Talk:Serbs of Croatia/Archive 8

Serbs as "constituent nation" in Croatia
I haven't noticed this before but it caught my attention after I was re-reading this article once again. The claim made in the article (War in Croatia section - Amid political changes during the breakup of Yugoslavia and following the Croatian Democratic Union's victory in the 1990 general election, the Croatian Parliament ratified a new constitution in December 1990 which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities.) that the Serbs were a constituent nation in Croatia during Yugoslavia is not supported by either 1947 constitution of People's Republic of Croatia nor by later revised and expanded constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia from 1974...I am not counting the 1963 constitution since it was basically identical to the one in 1947. Furthermore, not only that, but it is also in direct contradiction with the next two sentences. So first we have one claim then the next two sentences refuting that very claim. Confusing. Since these type of things (regarding this subject) tend to be "hot topics" I will expand more on this below...before I continue to make minor rewording of that sentence.

The 1947 constitution of PR Croatia in it's 2nd paragraph states: "Ostvarujuci u svojoj oslobodilackoj borbi u bratskom jedinstvu sa Srbima u Hrvatskoj, i u zajednickoj borbi svih naroda Jugoslavije svoju narodnu drzavu - Narodnu Republiku Hrvatsku, hrvatski se narod, izrazavajuci svoju slobodnu volju, a na temelju prava na samoodredjenje - ukljucujuci pravo odcjepljenje i ujedinjenje s drugim narodima - ujedinio na temelju nacela ravnopravnosti s ostalim narodima Jugoslavije i njihovim narodnim republikama: NR Srbijom, NR Slovenijom, NR BiH, NR Makedonijom i NR Crnom Gorom u zajednicku, saveznu drzavu - FNR Jugoslaviju." (eng. "Realizing in it's liberation struggle [and] in the brotherly union with the Serbs in Croatia, and in common struggle of all nations of Yugoslavia[,] its national state - People's Republic of Croatia, the Croatian people, expressing its free will, and on the basis of right to self-determination - including the right to secede and unite with other nations - have united on the principle of equality with other nations of Yugoslavia and their national republics: PR Serbia, PR Slovenia, PR Bosnia and Herzegovina, PR Macedonia and PR Montenegro in common, federal state - FPR Yugoslavia"). I have translated this almost literally so it might not be the most grammatically correct (kinda hard to translate this communist legal mumbo jumbo to English) but you get the picture. The paragraph clearly states that PR Croatia was a "national state of Croatian people" while the Serbs in Croatia only get a specific mention since they were the largest and most important national minority and the constitution obviously followed the general Brotherhood and Unity principle.

The above paragraph was also present in the 1974 constitution in the opening "Basic Principles" section. However it gets even more explicit and detailed in the Chapter I. named "Opce Odredbe" (eng.General Regulations) where it is clearly stated: "Socijalisticka Republika Hrvatska je nacionalna drzava hrvatskog naroda, drzava srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj i drzava drugih narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (eng. "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities [national minorities in essence] who live within it"). So it explicitly states that SR Croatia is a national state of Croatian people and a state of Serbs in Croatia and all other national minorities who live in it. This constitution was valid all the way until 1990 when the new constitution was introduced (which by the way didn't really change much regarding the defining principles described in 1974 constitution) so the entire premise that the Croatian Serbs were removed or somehow downgraded is not true. So to reitirate - the claim that the Serbs in Croatia were a "constituent nation" before the 1990 constitution is simply not supported by the facts, or rather to be even more direct, is simply not true. The 1990 constitution (which is the same constitution valid to this day) has basically the same sentence with one difference...it no longer mentions only Serbs but instead lists all significant (if not all) "nationalities" i.e. national minorities.

Links: Constitution of NR Croatia Constitution of SR Croatia Shokatz (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, buraz, you can't have it both ways, either it is mumbo-jumbo or it is valid legal documents with valid statements on which you try making your hypothesis sound. The other thing, this mumbo-jumbo of yours that Serbs weren't removed from the 1990 constitution as a constituent nation, is how you put it: "simply not supported by the facts". They were removed from the constitution as a nation with their previous status because of one significant difference. Like you said it yourself: the 1990 constitution "no longer mentions only Serbs". Other nationalities weren't mentioned before as is with the 1990 constitution where Serbs were listed under other "nationalities". Whether they were downgraded from a constituent nation by this or not might be a matter of interpretation, but surely not by some mere buraz. He managed to falsify his logic and prove his anti-Serb bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.112 (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what are you saying but I suggest you re-read everything I wrote including the paragraphs in both constitutions which can be seen in the links I provided. There was no "constituency" of Serbs in Croatia and thus they couldn't be downgraded or anything similar. The fact Croatian Serbs were separately mentioned does not mean they had "constituent" status and to claim so is wrong and non-factual. We can talk about perception perhaps but that again has nothing to do with legal documents and laws which is the issue here. And as for my "mumbo jumbo" reference I was referring to the lingo used within that paragraph which is non-typical of modern legal documents which tend to be very dry and very direct....all of which that paragraph wasn't thus making it hard to translate it into English. Shokatz (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You buraz, are one some really interesting creature. Biljka, as you might say it. I mean FWIW, if there's no constituency of Serbs why couldn't it be said then the same for the constituency of Croats? Yeah, I mean why not? What defines the constituency? Phrases like "narodna država", "nacionalna država"? What's the difference anyway? I mean, if you're no match for translating this from Serbian/Serbo-Croatian (whatever it is called language) then you're again full of mumbo-jumbo. Or I might as well call it shit. And what's with this communist shitty attributes you're applying to your sources? You some anti-commie, some fascist, what? These texts are the same documents you're trying to squeeze some premises out from. You're really funny, you know? If you wanna be taken serious, than quit bullsh*ing about perception. There's no perception in discerning legal documents. There might be interpretation, but perception: no. And how come you don't understand when I write something to you, and instead of re-reading it once again and trying to understand what is written yourself, you are suggesting it to others? Isn't that hypocrite? I'm mean it's so funny taking someone's word for his expertise when he blows it in his own face the second he speaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.112 (talk) 22:49, August 13, 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum (see WP:FORUM)...unless you have something constructive to add I suggest you do so, otherwise I have no interest in chatting with you. This is also English language Wikipedia so use and understand of English language is desirable if not required. If you don't understand it then you shouldn't be here. Shokatz (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop babbling about forum. You started a forum with your interpretations of legal documents. If you're not up to it, then you have no business chatting here. You said it yourself that you didn't understand my post. Then please do us all a favor and start learning: viable command of English language is one essential, acquiring logical reasoning is another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.112 (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So do you have any valid arguments or not? Shokatz (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So do you have any solid proofs for what you are saying or all is based on your perception? Ahem, sorry, interpretation. You had me confused here - I give you that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.112 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The proof is 1947 and 1974 constitution. You should now stop trolling. Shokatz (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You as an encyclopedist should know that we don't deal with original research. If you find reliable secondary sources, then maybe it's possible to talk. This way - no. You should now stop the trolling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.112 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First, his is not WP:OR as I have valid references. The sentence in question does not as it lacks direct citation and furthermore is in direct contradiction with the next sentence using the same generic reference. Second, I have warned you several times not to remove the tags without proper discussion which you here blatantly refused and continue to disrupt not only this page but the actual would-be proper discussion. I would suggest you stop edit-warring and acting in a disruptive manner as it may end up with you being blocked. Shokatz (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the Constitution and you will see that the SR Croatia was a stat of the Croatian and Serbian people and as well of all national minorities. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. You have clear quotations from both 1947 and 1974 constitutions (and the links provided) which clearly and directly state that Croatia is a national state of Croatian people. Shokatz (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is funny how you read the first part of that sentence but ignore the rest of the sentence, which is really important. It was a national state of Croatian people, but also of Serbian people in Croatia, and of all national minorities in Croatia. It is all on page 116 of the 1974 Constitution. So please show some good faith and revert your edits to the article, and ask for a 3O. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure it was and it is still today the state of all it's citizens as well, but it was and still is only a national state of Croatian people. Now we are here talking about the alleged "constituent status" of Serbs in Croatia which the both constitutions refute directly. If that was the case both the 1947 and 1974 consitutions would state that Croatia was a national state of both Croats and Serbs...which it does not. I suggest you start reading with understanding. Unless you have some valid arguments I suggest you refrain from commenting in the future. Shokatz (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of this discussion but I haven't got much time to take part in it. I share passion for law and I fully agree with Tuvixer in his interpretation. As I see at the first post, Shokatz bolded the part of the constitutional text which refers to Croats, but the case is that right next, Serbs from Croatia were mentioned, and once their mention was removed, it obviously means a change in their status. FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Show me the part in the constitution where it says Croatia is a "national state of Serbian people". You can't because it wasn't. In this case the term "constituent nation" means that that Croatia was defined as "national state" for certain people. Only Serbia was a "national state of Serbian people", Croatia was a "national state of Croatian people". It's clearly stated and defined as such. How you can read that as anything else is beyond me. And Serbs weren't removed from anything, the 1990s constitution still said the same thing except it changed from "other nationalities" into mentioning each and every one...so in this case we have the absurdity of Tuvixer claiming that mentioning other nations (national minorities) was somehow degrading to Serbs in Croatia. Hilarious. Shokatz (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The status of Serbs certainly changed. Before none of the other current national minorities was mentioned in the constitution, afterwards some other ethnicities/nationalities were also there by their names. One curiosity: the constitution doesn't enlist for example Yugoslavs into national minorities so it isn't true that it mentioned each and every ethnicity/nationality. Anyway, the Serbs were by their name in previous constitutions and without the others' names, in Tuđman's there were others. So it changed at least for that matter. And that is regardless of the fact that the phrase "national state of" does nothing to reserve the constituency only to the nation that it is used for. There are surely other meanings which could be applied to that particular phrasing. I must say that I concur with some of the interlocutors that there may be a bit of excess on how free should someone feel to indiscriminately interpret primary sources on their own. Indeed a kind of original research. And there most certainly isn't anything hilarious with the fact that this issue probably was one of or the sole initiating trigger for the start of war in Yugoslavia. Anyone claiming otherwise is either seriously wrong or has very sinister motives. So laughing about it is minimally tactless if not deadly evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.64.35 (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First, "Yugoslavs" weren't recognized as a separate "nation" or "nationality" in Yugoslavia. It was a sort of supra-national identity which came about with time. By constitutions of the federal republics and the Yugoslav federation itself only six "nations" were recognized as "constitutional". Slovenia was a the nation-state for Slovenes, Croatia for Croats, Serbia for Serbs, Montenegro for Montenegrins, Macedonia for Macedonians. The only exception to this rule was Bosnia-Herzegovina which was established as a "drzavna zajednica" (eng. "state union") of several [constitutive] "nations"...namely Muslims (Bosniaks), Serbs and Croats. Second, as I said the very notion that the addition of other minorities by name (instead of grouping them into "others") in the 1990 constitution has somehow degraded Serbs is indeed hilarious and to be more direct simply offensive. What I am talking about here is not WP:OR, it is in fact used in the very reference which right now is misused on the claim that Serbs allegedly had "constituent" status, because the original paragraph said they were changed from "status nation" ("explicitly mentioned minority") to a "constitutional nation" way back in 2011 and was never backed up by any source, discussed or elaborated. Third, this issue was indeed one of the triggers for the Serbian rebellion in the 1990s because they were manipulated into believing they had some "constitutional status" which they did not and the same claim was used (and still is) to justify the rebellion itself. We have several sources on this issue, namely: Dr. Zdenko Radelic in his book "Hrvatska u Jugoslaviji 1945-1990" (eng. Croatia in Yugoslavia 1945-1990) wrote about this issue specifically...Dr. Radelic is a member of Croatian Institute of History. We also have Dr. Mario Jareb (who we use as a reference on the site...the one currently misused) who is also member of the Institute of History and who in his book "Croatian National Symbols" wrote: '"Optužbe o tome da su hrvatske vlasti navodno željele izbaciti Srbe iz Ustava RH prate i optužbe da su usvajanjem amandmana i Ustava RH od 22. prosinca 1990. oni navodno izgubili konstitutivnost u Hrvatskoj. Kronologija događaja u razdoblju od prvih najava o donošenju novog hrvatskog ustava pokazuje da teze o najavi ‘izbacivanja’ Srba ne stoje. Nema dvojbe da je bila riječ o optužbama koje su trebale opravdati daljnje ekstremističke postupke vodstva SDS-a u Hrvatskoj uperene protiv teritorijalnog integriteta i suvereniteta RH."(Eng. "The accusation that the Croatian government allegedly wanted to oust the Serbs from the constitution of Republic of Croatia are also followed by the accusation that with the adoption of the amendments and the constitution of Croatia in December 22nd 1990 they allegedly lost the constitutionality in Croatia. The chronology of the events during the period from the first announcements about the adoption of the new Croatian constitution shows that the thesis about the announcement of 'ousting' of the Serbs does not stand. There is no doubt that these were accusations which had to justify further extremist action of the SDS [Serbian political party in Croatia] in Croatia pointed against the territorial integrity and sovereignity of Croatia")...and there is more but I will leave it at that for some other time since this is already getting too long. So anyway, this is the source we use for the current sentence which says "Amid political changes during the breakup of Yugoslavia and following the Croatian Democratic Union's victory in the 1990 general election, the Croatian Parliament ratified a new constitution in December 1990 which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities. I find that ironic, a forgery and above all indeed hilarious. And the people here who come with "arguments" such as "I am a lawyer" or "I share passion for law", and think that will count against the references and the constitution itself - which is clear and direct, is just laughable. Obviously if these ridiculous "arguments" continue I will be forced to ask for a neutral opinion...preferably from someone who actually understands what a comma means in the middle of the sentence in a legal document. Some also think they can force their POV on Wikipedia using words such as "consensus" and whatnot...yes we should have a consensus but consensus based on facts not your personal views and forgery. Shokatz (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources backing up that Serbs were a constituent nation along with Croats in SR Croatia:
 * Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution edited by Snežana Trifunovska, page 477, it says: "at the Second and Third sessions of the National Anti-Fascist Council of the Peoples Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH),...,the equality of the Serbian and the Croatian nations, as constituent nations of the federal unit of Croatia, were recognized in every respect." And then at bottom of the page goes in detail.
