Talk:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia/Archive 2

Map
I added this GREAT map, i am so proved of it! It looks superb! -- WhiteWriterspeaks 15:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

After Tito's death or in late 1980s?
There's this sentence in the introduction: "After the death of Tito in 1980, rising ethnic nationalism in the late 1980s led to dissidence among the multiple ethnicities within the constituent republics". I think a choice should be made between the two time specifications - nationalism rose either after Tito's death (meaning right after) or at the end of the decade, can't be both. -- BlueRoar (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing
This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falktalk 13:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge article titled "Provisional Government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" into this article
This appears to be a POV fork on the basis that this "Provisional Government" was not the same as the SFRY, the state appears to be the same as the SFRY just with an earlier title.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Provisional Government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was a national unity government formed on the basis of the 1944 Treaty of Vis which sought to fix the issue of parallel governments of Yugoslavia, namely the Yugoslav government-in-exile (recognized by the Allies but with little de facto authority in the occupied country) and the communist-led National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia (which was never recognized as having sovereignty over the occupied country but which had some authority on the ground, i.e. the parts of it liberated by the Yugoslav Partisans). The de facto authority of communists was only legalised (i.e. became de iure) in the November 1945 election (the result of which was contested by non-communist opposition, but it nevertheless became fact). Of course, communist historiography always claimed continuity in retrospect back to 1943, completely ignoring the Yugoslav government-in-exile and the issue of international recognition, simply choosing the date when Partisans declared themselves as executive authority over the entire territory. So no, the provisional government is not the same thing as SFR Yugoslavia, and claiming otherwise would only be possible by relying on communist, not exactly reliable, sources.  Timbouctou  ( talk ) 18:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Start year
How come the start year of the SFR Yugoslavia is 1945, and not 1943? The article Kingdom of Yugoslavia says that the Kingdom ceased to exist in 1943, and was succeeded by the Communist Yugoslavia... Therefore, SFR Yugoslavia must have 1943 as its start year, and not 1945. As far as I know, the communists declared the new republic system, replacing the old Kingdom at the Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia in November 1943. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The "new republic system" was not recognized by anyone other than themselves until 1945. See Treaty of Vis and the topic above.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 23:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Official language
The article currently says that there was no official language at the federal level. However, according to the 1974 constitution (article 246), "in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the languages of nations are in official use and, in accordance with this Constitution and constitutional laws, also the languages of national minorities." See the Constitution in Croatian here: https://hr.wikisource.org/wiki/Ustav_Socijalisti%C4%8Dke_Federativne_Republike_Jugoslavije_%281974.%29 I personally read this quite clearly as saying that Serbo-Croatian (Croatian or Serbian), Macedonian and Slovene languages were official at the federal level.

Also, Serbian and Croatian are listed as regional languages, among others. However, none of the constitutions of the Yugoslav republics mentioned them, it was always named Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian or, in case of Croatian Constitution, "Croatian or Serbian" (meaning one language). Therefore I find this incorrect as well.

BlueRoar (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not very apt to differ the subtleties but I believe "the language in official use" and "the official language" are not quite the same. For example the article Montenegro mentions the Montenegrin as the official language but the Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian, Croatian as the official regional languages. Probably because they're mentioned in the constitution as languages in official use. --biblbroks (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that Montenegrin constitution makes this distinction. On the other hand, in Serbian and Croatian constitutions there is only a language "in official use" (Serbian and Croatian respectively) and both Wikipedia articles recognize them as "official". So I think that it would be consistent to admit that there were official languages in Yugoslavia just like there are now in Serbia and Croatia.

