Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Yugoslavia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Scope of the project

I noticed coordinated activities of several users aimed to deny FR Yugoslavia any Yugoslav legacy and to distinct the term Yugoslavia from the third Yugoslavia, (FR Yugoslavia consisting of Serbia and Montenegro). Although there were three Yugoslavias someone defined only first two Yugoslavias to be within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, leaving the third Yugoslavia out of its scope (except for articles related to the Ten-Day War, the Croatian War of Independence, and the Bosnian War, but not the post-1995 conflicts.) Proposal to remove tricolor flag (the official flag of third Yugoslavia) and to leave flags of first two Yugoslavias side by side is the last step in attempts to indirectly deny FR Yugoslavia its Yugoslav legacy. This activities are against WP:NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Important note: Before someone defined only first two Yugoslavias to be within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, leaving the third Yugoslavia out of its scope the scope of this WikiProject was only SFRJ. 35 out of existing 62 members were members of this WikiProject before its scope was defined as first two Yugoslavias only. I am probably not the only one who signed in later and did not even notice this anti FRY discourse.

I think that the scope of this WikiProject should be either only SFRJ or all three Yugoslavias. Any other combination would be against WP:NPOV. I propose all three Yugoslavias. Should we vote?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Even more important note: You appear to be confused. I did nothing to somehow "exclude" Serbia and Montenegro from this project - it was never part of this project. The project was also never defined as being on the SFRY - that's just your "conclusion". The state of Serbia and Montenegro, which held the name "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", is a Yugoslav successor state on equal footing with the other four republics that became independent at the same time. The only thing "Yugoslav" about it is its name, and its inclusion cannot be justified anymore than that of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, etc.. Oppose. -- Director (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The FRY had shared international succession status (along with the other former Yugoslav states) and was required to apply for recognition on its own behalf. I agree with Director, it has no place here, it belongs in Wikiproject Serbia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per Peacemaker67's argument. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: Please don't violate WP:NPA (You appear to be confused).
Here is the version of this project's page before Director decided that its scope should be first two Yugoslavias. Yugoslavia in its scope was linked only to SFRJ. (The project was also never defined as being on the SFRY - that's just your "conclusion".)
Why do you oppose to my proposal to !vote? Without voting we wouldn't know what members of this project think what should be the scope of this WikiProject.
Identity is different from the succession of membership in international organizations. Regardless of the fact that some of the international organization did request that FRY should apply for recognition on its own behalf (some did not (like many international financial organizations)) FRY did actually proclaim continuity with SFRJ. Both assemblies of Serbia and Montenegro supporting this decision. It is obvious that FRY identified itself with SFRJ not just because its name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

2. Yes, based on a wikilink, you decided only the SFRY was the subject of this project.
4. Nonsense, you're imposing a vague term ("identity") that you yourself define and ascribe to whom and what you will. "Obvious"? To you, perhaps. The FRY did try to proclaim itself the sole successor state, to get all the money of course, but was unceremoniously shot down by the international community. E.g, for years the US referred to the country as "Serbia and Montenegro" (in the early '90s, before that became the official name of the country). And all countries proclaiming independence did declare themselves to be successor states.