 * Integration and Stabilization: A Monetary View by George Macesich, page 24, it says: "The secessionist Zagreb regime first removed from the Croatian Constitution the constituent nation status of Serbs living in Croatia."
 * The Quality of Government by Bo Rothstein, page 89, it says: "Since the constitution of the Yugoslavian Federation regarded the Serbs in Croatia as constituent nation of the Republic of Croatia, this important change..."
 * Soft Borders by Julie Mostov, page 67, it says: "Serbs living in Croatia had been members of a constituent nation while Croatia was part f Yugoslavia."

This is just a start. There seems to bee plenty of sources to back up Serbs being a constituent nation in SR Croatia. I will bring more. FkpCascais (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually the second and third sessions spoke nothing about "constitutional nations", it only said that Croats and Serbs are equal in all respect and enjoy the same rights, as well as that other nations and nationalities will enjoy equal rights as well. In fact not even the constitutions themselves speak of such terms as "constitutional nations". As for the other sources what is the primary source of those must be asked? The constitution of SR Croatia? As I have shown here, clearly it says quite the opposite. I have posted a primary source which clearly states that Croatia is a "national state of Croatian people" and after a comma "a state of Serbs in Croatia and other nationalities". It is more than clear that the primary source in this case has precedence over all other secondary sources you posted which are mere (mis)interpretations.


 * To quote the entire passage on this matter written by Dr.Jareb (an expert on this matter who wrote the most detailed discussion on this matter) in his book "Croatian National Symbols" he says next: ''"Optužbe o tome da su hrvatske vlasti navodno željele izbaciti Srbe iz Ustava RH prate i optužbe da su usvajanjem amandmana i Ustava RH od 22. prosinca 1990. oni navodno izgubili konstitutivnost u Hrvatskoj. Kronologija događaja u razdoblju od prvih najava o donošenju novog hrvatskog ustava pokazuje da teze o najavi ‘izbacivanja’ Srba ne stoje. Nema dvojbe da je bila riječ o optužbama koje su trebale opravdati daljnje ekstremističke postupke vodstva SDS-a u Hrvatskoj uperene protiv teritorijalnog integriteta i suvereniteta RH. Teza o gubitku konstitutivnosti podrazumijevala bi da je takvo što do tada i postojalo, odnosno da je to bilo određeno odredbama Ustava SRH. Analiza toga Ustava pokazuje da to nije bio slučaj. Kao prvo treba istaknuti da sam pojam ‘konstitutivnosti’ nije u njemu nigdje upotrijebljen. U njegovu članu 1. SRH je definirana kao ‘nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda, država srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj i država narodnosti koje u njoj žive’. Tvrdnju da je SRH nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda te država drugih naroda i narodnosti koji u njoj žive pojačana je i tvrdnjama iz Osnovnih načela Ustava SRH, odlomka I, u kojem je utvrđeno da je hrvatski ‘narod, zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj, (…), izvojevao (…) u zajedničkoj borbi s drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u narodnooslobodilačkom ratu i socijalističkoj revoluciji nacionalnu slobodu, (…), te uspostavio svoju državu – Socijalističku Republiku Hrvatsku (…).’ Navedeni tekst nedvosmisleno i u jednini označava upravo hrvatski narod kao onaj koji je uspostavio SRH. Prema tome je ona bila definirana kao nacionalna država tek jednog naroda, i to hrvatskog. Ime srpskog naroda bilo je doduše izdvojeno, no unatoč tome navedena definicija nije SRH označila i nacionalnom državom srpskog naroda. Tek takva definicija mogla bi se prihvatiti kao dokaz da je srpski narod u Hrvatskoj bio konstitutivan. Također treba upozoriti na korištenje termina ‘narod’ i ‘narodnost’ u tom ustavu. Naime, niti Ustav SRH, niti Ustav SFRJ (također iz 1974.) nije poznavao pojam ‘nacionalna manjina’ (ili slične pojmove za označavanje manjine). Iznimka od toga pravila jest formulacija u odlomku VII Osnovnih načela Ustava SFRJ iz 1974., u kojoj stoji da se SFRJ među ostalim zalaže i za ‘poštovanje prava nacionalnih manjina, uključujući prava dijelova naroda Jugoslavije koji žive u drugim zemljama kao nacionalne manjine’. Obzirom da se cijeli odlomak VII odnosi na međunarodne odnose, razložno je pretpostaviti da su u njemu upotrijebljeni termini uobičajeni u međunarodnom pravu. U SFRJ su status ‘naroda’ imali pripadnici onih naroda čije su nacionalne države bile u njezinu sastavu. Riječ je bila o Srbima, Hrvatima, Slovencima, Makedoncima, Crnogorcima i Muslimanima. Prema tome su i Makedonci, i Slovenci, i Muslimani i Crnogorci imali u SR Hrvatskoj, kao i u svim drugim saveznim republikama status naroda, bez obzira na svoju brojnost, tradicionalnu prisutnost i slično. Pripadnici svih ostalih naroda, čije su matične nacionalne države bile izvan sastava SFRJ, imali su status ‘narodnosti’, također bez obzira na broj i druge značajke. Tako se moglo dogoditi da su Albanci, koji su činili veliku većinu stanovnika Kosova (a činili su i značajan postotak stanovništva Makedonije i Crne Gore), imali status narodnosti, dok su malobrojniji Crnogorci i Makedonci imali status naroda. Inače Ustav SFRJ iz 1974. nigdje izričito ne definira pojam naroda, odnosno pojam narodnosti. Formulacija u Uvodnom dijelu toga ustava, u Osnovnim načelima, odlomak I, govori da su se narodi Jugoslavije, zajedno s narodnostima s kojima žive, ujedinili u saveznu republiku slobodnih i ravnopravnih naroda i narodnosti, upućuje na to da su narodima držani oni narodi čije su nacionalne države bile dijelom SFRJ kao njezine savezne republike. Iznimka su bili bosanskohercegovački Muslimani. Obzirom da je pet republika istovremeno bilo nacionalnim državama nekoga od naroda u SFRJ, a da je BiH bila ustavno definirana kao tronarodna država (država Muslimana, Hrvata i Srba), vrlo je lako doći do odgovora na pitanje što su to ‘narodi Jugoslavije’, a što su narodnosti. Vrlo je precizno pojam naroda i narodnosti, odnosno njihovih jezika, razložen u enciklopedijskoj natuknici ‘Jugoslavija’, u odlomku autora Augusta Kovačeca, ‘Jezici i pisma naroda i narodnosti’ (Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, sv. 6, Jap-Kat, Zagreb 1990., 241.-251.). Pojam ‘manjina’ uveden je tek Ustavom RH od 22. prosinca 1990. godine. Izvorišne osnove toga ustava govore o RH kao ‘nacionalnoj državi hrvatskoga naroda’, što je identično formulaciji iz Ustava SRH iz 1974. godine. U nastavku te formulacije stoji i to da je RH ‘država pripadnika inih naroda i manjina, koji su njezini državljani: Srba, Muslimana, Slovenaca, Čeha, Slovaka (…).’ Srbi u Hrvatskoj (ovaj put definirani i kao državljani RH) na tom su popisu stavljeni na prvo mjesto, a izvorišne osnove izričito spominju ‘narode i manjine’. Prema tome je logično zaključiti da su Srbi (i ne samo oni) držani narodom. Oni su tretirani na isti način kao i u ustavu iz 1974. godine, a jedina je razlika što su osim njih navedeni i drugi narodi i manjine. To dokazuje da Srbi nisu imali ni najmanje razloga za nezadovoljstvo ustavnim rješenjima. ‘Zločesta’ tumačenja njihovog nezadovoljstva mogla bi dovesti i do zaključka da je vođama Srba u Hrvatskoj i njihovim brojnim sljedbenicima tada smetalo to što su uz njih nabrojeni i drugi narodi i manjine. Sukladno tome isto bi se tako ‘zločesto’ moglo zaključiti da su takvi ‘pravi’ Srbi držali da su vredniji od drugih ljudi, što bi bacilo sasvim novo svjetlo na njihove prigovore o gubitku prava. Također treba primijetiti da se Izvorišne osnove ustava RH iz 1990. godine mogu usporediti s Osnovnim načelima Ustava SRH iz 1974. godine. Važno je istaknuti da su u tim dijelovima ovih dvaju ustava tek naznačena temeljna ustavna načela, koja su razrađena u nastavku ustavnog teksta, u njihovim normativnim dijelovima. Treba istaknuti i činjenicu da je formulacija o nacionalnom određenju u Ustavu SRH bila istodobno integralnim dijelom Osnovnih načela (u odlomku I) i normativnog dijela Ustava (član 1.). U Ustavu RH od 22. prosinca 1990. godine formulacija o nacionalnom određenju nazočna je samo u Izvorišnim načelima, dok normativni dio ne sadrži ništa slično. U tom se dijelu govori isključivo o općim pravima svih državljana, te je u članku 14. izričito navedeno da građani RH ‘imaju sva prava i slobode, neovisno o njihovoj rasi, boji kože, spolu, jeziku, vjeri, političkom ili drugom uvjerenju, nacionalnom ili socijalnom uvjerenju (…).’ U članku 15. stoji da su u RH ‘ravnopravni (…) pripadnici svih naroda i manjina’, a svima njima jamči se ‘sloboda izražavanja narodnosne pripadnosti, slobodno služenje svojim jezikom i pismom i kulturna autonomija.’ Uz to se u članku 12. jamči da se uz hrvatski jezik i latinično pismo ‘u službenu uporabu (…) može uvesti i drugi jezik te ćirilično ili koje drugo pismo, pod uvjetima propisanim zakonom’. Držim da usporedba rješenja u navedena dva ustava pokazuje da Srbi nisu imali nikakvog razloga za nezadovoljstvo novim ustavnim rješenjima, nego da razloge za njihovu pobunu i kasniju agresiju JNA i srpskih paravojnih skupina na RH treba tražiti na drugim mjestima.