BlueRoar (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, then maybe this should be changed as suggested, but given that Serbo-Croatian was named differently at least in Croatia I think it's better to be cautious about it. And perhaps even go so far to modify the Serbia and Croatia articles to something that gives the "in official use" phrasing. --biblbroks (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Autonomous provinces
Kosovo and Vojvodina were parts of Serbia. In the Constitution of 1974 this is explicitly stated in Articles 1 and 2 right after Kosovo and Vojvodina are mentioned, as you can read in the text of 1974 Constitution (in Croatian). If the original wording from the first paragraph were kept ("In addition, it included two autonomous provinces: Kosovo and Vojvodina") it would mean that the provinces were outside of republics which is not true. Therefore I have edited this sentence to: "In addition, it included two autonomous provinces within Serbia: Kosovo and Vojvodina." BlueRoar (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Country borders
Please add info about state borders in the "Geography" section. Off my head I remember Italy, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania. Anything else? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. It was already there, not sure if you missed it or you meant another section. But here I slightly expanded it and added a source which besides sourcing the material I added also sources the countries Yugoslavia bordered with. FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Language
In SFR Yugoslavia official language was Serbo-Croatian (de facto both Serbian and Croatian). For example, in SR Croatia official language was Croatian Literary Language, which was officially called "Croatian or Serbian" (another name for Serbo-Croatian), this is the de facto language that we today call Croatian language, the same thing was in Serbia. The term Serbo-Croatian (both Serbian, Croatian) was used officially, and terms Serbian and Croatian were used unofficially, while terms like Bosnian and Montenegrin (also part of Serbo-Croatian) were used only after the collapse of SFR Yugoslavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia
Are you sure that Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is correct name. Because the name of the state in Serbo-Croatian is Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija (Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia). Word "federativna" would be equal to federative, and "savezna" to federal, for example "Ruska Sovjetska Federativna Socijalistička Republika" is equal to Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and "Savezna Republika Jugoslavija" is equal to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, also in the context of United States, federal state is translated as "savezna država". I don't know what was the official name of a country in english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * United Nations call it Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. --romanm (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And CIA factbook too. We are not allowed to translate ourselves, that would be WP:original research. We use translation as used by reliable sources.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Language
I edited the "language" part of the infobox. First, after the note that there was no official language on the federal level, I removed the about the "1974 Constitution" because there was no official language in two previous constitutions (1946 and 1963) neither. Also, after the note that Serbo-Croatian language was de facto national language, I removed the note "1974-1992", because it was de facto official throughout the whole existence of Yugoslavia. Also, I removed Albanian from "regional" languages as it was not official language of any of the republics. Most importantly, I removed a note about Serbo-Croatian language that read "Its regional varieties were recognized and made official in their respective republics: as Serbian in SR Serbia and SR Montenegro, Croatian in SR Croatia." This is simply not true. The 1974 Constitutions of Serbia and Montenegro call the official language "Serbo-Croatian", while the 1974 Constitution of Croatia says that the "language is called Croatian or Serbian".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that Albanian language was used officially alongside Serbo-Croatian in Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, also I found somewhere that the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, official languages where Serbo-Croatian, Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian and Pannonian Rusyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but we need some sources. I can't find 1974 constitutions of Kosovo or Vojvodina on the web.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no "National" language in Yugoslavia, nor were there any "Regional" languages: Slovenia and Macedonia weren't "regions". Those expandable templates are nonsense. Further: the fact that Serbo-Croatian wasn't formally the official language on the federal level is a near-irrelevancy - deserving no more mention in the infobox than can be included in the footnote. De facto, and to all intents and purposes, it was the federal official language - and was indeed even legally the sole official language in the vast majority of the country. You were quite correct in removing that note, though.