-- Director (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Scope should be decided by voting. That is only relevant way, when dealing with WikiProjects, which are team work, where all team members have their own voice. I also agree with third Yugoslavia inclusion in this WikiProject scope. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Arguments do the talking. Votes are not a substitute. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not blind votes, for sure. But other voices, yes. WP:VINE --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just hold on a second. Either there is a central principle to this wikiproject, or there is not. Either it is about the idea of Yugoslavia or it is not. Any articles in this project which relate to pre-1918 clearly are about Yugoslavism as an idea. Any from after Yugoslavia broke up into its successor states are not about Yugoslavia and should not be in this project. This should not go anywhere like a vote until we decide that we want to change the whole idea of this wikiproject. It is more than clear to me, at least, that if FRY is included, then all successor states are included. That would duplicate the scope of work being done by wikiproject Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia etc and would be wasteful and frankly, pointless from the perspective of the parent wikiproject. @Antidiskriminator, the international community generally, including the General Assembly of the United Nations, did not accept the accession of the FRY to the SFRY's seat in the General Assembly. It had to apply on its own behalf. The GAssy is a pretty broadminded group (unlike the SC), but on the recommendation of the SC they still required the FRY to apply. It is an accepted principle in international law that the FRY was a successor state, not a continuation of the SFRY, regardless of what the constituant legislatures thought. Unfortunately for them, they did not make international law, the international community did, and they didn't clear the bar. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Direktor that Serbia and Montenegro should not be counted as an extension of Yugoslavia. In fact, from 1991-1992 the plan to keep Montenegro united with Serbia in a "Yugoslavia" was a forced marriage imposed by the Serbian government - because during the Yugoslav crisis negotiations in 1991 led by Lord Carrington, Montenegro under Milosevic's ally Momir Bulatovic stunned Milosevic when Bulatovic representing Montenegro voted alongside Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia in favour of recognizing the dissolution of Yugoslavia and allowing the independence of each republic. The Serbian government angrily confronted Bulatovic, Bulatovic revealed that Montenegro had been offered quick access into the European Community by Italy's diplomat if Montenegro would agree to accept that Yugoslavia was dissolved and he had agreed. Bulatovic insisted to Milosevic that an independent country of Montenegro would still support Serbia, but Milosevic and his government would have none of it and aired propaganda on television denouncing Bulatovic as a "traitor" to Yugoslavia. Bulatovic fearing for his life retracted his vote that favoured recognition of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and one year afterwards agreed to the new union of the "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" later known as Serbia and Montenegro. Later Milosevic bullied the Montenegrin government of Djukanovic that opposed Milosevic and refused to endorse Serbian actions in the Kosovo War. So as you can see, the continued union of Montenegro with Serbia up to 2006, was founded in forced marriage style and under the domination of Serbia, and most serious analysts agree that the term "Yugoslavia" as used by Milosevic and figures like Radovan Karadzic and Milan Babic by this point was just a legitimation term to describe a Greater Serbia led by Milosevic that sought to include subordinate leaderships in Montenegro, Krajina, and Srpska within it under the name "Yugoslavia". And because the the Serbs of Krajina and Srpska who sought unification with the FRY obviously lived in lands held by the former SFRY, the FRY could legally avoid the accusation of Serb irredentism by claiming that these people wanted to have their lands "remain in Yugoslavia".--R-41 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

the accession of the FRY to the SFRY's seat in the General Assembly
the name used in USA for FR Yugoslavia
Bulatovic and Milosevic forced marriage story
Greater Serbia accusations
existence of other WikiProjects for each former Yugoslav republic

are not sufficient arguments to claim that FR Yugoslavia was not Yugoslavia.

Whatever some members of this project think about FR Yugoslavia, policies and the interest of wikipedia are the most important criterias for setting the scope of some WikiProject. I believe that it would be against WP:NPOV policy and against the interest of wikipedia to leave FR Yugoslavia topic out of scope of this project. I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position, and I don't really have much to add to that now. Therefore I don't intend to present any additional arguments for my position, especially because I am not very active member of this project. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And i just want to include all of you here in this. User DIREKTOR removed third Yugoslavia from Yugoslavia article. See talk for more...