“ (eng. '''"The accusation that the Croatian government allegedly wanted to oust the Serbs from the constitution of Republic of Croatia are also followed by the accusation that with the adoption of the amendments and the constitution of Croatia in December 22nd 1990 they allegedly lost the constitutionality in Croatia. The chronology of the events during the period from the first announcements about the adoption of the new Croatian constitution shows that the thesis about the announcement of 'ousting' of the Serbs does not stand. There is no doubt that these were accusations which had to justify further extremist action of the SDS in Croatia pointed against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Croatia. Thesis about the loss of constitutionality would then allude that such a thing until then existed, apropos that it was defined by the provisions of the constitution of SRC. Analysis of that constitution shows that was not the case. First we should emphasize that the very term "constitutionality" was not even used anywhere in it. In it's Chapter 1 SRC is defined as 'national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of nationalities which live in it'. The claim that SRC is a national state of Croatian people and state of other nations and nationalities who live in it is strengthened by the provisions from the General Principle of the constitution SRC, passage I, in which it is found that 'Croatian people, along with Serbian nation and nationalities in Croatia, (...), won (...) in a common struggle with other nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia in a liberation war and socialist revolution it's national freedom, (...), and founded it's state - Socialist Republic of Croatia (...)'. The quote text undoubtedly and in singular terms mark directly Croatian people as the one who established SRC. According to that fact it [SRC] was defined as national state of only one nations, the the Croatian nation. The name of Serbian nation was however emphasized, but regardless of that the mentioned definition did not mark SRC as the national state of Serbian people. Only then such a definition could be accepted as proof that Serbian people in Croatia were constitutional. Also we should caution about the use of the terms 'nation' and 'nationality' in that constitution. Namely, neither constitution of SRC, nor the constitution of SFRY (also from 1974) did not know the term 'national minority' (or other similar terms for denotation of national minority). The exception from that rule is the formulation in the section VII of the General Principle of the constitution of SFRY from 1974, in which stands that the SFRY among everything else also advocates for 'respecting the rights of national minorities, including the rights of the parts of the people's of Yugoslavia who live in other countries as national minorities'. Considering that the entire section VII is refers to international relations, it is reasonably to assume that the terms used within it were those used in international law. In SFRY the status of 'nations' had the member of those people whose national states were within it's composition. We are talking about Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonian, Montenegrins and Muslims. So according to that Macedonians, Slovene, Muslims and Montenegrins also had the status of nations in SR Croatia, as in all other federal republics, regardless of their numbers, traditional presence and similar cases. Members of all other nations, whose home national stats were outside the composition of SFRY, had the status of 'nationalities', also regardless the numbers and other significant factors. So it could happen that Albanians, who made a large majority of Kosovo (and they also constituted a large portion of Macedonian and Montenegrin population), had the status of nationalities, while the far less numerous Montenegrins and Macedonians had the status of nations. Otherwise the constitution of SFRY from 1974 does not define the terms of nation, and nationalities respectively. Formulation in the introductory part of that part of the constitution, in General terms, Chapter I, say that the nations of Yugoslavia, together with the nationalities with which they live, united in a federal republic of free and equal nations and nationalities, points to the fact that nations were considered those whose people had national states as part of SFRY as it's national republics. The exception were Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Considering that five republics were at the same time national states of one of nations in SFRY, and that Bosnia-Herzegovina was constitutionally defined as tri-nation state (state of Muslims, Croats and Serbs), it is very easy to come to an answer what are the 'nations of Yugoslavia', and what are nationalities. The terms of nation and nationalities, and their respective languages, were very precisely defined in the encyclopedic footnote 'Yugoslavia', in the chapter written by the author August Kovacec, 'Languages and alphabets of nations and nationalities' (Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia, volume 6, Jap-Kat, zagreb 1990., pages 241-251). The term 'minority' was introduced only with the constitution of December 22 1990. The basic principles of that constitution talk about Republic of Croatia as 'national state of Croatian people', which is identical to formulation from the constitution of SRC from 1974. In continuation of that formulation also stands that Republic of Croatia is a 'state of members of other nations and minorities, which are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks (...)'. Serbs in Croatia (this time defined as citizens of Croatia) were put on the first place of that list, and the basic principle explicitly mention 'nations and minorities'. According to that it would be logically to conclude that Serbs (and not just them) were considered a nation. They were treated in the same way as in the constitution from 1974, and the only difference that besides them other nations and minorities were mentioned as well. 'Mean' interpretations of their dissatisfaction could lead us also to the conclusion  that the leaders of Serbs in Croatia and their numerous followers were bothered that besides them other nations and nationalities were mentioned. And according with that we could also be 'naughty' and conclude that such 'real' Serbs held that they were more important than all others, which would give us a completely new light on their complaints about the loss of their rights. Also we should notice that the Basic Principles of the constitution of Croatia from 1990 can also be compared with the Basic Principle from the constitution of SRC from 1974. It is important to emphasize that in those parts of these two constitutions the basic constitutional principles are only hinted, which are more detailed in the continuation of the text of the constitution, in their normative parts. We should also emphasize the fact that the formulation about national self-determination in the constitution of SRC was also integral part of General Principle (in Chapter I) and normative part of the Constitution (Head 1). In the constitution from December 22 1990 formulation about national self-determination is present only in the Basic principle, while the normative part does not contain anything similar. That part speak explicitly about general rights of all citizens, and in the chapter 14 it is explicitly stated that citizens of Croatia 'have all rights and liberties, regardless of their race, skin color, gender, language, religion, political or other conviction, national or social conviction (...).' In chapter 15 it stands that in Croatia 'members of all nations and minorities are equal', and to all of them 'the freedom of expression of their national affiliation, free use of their language and scripture, including cultural autonomy' is guaranteed. Along with that in the chapter 12 it is guaranteed that along with Croatian language and latin alphabet 'in official use (...) could also be introduced other language and Cyrillic scripture or any other scripture, under the condition of prescribed law'. I consider that the comparison of the solutions in the two mentioned constitutions shows that Serbs in Croatia had no reasons to be unsatisfied with the new constitutional amendments, but that the reasons for their rebellion and later aggression of YNA and Serbian paramilitary groups on Croatia should be looked at in other places."' Shokatz (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with FkpCascais. Serbs in Croatia were a constituent nation, otherwise they wouldn't be mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. So please Shokatz stop edit warring, you are the only person who is on the other side. Now he is trying to hide his ignorance by making a mess of this discussion. Remember Sokatz, if you report someone your behavior will also be in the spotlight. ;) Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sokatz, you are not able to read the Constitution, or to better say you are not tha authority and I don't know why do you think that you are one, so citing the articles of the Constitution gives no plus to your argument. they are no sources at all. Find valid sources who back your claim, or stop this. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly as Tuvixer says. And btw, it is not up to us to interpret the constitution, but to gather what secondary sources say about the subject.  And from what I see secondary sources pretty much agree Serbs were  constituent nation in SR Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First your actions will be under scrutiny as well "my friend" so it goes both ways. Second, I am not interpreting anything...I just poted an entire passage from the foremost authority from the man who wrote the most extensive analysis on this issue and it's clear what he says. Saying that a primary source which in this case is a constitution (we are not talking about bio of some living person or similar) is not a source but bunch of random references which mention the misinterpretation and which repeat the same nationalist mantra using by the SDS from the 90s is laughable. Show me part in the constitution which says that Croatia was a national state of Serbs or that they were constitutional and then we can talk. Also do not remove the tags. Shokatz (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sokatz please stop edit warring. Tnx The constitution can't be the source because you are obviously misreading it. You are the only person here who is saying that Serbs weren't a constitutive nation. You are alone in this, so please stop edit warring and present some reliable sources. FkpCascais has provided 4, I think, so Sokatz start doing that or we have nothing to discuss more. Also Jareb is a right-wing fanatic who is obsessed with the World War II puppet state, the so called NDH, and the Ustase regime. He is not a valid source. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you stop edit warring. Who are you to say I am "misreading" it...I say you are misreading it. It is a primary source stating nothing...I repeat NOTHING about "constitutionality" of Serbs in Croatia. It says clearly that Croatia was and is a "national state of Croatian people". Your "arguments" are invalid, you have not addressed a single issue except contant personal remarks...and now even Dr.Jareb (the same source you misuse to strengthen that forgery) is "right-wing nationalist". I would remind you that labeling people and outright ignoring the discussion by calling other people insane, fascist or claiming that you are "a lawyer" or that others "misread" the sources are not valid arguments and go against Wikipedia policy. The tag will stay until you discuss this issue properly. Shokatz (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I took some time and actually read all of this. I'm somewhat familiar with the topic so i think i can contribute. I would like for us to solve some initial misunderstandings about the issue. The big question is the meaning of the phrase "constitutive", so can we first establish a shared definition of the term? Shokatz, FkpCascais ,Tuvixer, 109.121.37.112. The definition of the term constitute is the following "to establish (laws, an institution, etc.).". So do we all agree that a constitutive nation is the one who established SRC? If we all agree upon that the we can see in the constitution about who established SRC. 141.138.50.1 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe I have already touched that issue and quoted a direct passage from the 1947 constitution which in Article 2 says next:
 * "Ostvarujuci u svojoj oslobodilackoj borbi u bratskom jedinstvu sa Srbima u Hrvatskoj, i u zajednickoj borbi svih naroda Jugoslavije svoju narodnu drzavu - Narodnu Republiku Hrvatsku, hrvatski se narod, izrazavajuci svoju slobodnu volju, a na temelju prava na samoodredjenje - ukljucujuci pravo odcjepljenje i ujedinjenje s drugim narodima - ujedinio na temelju nacela ravnopravnosti s ostalim narodima Jugoslavije i njihovim narodnim republikama: NR Srbijom, NR Slovenijom, NR BiH, NR Makedonijom i NR Crnom Gorom u zajednicku, saveznu drzavu - FNR Jugoslaviju." (eng. " Realizing in their liberation struggle in fraternal unity with the Serbs in Croatia, and in the common struggle of all peoples of Yugoslavia their national state - the People's Republic of Croatia, the Croatian people, expressing their free will, based on the right to self-determination - including the right to secession and unification with other nations - united on the basis of the principle of equality with other peoples of Yugoslavia and their people's republics: PR Serbia, PR Slovenia, PR Bosnia and Herzegovina, PR Macedonia and PR Montenegro in common, federal state - FNR Yugoslavia. ")
 * It clearly says that it is the Croatian people who expressed it's free will [realizing its national state – PR Croatia] united with other people's and their national republics. It couldn't be more clear. This is even more clear if you can understand Croatian (or Serbo-Croatian or however you want to call it) which in the word „united“ uses singular form „ujedinio“ and refers specifically to Croatian people as the culprit. The same article is present in the 1974 constitution as well. Shokatz (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this this passage is defining Croatian nation and only Croatian nation as the one who constituted SRC. So where's the problem? Could you post a link to this constitution and the constitution of 1974? I think the 1974 constitution has similar sentence on its beginning. Well usually we wouldn't need to look the previous constitutions to the 1974 constitution, since that was the valid constitution at that time, but for the question of "constituting" a state we can look the past constitutions up to where a state is constituted, since that can not change in the newer versions of the constitution which is evolving. 141.136.206.141 (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that users like Tuvixer and FkpCascais simply refuse these sources and not only that...they refuse the discussion here. And yes the same passage is found in the 1974 constitution as well but the 1974 constitution also included a new passage, more direct and definitive stating that Croatia is a "national state of Croatian people". I've also quoted the entire passage from Dr. Jareb's book "Croatian National Symbols" where he discusses this issue in detail...explaining what the term "narod" and "narodnost" would mean in those constitution and ultimately what the "constituitive nation" would mean. The links for 1947 and 1974 constitutions were posted as well...but here they are again: 1947 1974 Shokatz (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I would like to hear from FkpCascais ,Tuvixer, 109.121.37.112 where's the problem? What is their definition of "constitutive" and why they see both Serbs and Croats defined as constitutive. I will ping them once more before i start reverting.I for a fact know that Serbian propaganda is still repeating this lie from the 90', although the very same question was not even put before the Badinter's commission because it was futile. To remind all, the Badinter's commission was constituted to deal with legal questions during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Serbian side had put several questions in front of it, but never the question of Serbian constitutive status in "Croatia". That for me is a clear admission by Serbia that there were no such status. Also a clear indication that there was no such status is international recognition of Croatia by all counties in the world, even Serbia itself. Instead, Serbia had put another question which seemed less futile before the Badinter's commission. The question about succession of nation over republics. The result of this question being favorable to the Serbs would be the same as the previous question, if even not more favorable. The thing is that Serbs did not want Croats in their new Yugoslavia (in another words, Greater Serbia), so they wanted to carve only a portion of Croatia that they had designated to became Serbian territory. With the question they asked the Badinter's commission they would be allowed to do that. With the question of this topic they wouldn't be allowed to carve only a portion of Croatia but only to revert Croatian decision to success. That would mean whole Croatia would be left within Yugoslavia. Of course, that was against the Yugoslav constitution, and that had been confirmed by Badinter's commission. I would like to hear from the people who object the answer to why the question of the supposed Serbian constitutive status was not put before the Badinter's commission. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You will not be reverting anything, you are blocked user Michael Cambridge editing as IP (see IP 141 contributions). FkpCascais (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, and not on editors analysis of primary sources. So I will continue bringing more RS backing Serbs were constituent nation in SR Croatia:
 * Minorities in Europe: Croatia, Estonia and Slovakia by Snezana Trifunovska, Katholieke Universiteit, on page 23 says: "The international recognition of Croatia, as well as documents adopted by the Croatian Administration prior to the recognition, stripped the Serbs from Croatia from their status of constituent nation and active subject in decisions concerning the Constitution of Croatian State, and specially the status of Serbs in it. What does this mean? It means primarily that the Serbs in Croatia have been down-graded from nation to national minority, or to use a new European euphemism - an ethnic community." FkpCascais (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ethnic Violence and the Societal Security Dilemma by Paul Roe, page 94, says: "...previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities." FkpCascais (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Serbia by Lawrence Mitchell, page 28, says: "...Croatian nationalist Franjo Tuđman in 1990 brought a new constitution that proclaimed that ethnic Serbs would become a national minority rather than a constituent nation within an independent Croatia." FkpCascais (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Genocide at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century by Dale C. Tatum, page 72, it says: "The original draft of the Croatian costitution did not recognize the Serbian minority as a constituent nation - a right they had during the days of communism." FkpCascais (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is one source, but the sources which say completely opposite had been presented. In fact those sources provide more details behind the opposite conclusion. That is why I wen't on discussing the primary source. Firstly I wanted to establish a consensus about the meaning of the word "constitutive" and then we could gather all sentences from the constitution which are speaking of it and then determine a subject to the term constitutive. So could you agree with the definition I posted, that constitutive nations are the one who established SRC? 89.164.239.139 (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * FkpCascais, I don't see any of this sources pointing to any part of the constitution which defines Serbs as the constitutive nation. Could you point to the parts of the constitution you think your sources are referencing in the manner Shokatz had? As I see it, Shokatz had presented a source which directly references the constitution and you had presented sources which only state your stand as a fact without further elaborating it. In my opinion this gives the sources Shokatz had presented a greater value, since his secondary sources are referencing the primary source in their elaboration of the issue, which is not the case with your sources. What are your thoughts about this? Would you agree that a sources which give a greater elaboration of the issue by referencing the primary souce have more value than the sources which simply make a statement without elaborating it and without referencing the primary source?You presented some sources and I would really like to hear your answer to this question, along with the answers of others who participated in this discussion.89.164.239.139 (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My friend Asdisis, I am not going to discuss with you. I provided 8 secondary sources opposing your view, you provided ZERO secondary sources. We don't even have a case here. I will repeat, it is not up to editors to play historians and lawyers and judge primary sources, but the editors job is to find secondary sources regarding that subject.  And among the ones I provided some do elaborate the issue quite well. FkpCascais (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, was I wrong when I pinged you to hear your opinion and to discuss with you in good faith. I would still like to hear the answer of other people who participated in this discussion. The question is: would you agree that secondary sources which give a greater elaboration of the issue by referencing the primary source have more value than the sources which simply make a statement without elaborating it and without referencing the primary source? 89.164.239.139 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Shokatz didn't even presented a secondary source that can be verified. His source, Dr. Jareb (?), allegedly says that, anyway, it would be one source (and local Croatian one, thus prone to be biased) against 8 (I can bring more) secondary sources saying the opposite.  Notece that those are 8 neutral English-language sources, against one Croatian. I haven't brought even one Serbian source to back my claims, and there must be many for sure, but in hot disputed topics as this one, it is better to use neutral sources than from the parties involved. I don't have any doubts there are Croatian authors doing their best to deny that Serbs were constitutional nation in Croatia prior 1990, but find neutral non-Croatian sources saying that, those have more weight. FkpCascais (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: I am not going to discuss with you as you are an indef-blocked disruptive user, and just as you did at Nikola Tesla, you provide zero sources (or perhaps one that you exhaustively push and push) and what you do best is wiki-lowyering just as again you are doing here. FkpCascais (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I have presented a secondary source and also a primary source which mentions nothing about "constitutional nations", nada, zip, zero. And "my source" which is Dr. Jareb who wrote the most extensive explanation until now is actually used in the article...or should I say misused for the claim that Serbs allegedly were a "constitutional nation". See, pages 737-739. It is the same thing I copied here and translated. The same source which Tuvixer deleted the link and again misused as a affirmation reference for the supposed "constitutional status of Serbs in Croatia". The problem with your sources are that they do not have any sources themselves, we don't know upon which primary source they are calling upon which is kinda crucial wouldn't you say? Just because someone can write something in a book, doesn't make it a valid reference for Wikipedia...unless ofc you want to manipulate with facts as you do here. The problem is that this is a disputed claim you are pushing here and either we go by the facts or you present both views in an equal fashion...with valid arguments. Shokatz (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not "someone writes something" but there is a clear consensus among scholars regarding this issue, its tons of reliable sources saying Serbs were constitutional nation before 1990 in Croatia. Just make a search among books, its an endless list from where I just brought the first 8 that appeared in my search.  Can you find some English-language source from someone non-Croatian to back-up your claim? FkpCascais (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually there isn't a consensus otherwise I wouldn't be here challenging this claim, can you understand that? And calling these source "reliable" is at best laughable since none of them list upon which primary source they are calling upon. I suggest you go read up on WP:RS, especially the part about verifiability. Is it the constitution of SRC? Is the "oral tradion" or some other "reliable source"? None of these source mention a primary source. Also you say you didn't use a single Serbian source...that is incorrect. Snezana Trifunovska is a Serbian author, just because the book is in English doesn't make her an English author. Second, I've looked closely at all of these sources you posted, not a single source actually refers to the primary source which would be the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia...in fact in one of those she (Trifunovska) even calls upon a certain "unofficial publication"...seriously? And third, saying that Dr. Jareb would be biased just because he is Croatian is a laughable and offensive...if anyone would know better what the constitution said it would be the Croatian author because it is his immediate field of work. That would like saying that Croatian authors have greater weight on the British or American constitution since they are supposedly "neutral". Current state of things violates WP:NPOV as it puts an undue weight on a certain point of view. Making blanket statements about supposed consensus is also against Wikipedia policies unless you can quote me a verifiable reference stating such a thing. Shokatz (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Also let's take a look at the current paragraph and what it say...I find it hilarious BTW: ''Amid political changes during the breakup of Yugoslavia and following the Croatian Democratic Union's victory in the 1990 general election, the Croatian Parliament ratified a new constitution in December 1990 which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities. A majority of Serb politicians have misread this as taking away some of the rights from the Serbs granted by the previous Socialist constitution, because the Constitution of SR Croatia treated solely Croats as a constitutive nation. Croatia was the "national state" for Croats, "state" for Serbs and other minorities.'' So let's see here....the first sentence basically says Croatian Govt. downgraded Serbs from "constitutional nation" to a national minority. Then we go to a second sentence which says: "Serb politicians have misread taking away some of the rights..." - seriously? They have misread what? According to first sentence the alleged downgrade is a fact...what is there to be misread? The it continues: "...because the Constitution of SR Croatia treated