A few more points: acting officials do not warrant mention there, they weren't serving their function either legally or de facto, since they were appointees of Milosevich, only recognized in two of the six republics. The state was not "Titoist", it was "socialist", and the fact that it was a single-party state is included in the category of "socialist state". "Titoism" can't really be applied for several obvious reasons. The President was the most powerful office for the majority of the state's existence, so it should be first up, and excluding Tito there isn't doing any favors to the reader. The second most powerful office was then the prime-ministership. Party presidency wasn't as important on the federal level. Please list the republics in order of size/population (i.e. relevance), not alphabetically, etc.. -- Director  ( talk )  14:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Southwest....
Hyphenating words like "southwest", "northwest", "northeast", and "southeast" has gone completely out of use and doing so should be frowned on immensely. You only need to look at names like the Northwest Ordinance, the Northwest Territories, Northwestern University, Northeastern University, Southwest Airlines, Southwest Asia, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, Southwest Africa, and the Southwestern United States to see with your own eyes. Notice that geographically these places are scattered around the world. 47.215.211.115 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Economy Section
I am preparing to add information that explores the way the SFRY engaged with the World Bank. This is just a test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanishKringle (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Government/politics of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
I had a question about the government of the SFRY (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Socialist countries, I thought, usually were unitary states, but the SFRY is Socialist and Federal. Confused, any help? Jacob Middleton (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Category talk:Second Yugoslavia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath section
The aftermath section really simply highlights of the worst things that happened after SFRY ceased to exist. As such it is off topic and edit-war magnet to boot. As these events are covered elsewhere I propose they be cut.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503000903/http://www.story.rs/profili/lepa-brena to http://www.story.rs/profili/lepa-brena
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118193603/http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ecclblog/blogentry.aspx?blogentryref=7915 to http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ecclblog/blogentry.aspx?blogentryref=7915
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621180054/http://www.medals.lava.pl/yu/yu2.htm to http://www.medals.lava.pl/yu/yu2.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Muslims
What exactly is a problem here? You dispute that Muslims were a nationality, or you dispute that they were South Slavs?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, you should learn history and not use nationality as excuse to make stories. In moment when Yugoslavia is given name it clearly states that it is a state of Croats, Serbs and Slovens not other nation. Mentioned nations are mostly formed much latter and most of them under the rule of communist Josip Broz government who oppressed Serbs in many ways. They have nothing to do with naming of Yugoslavia in any case. Loesorion (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, that is the reason you removed Muslims, but left Montenegrins and Macedonians?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

My first reaction when coming to that part article is that Bosnia-cs has nothing to do with formation of any Yugoslavia(not a single official SFRY document about them as a nation from SFRY period since they as a nation exist after a dissolution of SFRY) and that since Muslims are only after 1961 on census as a nationality in SFRY they have also nothing to do with formation of SFRY or Kingdom of Yugoslavia as a nationality. Before your latest post here in Talk page, I had once again read article and understood that it is not just about SFRY name and creation but it is about origin of Yugoslavia name so I edited article once again and improved references.

Please stop with implying questions that suggest you know reasons about what are my edits. You did not even read all my edits before you post here in future read carefully article before you post here in talk. And maybe instead questioning my motives for edits start discussion with me with arguments, references, sources, historical documents or anything from that period that contradicts my edits. You can try to improve article with some contributions instead thinking about my motives or if you are about some productive discussion here state some facts that are colliding with my edits and not some implying questions including headline of this topic that this it is only about Muslims.

In end if you don't offer anything why should I have not done edits in first place stop with such implying questions. I am here to help and exchange opinion to anyone interested in history and improve and create articles, normally if it asks for my help, not just to argue for sake of argument and question people motives why are they on Wikipedia. Loesorion (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Name
I would propose to name the article "Socialist Yugoslavia". It is the shorter name used in several works. Compare with Soviet Union. What are your views?--Z oupan 04:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Year in infobox?
Should it be 1945, not 1943? The lead states that the republic was "proclaimed" in 1945. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this article also covers Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (1943-1945) that was not formally a republic, but was direct predecessor of the Yugoslav Republic.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence states that it was:
 * "...the Yugoslav state in southeastern Europe that existed from its foundation in the aftermath of World War II until its dissolution in 1992..."
 * Aftermath of WW2 started in 1945. That's why 1943 looks out of place in the infobox. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Communications and transportation section
Yes, I found it outragious that this section was missing. I created it, I know, it lacks sources, but please instead of erasing it, please see if there are any contradicting souces to my claims there, and instead of removing content, try to source it and expand it. Yugoslavia was such a rich country in transpotation, this section really deserves expansion, I will work on it. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Hej, Slaveni", performed by the Simfonijski Orkestar Radio Televizije Beograd.oga