Thank you WhiteWriter. This wikiproject is kidnapped and misused to promote particular POV. I don't want to be included in this anymore. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Buddy you have previously claimed that other user's arguments are arbitrarily "insufficient", failed to give a rebuttal, shown that you aren't particularly interested to, and that you simply don't care for this wikiproject. Now you're saying that other disagreeing users have "kidnapped" this wikiproject? If you don't wish to be "included" then that is your decision. It certainly wouldn't be much of a loss. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The evidence about Montenegro being pressured to remain in union with Serbia is no "story", its a well-known fact, I mean Antidiskriminator do you think that I just made up a fictitious story that at a conference in 1991 about the crisis in Yugoslavia over imminent secession by Slovenia, Croatia, and others, that was chaired by British diplomat Lord Carrington resulted in Montenegrin President Bulatovic voting in favour of recognizing the dissolution of Yugoslavia alongside the government leaders of every other Yugoslav republic except Serbia. Look it up if you don't believe me - you will find the evidence that Bulatovic upon being offered by Italy quick access into the European Community on the condition that he accept the dissolution of Yugoslavia, did so - Bulatovic in interview in the BBC documentary Death of Yugoslavia himself says that he told the Serbian government that he intended to make Montenegro an independent country but that it would still be allied with Serbia, he admits that he was threatened and attacked by the Serbian government as a "traitor" to Yugoslavia and reverted his stance to support continued union with Serbia due to Serbian government pressure. Again, Antidiskriminator if you don't believe me just look up material about Bulatovic at the 1991 meeting chaired by Lord Carington and Italy's offer of EC membership to Montenegro if Montenegro agreed to become an independent country.--R-41 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The UN SC and GAssy both decided that the SFRY had been dissolved. It is not POV to conclude from that decision that FRY was one of the successor states, not THE successor state to SFRY. FRY should be included in Serbia's wikiproject, and Montenegro's if it gets one eventually. Not included here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC for advice on the applicability of two historical flags of Yugoslavia for the WP template

There is a dispute over potential POV of exclusively having the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) as the representative of the WikiProject Yugoslavia does not represent material on the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes/Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1918 to the 1940s. Side 1 believes that because the flag of the SFRY was the last flag of a state of Yugoslavia, that it should be used in the template, and has addressed concerns that the plain tricolour flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is a political symbol that represents the Serb-led monarchy and its Serb hegomonic and authoritarian dictatorship after 1929. Side 2 believes that because Yugoslavia is dissolved and that the two states were substantially different that the flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia should be used alongside the flag of the SFRY in the template, it notes that both the Kingdom's and the SFRY's flag both can denote authoritarianism and dictatorship, claiming that neither symbol can avoid offense to some group.--R-41 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please review the following: [1] Discussions did become very tense here, but some issues were addressed here.--R-41 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: the final decision on whether to use one version or another will be decided by members of WikiProject Yugoslavia. This section is only to be used to seek outside advice on the usage of flags in the template, addressing issues of neutrality, or presenting alternative ideas to be considered.--R-41 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Direktor and Producer have made a compelling case for the SFRY flag. Disruptive, totally unfounded, baiting ad hominems (e.g. but not limited to "Producer and Director are not trying to help, but to denigrate the discussion", "Direktor, I think that you are extremely angry at me . . . You need to calm down", and the repellant "you two should be careful with your behaviour, in fact it is reasonable to suspect with your names both being in full-caps and both referring to someone who creates something - that one of you is a sockpuppet of another, or that you do are siblings who are tag teaming here", together with that user's officious threats to "report" them while apparently feeling free to attack them) are clear attempts at intimidation, and IMO serve only to underline their authors' determination to get their own way regardless of the weakness of their arguments. As Direktor has said, it's time to drop the stick. Writegeist (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that you and I have had a recent dispute in which I got angry at you for you insulting a Wikiquette Assistance volunteer whom you were volunteering alongside with, I doubt that your intentions here Writegeist are constructive but rather that you are here to get me in trouble. I do not get along with you and I told you to leave me alone, but I have agreed with Direktor in the past on a number of things. Direktor has said some strongly uncivil remarks here to other users, but you haven't mentioned those. Two other users have disagreed with Direktor's claim that it is time to drop the stick. It is best if you and I stay away from each other because I think you are here to bait me, yes I got uncivil with you, and yes you were uncivil towards IRWolfie- and me, and the user Collect on the WQA Assistance board, so its WP:BOOMERANG - we both screwed up, now Writegeist, you can choose to carry a grudge against me as I think you are from looking at your talk page, or you can leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Please either discuss the topic here, and not me, or if you insist on getting me into trouble, then open a request at the Admin noticeboard and please leave here if you have nothing constructive to add and are only here to bait me and get me in trouble.--R-41 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

