV editors to completely obliterate the fact that the country was called that, because of their obsessive idea that they somehow have the copyright over the name "Yugoslavia" (even though they don't want to be in it). I've witnessed the same schizophrenic behaviour even in articles about participation in Eurovision. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, the merger proposal had been made many time previously, each time there was strong opposition and no consensus could be achieved in favour of the merger. What has happened this time is that User:DIREKTOR received no response to his proposal (apparently there were too few editors around), and he somehow concluded that he had consensus on his side this time (!), and performed the merger.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro and FR Yugoslavia were the same country, just like:


 * Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; or
 * Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Yugoslavia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Everything was the same except the name. It would be redundant to make separate articles for each of those names. It is common practice to use last valid name for the country. --Mladifilozof (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No they are not the same, and they should be two different articles. The FRY existed until 2003, and that's when SCG took over. The FR Yugoslavia wanted looser federation, so they started a NEW COUNTRY of SCG, with the union of Serbia and Montenegro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdh (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro were not same country, not only name, but whole system of governance was changed in 2003, while FR Yugoslavia that existed from 1992 to 2003 was a federation, Serbia and Montenegro that existed from 2003 to 2006 was rather a confederation and was officially described as "state union". These are two completelly different subjects and each article should speak only about one of these two countries. PANONIAN  11:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Its the same country by any standards. SFR Yugoslavia changed its name and constitution on numerous occasions, do we need a separate article for each one? Its the exact same state, no question at all that its contrary to policy, a violation of WP:CFORK, perhaps even WP:POVFORK. I can understand that from the perspective (POV) of people who lived there during the period it may seem differently, but its simply not objective fact. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * POV fork? Are articles about Rhodesia and Zimbabwe POV fork too? There is big difference between situations when one country change only name and constitution and when it change entire system of governance, which was exactly was happened in 2003 with FR Yugoslavia. In another words, it was not same country after that year. PANONIAN  23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou who ever made a seperate article for the FRY !, Liebe Grußen Craigzomack 19:33 21 February 2010 (CET)


 * It was different. How can be the same when country has different name, different constitution and different internal organization. This is good separation. Just tell me, where is FR Yugoslavia article. It must be created! --Tadija (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So what's the point of having two almost identical articles, except having to maintain them separately? S&M existed for how long, 3 years? Except for that short piece of history, how would two articles differ at all? We write articles for the purpose of our readers, not for the purpose of having to satisfy some imaginary rules: it's certainly easier to have information about a (short-lived) state on one place, than scattered and duplicated across two. The answer "it must be created!" is not satisfactory: what do you propose for the contents of those articles? If you can't answer that question, please merge them back, because the way it is now is a classic example of WP:CFORK. No such user (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is textbook WP:CFORK. Its the same country, different constitution. Do you have any idea how many constitutions some of the country articles here have? This nonsense seperation is only viable from the point of view of a person who feels the need for his own country's history to take-up a dozen unnecessary, low-quality articles, instead of decent quality, well organized ones. Political reasons from our good friend, Balkans politics, are here as well.

Forget Zimbabwe (a recognized state) and Rhodesia (an unrecognized rogue entity) - this is Yugoslavia, how about a few more related examples? The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Kingdom of Yugoslavia? Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. What about the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia? Different constitutions, different internal organizations, different state names - same article. Even if we forget WP:CFORK, and follow the principles presented here by some users, we would require at least five or six new articles for "new states" incomparably more significant than the three-year SiCG. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DIREKTOR, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a complete different state than Serbia and Montenegro. It wasn't like Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Kingdom of Yugoslavia, or Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In 2003, after the adoption of the Constitutional Charter, whole system of government was changed. Even the position of Prime Minister was abolished, and merged with the position of President. Those two countries really need a separate articles. --Иван Богданов (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, there's no objective measure what constitutes a "complete different state" for the purpose of having a separate WP article. FRY was nominally a federation, but in practice it worked much as a confederation, especially after Milosevic-Djukanovic split, and S&M just legislated that confederate relationship. S&M was just the later stage of the dying process, and it lasted for mere 3 years. The "countries" of FRY and S&M had same borders, same economy (or better said, economies), same administration,... But again you fail to substantiate "really need a separate articles (sic)": why? Is it not much simpler for editors to maintain, and for readera to digest, a couple of paragraphs along the lines of "in 2002, the country was renamed to "S&M" and a new constitutional charter was put forward, legislating the confederal relationships... the prime minister was abolished, and blah blah..." than to repeat the same things from Yugoslavia, Serbia, Montenegro, Yugoslav wars, Breakup of Yugoslavia ad nauseam? Too many articles, too little quality. As a reader, I expect relevant and appropriately detailed information in one place, not a string of different articles split according to some divine principles. No such user (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I really disagree with you. Anyone who, like myself, lived in FRY and S&M understand how much different were political structures of these countries. FRY was a federation (at least nominally), while S&M was a outright confederation. It's really indicative that the position of federal Prime Minister was abolished in 2003, and merged with the position of President. Separate articles are need in this case; we can't merge different articles on Wikipedia just because someone wants "information in one place". Also, you said that in 2002, the country was renamed to "S&M". It's a mistake; that happened in 2003. --Иван Богданов (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Anyone who, like myself, lived in FRY and S&M understand how much different were political structures of these countries." So I lived there too, and I didn't (& don't) give a damn about that difference. Even the (con)federal government wasn't chosen in direct elections, so citizens weren't particularly affected who the prime minister was (and whether there was one, for that matter). To quote from this very article "The republics had functioned separately throughout the period of the Federal Republic, and had continued to have individual economic policies as well as using separate currencies." So what do we do now? No such user (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And, pardon me for using your personal information, but you were 15 years old when the renaming took place. Please don't tell me you that you cared at that age, or that you could tell a difference in life with or without the federal Prime Minister. No such user (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I really give a damn about a political system in wich I live. Athough I was 15 years old at that time, I closely watched political changes in my country. I don't care if you don't believe me. I repeat: FRY was a federation (at least nominally), while S&M was a outright confederation. It's nonsense to merge those two articles into one. I'm really glad to see there are other users who also support two articles for FRY and S&M. --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalemate
How about an article WP:RFC? We obviously can't reach an agreement here. No such user (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not about "opinions", we're talking policies and guidelines. You may well get a whole bunch of Serbs and Montenegrins lobbying for political reasons (royalists, nationalists etc)
 * ""Well, I really give a damn about a political system in wich I live. Athough I was 15 years old at that time, I closely watched political changes in my country. I don't care if you don't believe me.""