solely Croats as a constitutive nation" so now it says Serbs weren't a constitutive ("constitutional nation")...I mean this is simply hilarious. The last sentence basically restates the second sentence...so in this paragraph we now have first sentence stating one thing and two next sentences stating a diametrically the opposite. If users like FkpCascais and Tuvixer don't see a problem with this then I really don't know what to say anymore. This is what happens when people make sneaky edits to enforce their POV and basically ruin the quality of article. Imagine a third party neutral reader looking at this... Shokatz (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked all of them to point out which part of the constitution is defining Serbs as the constitutive nation of SRC. Maybe Tuvixer will be more open for a discussion. I would rather if we settled this with a consensus instead with source battle since in situations like this we will find bunch of sources claiming things without a single reference or any other elaboration. If we can't reach a consensus then both sides should be mentioned as well as the lack of that question to the Badinter's commission, since that quite clearly points out that it was never a legal issue, but it was instead used as a part of propaganda, as the source points out. If Serbs were a constitutive nation of SRC then independence referendum would be invalid and we all know that Croatia was recognized. That furthermore proves that this wasn't really a legal issue. Also I'm not familiar that Serb representatives in SRC had contacted the constitutional court of SRH or Yugoslavia that their constitutional right is being removed. All of that points that it wasn't ever a legal issue, but as the source suggests, it was a part of Serbian propaganda intended to ignite the rebellion in Croatia which was already started before. Maybe one of the persons who disagrees could point out where was this issue raised on the legal level to deal with. The appropriate place would be the constitutional court and Badinter's commission. If we would to battle with source then so far we would get something like this: "some sources say that Serbs were demoted from a constitutional nation to a national minority, while other sources say....and now a big passage from Shokatz sources.....continued by the original sentence from the constitutions.....continued by the fact that the issue was never legally raised before constitutional court or Badinter's commission.". If this is the way people who disagree are prepared to go, then I don't think they will be happy with the end result since their edit will be eaten by a great deal of information suggesting otherwise since their sources do not provide any elaboration, but only stating a fact. The fact will be stated in the article, but a much greater elaboration of the opposite stand will be also stated in the article and I don't think anyone who would read it would get an impression that Serbs were really a constitutive nation in SRC. That is what we get by "source battle", so I urge everyone to go in the direction is suggested. Let's agree about the definition of constitutive nation and let's see what the constitution says. Then we can evaluate presented secondary sources. Shokatz, I don't think we will be able to reach a consensus so I think we should procede to incorporate the elaboration that your source gives, and the things which I had mentioned about the issue never being a legal issue and not even put before Badinter's commission. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, walls of text, no sources... For start, can any of you bring at least one English-language source? FkpCascais (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, typical rejection of any discussion... For start, can you bring at least one source which mentions a primary source? Shokatz (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't need to. They all say clearly that Serbs were constitutional nation of Croatia, many mention the change in the constitution done in 1990, so they are clearly referring to the primary source, that is what matters.  I can post 10 more English-language neutral sources (OK, Trifunovska is maybe Serbian, what about the other 7? Are they Serbs too?).  While you seem to be unable to post even one English-language source claiming what you claim.  Without sources you don't even have a discussion here. FkpCascais (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you do need to. Or else if you continue this charade I will report this to WP:ARBMAC as I am getting close to the end of my nerves with you. I have shown here by quoting both the 1974 and 1990 constitution that such a claim is incorrect and claiming "they said so" is not a reference to a primary source. And I have already posted sources...the one you dismiss including the primary sources going directly against the supposed secondary sources you posted. Again, take a good look at that paragraph and tell me that makes sense... Shokatz (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They are all referring to the constitutional change in 1990. Either you have some understanding problems or you are playing dummy. Go ahead report me, I will gladly kick out from this project one nationalistic warrior who ignores duzens of sources and thinks he knows the WP:TROUTH. You have no sources to back your claims so all you can do now is make disruption, just like your friends here did and got them indef-blocked. I wish you nice journey towards that road. FkpCascais (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok let's see that constitutional change. [Constitution of SR Croatia in 1974: "Socijalisticka Republika Hrvatska je nacionalna drzava hrvatskog naroda, drzava srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj i drzava drugih narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (eng. "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities who live within it"). Constitution of Croatia from 1990: "Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda i država pripadnika autohtonih nacionalnih manjina: Srba, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Madžara, Židova, Nijemaca, Austrijanaca, Ukrajinaca, Rusina i drugih, koji su njezini državljani, kojima se jamči ravnopravnost s građanima hrvatske narodnosti i ostvarivanje nacionalnih prava..." (eng. "Republic of Croatia is established as a national state of Croatian people and state of members of autochtonous national minorities: Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Hungarians, Jews, Germans, Austrians, Ukraininans, Rusyns and others, who are its citizens, to whom equality with citizens of Croatian ethnicity is guaranteed including the realization of national rights..." Keep making personal remarks and hurling threats my way though...I am sure it will bring you much "good"...especially considering you were already blocked previously for tendentious editing regarding Yugoslavia related articles per [[WP:ARBMAC]].Shokatz (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you to make inerpretations of the Constitution. For time being I provided 8 English-language reliable sources (with links to be verified) clearly saying Serbs were constitutional nation in Croatia, you presented ZERO reliable English-language sources and no links saying the contrary, and you dare to say I am wrong? FkpCascais (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You will first have to point out where I actually made "interpretations of the constitution". As you can see I just copy-pasted the excerpts directly from both the 1974 and 1990 constitutions without any comments. The problem with your sources is that they go directly against the primary sources I just posted. Where is this "constitutional status of Serbs" mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. I implore you point me to it because I have read it length and wide and could not find anything. And yes I dare to say you are wrong...again look at the paragraph...which is it...were they "constitutional" or not? Can you explain to me what is that paragraph stating? Shokatz (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * FkpCascais refuses to discuss in good faith. I already asked him to discuss the primary source and to point which passage in his opinion designates Serbs as a constitutive nation. He refuses and there's nothing to be done in this situation. I suggest we eat up his sources with elaborations provided by the other sources and that we copy paste the passage from the constitution which clearly designates that Croatians are the only constitutive nation in SRC. Readers of this article will for themselves see what the constitution says and that is enough for me, because I have no doubt that any objective person can understand the quotes from the constitution you passed. Let's not discuss with him, since it is not a discussion but a battle. Let him have his sources but let's provide the quotes from the constitution you passed here. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that Shokatz has no sources to back his position. It is 8 to 0, so Sokatz start providing sources or the discussion is over. You can't make changes to the article without valid sources. And it is going to be really hard to refute 8 valid sources. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * IP 89.164.239.139 is blocked. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that I have three [3] primary sources: Constitution of NR CroatiaConstitution of SR Croatia Constitution of Croatia from 1990 going directly against the sources FkpCascais has provided. I also have a reference which contains the most detailed discussion on the issues of the consitution and the supposed "constitutionality" which cites Dr.Jareb's book "Croatian National Symbols" which you misuse currently: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između negativnih stereotipa i istine; Dunja Bonacci Skenderovic and Mario Jareb. Show me one source here which refers to these primary sources...you have ZERO. Shokatz (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This IP 82.214.103.10 is indef-blocked user Asdisis. His latest ideia is trying to convince the other editor to ignore sources. FkpCascais (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet now? I suggest you to tone down unless you want me to report you...seriously... Shokatz (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * no FkpCascais is not accusing you. He was referring to a banned user whose comment was removed, likely the same person known as "Detoner" on your talk page. It is clear from your contribution history that you are a valued contributor. Chillum 00:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed Shokatz. I didn't saw your comment here, just now that Chillum answered to you that I saw it. What I was saying is that the indef-blocked user Asdisis, avoiding block here through an IP, was trying to convince you to edit on their behalve, and I was just pointing out the fact that the IP 82 was indef-blocked user Asdisis. Just that, nothing to do with you or the content.  That user Asdisis has a long history of disruption, sockpoppetry and block-evasion. FkpCascais (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will continue bringing sources that confirm Serbs were constituent nation in Croatia:
 * Secessionism and Separatism in Europe and Asia: To Have a State of One’s Own by Jean-Pierre Cabestan and Aleksandar Pavković, page 71 speaking about the events in 1990 says: "It also changed the status of Serbs from a constituent nation in Croatia into a minority."
 * Living Together After Ethnic Killing: Exploring the Chaim Kaufman Argument by Roy Licklider and Mia Bloom, page 158, it says: "Previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia and enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities." At this page is further explained about the changes in the Constitution.
 * Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict by Melanie Greenberg, John H. Barton and Margaret E. McGuinness, at page 83, says: "The new Croatian constitution ... renounced the hitherto protected status of ethnic Serbs as a separate constituent nation embedded in the old constitution and defined Croatia as the sovereign state of Croatian nation." FkpCascais (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the meantime none of these reference or mention any primary source. Anyone reading a primary source and then reading these sources can see for themselves that no "constitutional nations" are mentioned whatsoever. Again I suggest you read up on WP:RS, especially the part about tendentious sources. Shokatz (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that tons of secondary sources are wrong? And please don't tell me as Asdisis did that it is Serbian propaganda, cause it is quite established that Serbian propaganda outside Serbia had hardly any influence. FkpCascais (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying that these secondary sources do not cite any primary source which is a problem, ok? Or are we going to pretend this is not an issue? We have the primary sources here posted in their original form...they go against these secondary sources...directly. It's not my interpretation, it's clear and direct...I quoted it several times. Anyway...I am not here to push my POV I want us to discuss this and come to a conclusion what exactly was and is this definition of this so-called "constitutional nation" mentioned in the article, and how can we have such conflicting paragraph stating two opposite things. Shokatz (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also if we cannot reach any agreement on this I am prepared to ask for a third opinion or some sort of mediation where we would present both these primary and secondary sources and see what others think...if anyone would be even interested in this matter. Shokatz (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Do I count? We are not supposed to interpret primary sources. We are a tertiary source so we use secondary sources. It is not our place to say that the secondary sources got it wrong and our interpretation is better. That would be original research. Chillum 00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I really doubt that so many secondary sources overwhelmingly saying Serbs were constituent nation are wrong or they missed something. FkpCascais (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is our duty to analyze the secondary sources per WP:V. The problem with these secondary sources is that, as I have already stated and quoted, directly contradict the primary sources. There is no personal interpretation of the primary sources, they say what they says. Also all of those secondary sources seem to fail on basic criteria - to cite the actual primary source - which is a blanket failure to satisfy WP:SOURCE. I mean where is the definition of this supposed "constitutional nation" they are talking about? There is nothing about it in both 1974 or 1990 Croatian constitution...or any other Yugoslavian constitution. What is the actual primary source for these blanket statements? It's like I am reading a newspaper report or something. Ofc every author can express their own opinion but then it is up to us to analyze these sources and fact check them. Shokatz (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I hope nobody minds but I have made a section break here to make the conversation easier. Chillum 01:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Again Skokatz it is not for us to look at primary sources and say the secondary sources are wrong. That is original research. You may not think you are interpreting primary sources but you are certainly assigning weight and value to them much as is the task of a secondary source. If your interpretation of the primary sources is so objective and clear cut then secondary sources should exist. Chillum 02:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you are confusing WP:V and WP:SOURCE with WP:OR. I am not interpreting what the primary sources say, I am stating an obvious fact that those secondary sources do not mention primary sources...which in this case would be the constitutions. Furthermore the primary sources say nothing about "constitutional nations" and this is a blatant fact. Shokatz (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you see he is a troll? Everyone who reads the Constitution of SRC can see that it mentions Croats and Serbs as constitutive nations. Yes it says that SR Croatia was a state of Croatian people, but in the same sentence it says also that it is a state of Serbian people in Croatia, as well as of all national minorities. So Croatis and Serbs were constitutive nations. Like that today Constitution says that Republic of Croatia is a state od the Croatian people and all national minorities. So today Croats are the only constitutive nations. Serbs back then were a significant population in Croatia, like today Bosnia and Herzegovina is a multi ethnic state, and has three constitutive nations, Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. And there is a ton of sources that prove that Serbs were a constitutive nation. Shokatz is practically saying to us: "No Frodo is not a hobbit, look it up in the primary source, those secondary sources are wrong." Why don't you just ignore him? He is obviously a troll here. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is the true WP:OR. Quote me the part of the constitution which mentions any "constitutional nation". You can't, because it's not in it. The constitution of 1974 said the same thing as the constitution from 1990 - that Croatia is a "national state of Croatian people". This is a blatant fact written in black and white and no secondary source which doesn't cite a primary source can deny this...especially if it goes directly against the primary source which it should refer to. Everything you just wrote has nothing to do with facts, but your POV-pushing agenda. As for Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was always described as a "state union"...both in 1974 and modern-day constitution and it's a completely different thing from Croatia (and all other ex-Yugoslav republics) which was defined as a "national state" of only one nation. I will give you one final warning before I actually go and report you to WP:ARBMAC...make another personal ad homimen comment about me. I dare you. Shokatz (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)