May I remind you WikiProject talk pages are open to all. I am not here to "get you into trouble" - your own comments need no assistance from me in this regard. Indeed, trying to get other users into "trouble" is historically one of your tactics at WP, not mine. Your denigrating "doubt" that my "intentions here . . are constructive" is noted. My comments stand on their merits. As once again you appear not to have noticed the constructive advice I have already given, here it is again: Direktor and Producer have made a compelling case for the SFRY flag; DROP THE STICK. Here is some additional constructive advice: spare the comments of other users here from your pejorative speculations about their intentions when their views on the topic don't happen to reflect yours. That is all. Writegeist (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are not here to bait me into trouble, then stop commenting on my behaviour while ignoring others' behaviour and focus on the topic at hand. You immediately posted material to make allegations against me. As I said, we have both been uncivil towards each other - it's WP:BOOMERANG for both of us - we both behaved in an uncivil manner, your statements here clearly show that you are mainly here to make comments about me and my behaviour rather than the topic at hand. Bring up your concerns about me to Admin noticeboard, it will end up with WP:BOOMERANG though. You are correct that I have made mistakes and have got uncivil when I get frustrated, I acknowledge that. But it is completely obvious to anyone who views our posts to each other on each others talk pages that we do not like each other and that we have been mutually uncivil towards each other, I would prefer to be open about that to all users who may read this to know that, and to know that since I ceased talking with you, you continued to talk about me on your talk page, that appears like a grudge. I suggested that you leave me alone so that we would not have any interaction, or that you talk about the topic here and not me, please consider this. To avoid any further confrontation, I will not post any further responses to any further comments you make about me, I will only respond to material that you add that is relevant to the topic of this RfC here. As to your comment on DROPTHESTICK, the users User:Peacemaker67 and User:WhiteWriter have not agreed with Direktor or Producer and have supported a compromise of having both flags, since there are a number of users concerned about the flags used in the template, discussion should continue.--R-41 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Observation by a disinterested party - and I note that this is an Rfc and not a rematch between heavy weights P^). It would be useful for people alerted to the Rfc to post without repeated Edit Conflict warnings - 4th time Lucky! It seems that there is valid argument on both sides and also failures to grasp the significance of emblems in International Diplomatic Conventions. So as a basis I will refer to "The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 - Article 29 - Use of national flag and coat-of-arms".
1.The sending State shall have the right to the use of its national flag and coat-of-arms in the receiving State in accordance with the provisions of this article.

2.The national flag of the sending State may be flown and its coat-of-arms displayed on the building occupied by the consular post and at the entrance door thereof, on the residence of the head of the consular post and on his means of transport when used on official business.

3. In the exercise of the right accorded by this article regard shall be had to the laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State.

A state that has diplomatic relations with another must allow the national emblems to be displayed. If that is taken as the starting point it is clear that the plain Tricolour would have been used as a valid national emblem (even if it's usage pre-dates the 1963 convention) - and with the national change to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1949 that flag and recognition of state emblem would have changed. Therefore clearly when the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia dissolved for historical reasons it is That flag that should be used and no other. If countries had continued to believe after 1949 that another state government existed they would have acknowledged them and their flag. Without WP:V to show such acknowledgement post 1949, the plain Tricolour becomes an historical foot note.