 * What's the point? WP:CFORK was practically written for this sort of case. We have a clear case of new articles being created solely for political reasons and local POV. If the guideline doesn't apply here, it doesn't apply anywhere. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if there's a POV-pushing element in this pursuit for splitting, I fail to see it. To me, it's just a question of style. But I still think that the two-article solution is impractical, less readable, and a waste of everybody's effort, and so far I'm not particularly convinced by the repeated arguments "but it was a different state!" that do not explain how it was substantially different, and what is actually gained by splitting. No such user (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think its pretty obvious and well known that the reorganization of the state into a confederacy was a victory for a number of political factions in Serbia and Montenegro. Naturally, the supporters of these factions (namely User:Иван Богданов who actually did the edit) will want to create as many articles "glorifying" their political victories and POV. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, I don't think so. Nobody seriously wanted that state, so it's well dead & buried. There are other political projects around with much higher stake. To me, it just looks it's the case of "my way or the highway" mentality. By the way, does that phrase ring any bell with you? :P No such user (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody wanted the state, but for some it was a victory - a step in the right direction, if you will. This is what I'm referring to. You can't seriously maintain that such a major political move did not have its staunch supporters and adversaries? The best example is User:Иван Богданов. As a Serbian royalist, he supports the reform of the state and wishes to emphasize it as a step towards an independent Serbia. In other words, he sees it as the death of Yugoslavist republicanism. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On a related topic, User:Иван Богданов, who initially violated policy out of political POV (he's a declared Serbian royalist ), is currently banned for one week for creating "User:DIREKTOR SPLIT". He's also been reported on WP:AN/I by Poargeo for this unbelievable display (a translation of which can be found here). --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll say again: I know some people may not like the redirect, but that's exactly why we call it a POV FORK. Seriously, what is there to discuss when it is a texbook example of a WP:POV FORK? What more can anyone say? You don't like WP policy? Tough cookies. I can only ask you guys to try and see things from an objective, impersonal point of view. Is this really another seperate imaginary three-year country that needs its own article? Or does it seem that way because you come from there? I leave you with Shakespeare (sort of): ''A different name does not another country article make. And a Serbia and Montenegro by any other name would smell as... sweet?'' :P -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What nonsense. It's not a POV fork, because this is not about an article being "split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject", it's about having different articles for different subjects. At best, the question is about whether two subjects are sufficiently separate to deserve each its own article. Specifically, this is about having a separate article for what was basically Milosevic's FRY and existed in the 1990s and a separate article for what was essentially FRY-in-the-process-of-splitting in the 2000s. The two have completely different histories - unlike the examples with royalist and socialist Yugoslavia, where no real change of regime occurred with the change of name and constitution. Territorially, Colonial Cambodia, Kingdom of Cambodia (1953–1970), the Khmer Republic, Democratic Kampuchea, People's Republic of Kampuchea and modern Cambodia are all the same state, but the existence of separate articles is not POV forking; these are just very different periods and regimes in the existence of the same state. Also, unlike the royalist Yu and socialist Yu examples, the choice of name had and still has extremely far-reaching political implications. Again, choosing the latter name for both is a way to endorse one of the existing positions - namely that it was wrong for the FRY to call itself FRY. And it's especially absurd to call it S&M post-mortem, when it was called FRY during the entire period when the unity of the two had any reality. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All we have so far are bare assertions of "real changes of regime", "very different periods", "choice of name had extremely far reaching political implications", but they remain unproven. What sources tell us so far that nothing spectacular happened, and that's also what we witnessed. What happened was a name change and sanctioning of the existing practice: Serbian government remained the same and continued to rule Serbia, Montenegrin government remained the same and continued to rule Montenegro, and virtually nobody continued to rule the union (because by 2003 the union has virtually lost any practical prerogatives). There is no Wikipedia rule that every change in a state's constitution must result in a separate article, and this is left to editors' discretion and consensus. Rather, the separate articles are warranted when the change represents a milestone in country's history, and present us with a convenient period to break up long historical articles. So far, such milestone has been not demonstrated for S&M, which lasted for mere 3 years before it succumbed to the centripetal forces. No such user (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The periods were different because the FRY still did constitute a unity in some sense, it still had a president who had some actual powers. Milosevic in the latter half of his reign formally held his powers by virtue of being president of the FRY (despite Montenegro itself actually being ruled by an anti-Milosevic government during most of that time). Then Kostunica ousted him, took over his position and thus deprived him of his powers. In contrast, S&M had no common president at all. As for the far-reaching political implications of FRY's name "Yugoslavia", they were connected to the implied claim of being some kind of continuation of the old Yugoslavia, some kind of multiethnic unity and, at the same time, a state that could potentially include all Serbs within its borders. That's also why governments and individuals opposed to the FRY's positions and policies called it "Serbia and Montenegro" from the outset, though NATO did refer to it as "FRY" in 1999. Abandoning the name was a very clear gesture to the effect that no continuity with Yugoslavia was intended any longer.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