Today part of
Could someone take a look at the Today part of section of the infobox? I fixed the previous editor's change, but it doesn't mean I condone it - actually, I think it'd be better without it (the template does mention avoiding it when there are more than four "today" countries). There are seven countries there right now, and the Kosovo entry with a footnote is making it too large for an infobox. Thoughts? byteflush Talk 03:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Kosovo needs the footnote anyway. Taiwan, another country in a similar situation as Kosovo, doesn't have such a note whenever it is mentioned. If anything, it probably should be the other way around since more states recognize Kosovo than they do the ROC. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Kosovo's declaration of independence was controversial, within Serbia, while Taiwan, or the ROC, never had a deceleration of independence. It has been a state since 1911. If a Hainan island were to declare independence right now, it would require a footnote when articles mention it, but Taiwan never declared independence from the People's Republic of China. Azaan H 10:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Act
Was there ever a formal act dissolving the SFRY (like the USSR did) or did it just fade out into non-existence? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because FR Yugoslavia acted as the continuation of SFR Yugoslavia with just dropping the "Socialist" from SFRY and becoming FRY. Basically republics were leaving the federation at different stages and the instituions just continued working on with the republics which were still part of it. However, by spring 1992 only Montenegro was left in the federation along Serbia and its desire to mantain Yugoslavia. It would be only much later, that it was established April 1992 as the time SFRY dissolved, same month that FR Yugoslavia was officially proclaimed. FkpCascais (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. Thank you. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a formal act between SFRY republics, however there was a formal act done by Badinter Arbitration Committee . See opinion no. 1. FR Yugoslavia was not "the continuation of SRFY" as Fkp considers it, but it was just one of former Yugoslav republics. It aspired to be the solely successor state, thus keeping "Yugoslavia" in its name, however that was not formally recognized by anyone. Since no one recognized that, eventually FRY dropped that aspiration and changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro. 141.138.35.189 (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The actual Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia considered itself to be the successor state of SFR Yugoslavia, which was not recognised in the international community. However, the Federal Assembly of Yugoslavia did pass legislation which altered how the state functioned, meaning that in effect there was a formal dissolution of SFR Yugoslavia when a new Constitution of FR Yugoslavia was created in 1992. Azaan H 10:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Added Serbo-Croatian name
Most Wikipedia pages about countries have the name of the country, in its native language, at the start of the first paragraph. I did the same for SFR Yugoslavia. Azaan Habib 09:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

REALLY? Why do my edits keep on getting deleted? This is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.
 * It's not pathetic. The country has had several official names and no official language on federal level. The long official name(s) in all three most commonly spoken languages in 2 different scripts would unnecessarily overwhelm the lead. The names are discussed in very first subsection, you'll notice. Even if shortened to merely Yugoslavia, which is no different to the name in native languages, is something like the following really necessary? ChrisTakey (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(Jugoslavija / Југославија ; Jugoslavija ; Југославија


 * Alright that's fine, as long as it's in one of the sections. The thing is that I wouldn't have needed to put it in all the languages in two scripts, since the name Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia doesn't actually change between the languages, so you would only need a Cyrillic and Latin version. Azaan Habib 16:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Slavs vocal.ogg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Slavs vocal.ogg

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DanishKringle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Former Yugoslavia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Former Yugoslavia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"Ex-Yugoslavia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ex-Yugoslavia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"Former Yugoslav republics" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Former Yugoslav republics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Per annum percentages in the Legacy section table
How are they calculated? They are not a CAGR. In addition, the total is just the total evolution rather than the change per annum. UlyssorZebra (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed them now. UlyssorZebra (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Problems with the "Self Management" section
@Julian Bull first, thank you for contributions to the article. Other contributions seem fine, however, this "Self Management" section you recently added has too much MOS:PUFFERY and doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV. This section needs to be toned down and rewritten better with less original research. Wikipedia content should only state facts and professional analysis directly from reliable sources that are being cited (CIA sources touch on the topic but do not praise the system, unlike your section). There should be no comparisons of Yugoslav democracy with Ancient Athens. The way it is written right now, it should be removed, unfortunately. -Vipz (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

These are not my opinions, it is stuff the CIA admit blatantly. The worst enemy of socialism admits all this blatantly. Please read the references. Julian Bull (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying the Yugoslav System was objectively better than capitalism by any meaningful, measurable standard. It was much more humanistic and better at meeting the needs of the population. The CIA don't praise them because they judge the success of economy in a fundamentally different way. To them, a successful economy is one wherea tiny minority of rich people are getting extremely wealthy while most other people struggle to meet their own needs. Unless you're a psychopath I just don't see how you can say Yugoslavia wasn't a very successful and positive thing. Julian Bull (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. Julian Bull (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Please give me a chance with this. I have much more information about Yugoslavia that is straight from CIA formerly classified documents. The democratic nature of Wikipedia makes it one of few places that these sorts of ideas have a chance to be heard. Julian Bull (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

But yeah, I'll try and use more objective and neutral sounding rhetoric. Julian Bull (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)