As there are clear concerns as to how emblems are perceived, their political and social significance can't be avoided. That issue should be fully addressed and acknowledged with WP:NPOV and WP:V. As the issue is historical and covered by International law, I see no point is such law and convention being ignored. To ignore it would be to introduce inconsistency into Wiki Land and not deal with reality for nearly 50 years. That international legal reality has been about for longer than either flag.

I therefore have to agree with side 1 and endorse the usage of the flag representing The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as the required Flag/Emblem in Wikipedia (and please get rid of that awful image of the flag inside an outline of the geographical boundaries - it is a monstrosity). The relevant coat of arms should also take precedence. That endorsement in no way reduces the obligation to address fully and with WP:NPOV + WP:V the historical and social significance - past - present and future of any emblem or flag or coat or arms - and as there is ongoing issue with full WP:NPOV + WP:V sources it must be addressed. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the re-edit having to cut and paste to get a word in edgeways mistakenly started at the wrong * Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a fair critique. The concern addressed by me as well as Peacemaker67 and WhiteWriter is that the two states of Yugoslavia were substantially different from each other and that the SFRY flag would not represent the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. However it is reasonable to conclude as you noted that if the Yugoslav state and government is viewed as a single entity existing from 1918 to 1991/1992, then the last flag used, the SFRY flag should be used in that case. It seems logical that they would since they both are called "Yugoslavia" and there was an agreement between Tito and the royalist government for an interim government to be known as "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", however the royalist government deemed Tito to have violated the agreement when he suddenly declared the abolition of the monarchy - so it could be viewed that the Kingdom ended as a state and that a new state began.--R-41 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The international recognition of Tito's Yugoslavia as the successor to the Kingdom presents an obstacle to that approach. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but there were two Spains from 1936 to 1939 (and up to 1977 if one considers the Republican government-in-exile as the legitimate government prior to Franco's coup) Republican Spain and Nationalist Spain. The Spanish Republican government in exile was recognized by multiple countries, including Yugoslavia under Tito. There was substantial violence between Yugoslav royalists versus the Yugoslav Partisans throughout World War II in spite of attempts for them to form a common front against the Axis powers, that plus the sudden abolition of the monarchy by Tito denounced by the royalists is why I say there is an argument in favour of viewing them as two separate rival states representing the same country.--R-41 (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Very strange claims, R-41. There was nothing "sudden" about the abolition of the monarchy in November 1945, in fact Tito was announcing it for some time at that point. The communist regime was no more "deounced by royalists" at that point than the pre-war royalist regime was "denounced by communists". Apparently by your definition there were two Yugoslavias since 1918. In fact there were never two Yugoslavias in existence at any point in the country's history. As for the "substantial violence", it was never committed between two recognized Yugoslav states. In the first period the Partisans were the "outlaws" and the Chetniks were legal Yugoslav troops, afterwards it was the opposite. The King fully recognized the DFY and Tito's government, and denounced the Chetniks openly and called upon all Yugoslavs to join the Partisans.

"I call on all Serbs, Croats and Slovenes to unite and join the National Liberation Army under Marshal Tito. With my full knowledge and approval, the royal government of Dr. Ivan Šubašić has concluded important and useful agreements with this our national army, which is unanimously recognized, supported and assisted by our great allies, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States of America."

"With this my message to you, I firmly denounce the misuse [or "misrepresentation" translated "zloupotreba"] of the name and the authority of the crown, which was used to justify collaboration with the enemy and cause a conflict among a fighting people in the most difficult moments of its history, being of use only to the enemy. (...) All those who rely on the enemy against the interests of their own people and its future, and who do not heed this call, will not succeed to rid themselves of the brand of traitors, neither before the people nor before history."