ARBMAC Warning
Editors are reminded that tendentious editing or outright edit waring is not an acceptable practice. This article has been the subject of a slow edit war concerning the relationship of the present day state to past governmental entities. The conflict is marked by frequent redirects and reverts all of which seem to be without clear consensus. Under the final decision of the Arbitration Committee/Macedonia case I am reminding you all of the need to reach consensus on the talk page and to not redirect or revert the page again without clear consensus. Failure to do so will result in the imposition of discretionary sanctions. This warning has been logged at ARBMAC Log of blocks and bans. JodyBtalk 23:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Different name, same country?
I'm not too familiar with the details of this period of Yugoslav history, but I'll add my 2 cents. This says, "On February 12, 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia informed the UN that it had changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro." And this source: "Thus, Serbia and Montenegro introduced their full names into the state union. This does not mean the disappearance of the state [Yugoslavia] - a superficial, wrong and malevolent interpretation we encounter occasionally." So instead of relying on personal interpretations as to whether a new constitution and type of government means a new country, sources should be given to backup your claim. The sources I've read overwhelmingly use terms relating to adapting a new name or new constitution, not a new successor country to FR Yugoslavia. Spellcast (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What was it, a week? This is what I mean. How was I ever supposed to get anything done around here? "Opposition from the community", right...  -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sport
The article erroneously reports that the country's only participation in a major sports tournament was the 2006 FIFA World Cup, where it appeared as Serbia and Montenegro, despite the referendum in Montenegro supporting full independence in the months leading up to it. Actually, a team from the region played as Yugoslavia in the 1998 FIFA World Cup, and since this was obviously not the former SFR Yugoslavia (Croatia was also represented at the tournament, while Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Slovenia also had their own football teams by then), its participation in the tournament should be noted.Avman89 (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Recentism/POV
Since clicking on FR Yugoslavia anywhere else in Wikipedia redirects to this page, and since the page is supposed to include information from the country's existence both as FR Yugoslavia from 1993 to 2003 and Serbia and Montenegro from 2003 to 2006, I do not understand why the article seems to focus exclusively on the country's participation in world affairs, e.g. in sports, as well as domestic conditions, e.g. demographics and transportation, as Serbia and Montenegro. I have added information under the sports section regarding the FR Yugoslavia's participation in the 1998 FIFA World Cup and the 1996 and 2000 Summer Olympics, but the rest of the section focuses solely on participation as Serbia and Montenegro in basketball, tennis and global beauty pageants. Many other sections need updating with information about FR Yugoslavia's participation/conditions during the 1990s.

Unfortunately, there is much recentism and POV writing in favor of highlighting only the role of Serbia and Montenegro from 2003 to 2006 in domestic and world affairs, with the FR Yugoslavia mostly ignored, and even the page's title suggests that the article is devoted solely to the short-lived state union (2003-2006). Regardless of the UN or USA's treatment of the country and recognition as Serbia and Montenegro and not a continuation to SFR Yugoslavia, information about the country's existence in the 1990s needs to be expanded. I do not know about the feasibility of having separate articles for the FRY and S&M, but assuming that is not going to be done, this article needs to be updated to present a fair and balanced and non-recentist point of view.Avman89 (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article needs more info on pre-2003 events. The current article incorporated every bit of text previously written on the entire 1992-2006 history of the country, but apparently there was disproportionate coverage. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)