Clearly, R-41 you intend to keep at this until you have your way. Is there any point at which you might consider dropping the stick and backing away slowly from the horse carcass? A UN declaration against your proposition, perhaps? Are you at all entertaining the possibility of not pushing the royalist flag in one mode or another? -- Director (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually Direktor, now that you have posted the quote from the King that I have never seen before, I think that that especially the quote from the King has resolved the issue. Please don't make this personal - yes we've gotten aggravated - but don't assume that I am intransigent and that I will never chance my stance, I wanted to see evidence that the two states were connected. You have provided that evidence from the King's statement. Therefore I would support your stance now and would support using the King's quote of supporting the Partisans to justify the use of the SFRY flag alone in the template if other users raise similar concerns as I and others did. Still I would like to see what others have to say, and if there is any quote of a change of the King's decision in response to Tito's declaration of the abolition of the monarchy. Now please don't say some aggravated response about my changed stance now that I have seen the King's quote recognizing Tito's regime - I mean, I get it - you are tired of this discussion - we have discussed everything we could and have exhausted any further discussion between us. It looks like it is done now that the quote from the King has been provided.--R-41 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's one of King Peter II's 1944 speeches, broadcast by Radio London. It closes with

"Long live our great free Federal Yugoslavia!"

Tito abolished the monarchy in November 1945 - not during WWII, I hope you're clear on that by now. I assume the monarch did not agree to his own deposition, but it was a perfectly legal deposition performed by the sole, universally recognized institutions (the parliament) of the Yugoslav state. At that point the government headed by Tito was the sole recognized Yugoslav government for over a year. Peter's personal disagreement with the actions of said institutions (whether there was any or not) can hardly be considered as indicating the existence of a second, parallel Yugoslav state of some sort. -- Director (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I say the issue appears to be resolved since you have found a quote of the King endorsing Tito's regime. I support your position on having only the SFRY flag now that you have found the quote from the king. But for the time-being/short term I suggest that we wait to hear out what other users may say - particularly if the two users aside from formerly me who had disagreed with you, Peacemaker67 and WhiteWriter have to say about the King's quote recognizing Tito's regime. If they have no issues with that quote, then we should proceed to the final clear-up of this dispute, by making a section that shows the quotes and other relevant documents that acknowledge the transfer of authority from the government of the King of Yugoslavia to Tito's government. That section will be able used for review here should another dispute over the use of the use of the SFRY flag to represent the whole of WikiProject Yugoslavia arise in the future by other users. Does that sound reasonable?--R-41 (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am now content with the status quo flag given the arguments based in international law and convention that were tabled by User:Media-hound- thethird. I think the 'two separate Yugoslavia's' thing was irrelevant to the discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

* As a disinterested Party - Trying to get a word in and not another edit conflict........ I quite like the Kings Speech too! He did what he needed to do and as a Monarch and head of state - with politics all about - he rolled the dice and knew the possible outcomes. If he didn't know the politics and just made a grand speech - he deserved to go! It can't be taken both ways, and what ever the outcome that flag got changed. It should also be noted in reference to Spain and some brewing argument and descent from that corner - Recognition of a state is a Diplomatic Courtesy and not a legal right under international law. Just look at al the self declared micronations to see how that works. Once recognition does exist it operates under Diplomatic Convention. There have been many governments in exile - and the vast majority die there too. A government in exile has no legal or diplomatic status other than courtesy extended to it by a host nation and the host nations allies. Of course, some will recognise a government in exile for political reasons. Tito was rather left leaning and the Spanish Generals rather right leaning ..... Ideology and Diplomatic Mischief can often make good bedfellows - and the activity does nothing but annoy the neighbours! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think the issue is resolved now. The King's statement recognizing Tito's regime justifies the use of only the SFRY flag as it was the last flag of a state that existed from 1918 until its collapse from 1991 to 1992.--R-41 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Use the SFRY flag. The rationale that "because the flag of the SFRY was the last flag of a state of Yugoslavia, that it should be used in the template" is the correct one. Whether it was a good and just government is utterly irrelevant. If this were WikiProject USSR, it would use the USSR flag, despite the fact that the USSR government was oppressive, militantly suppressive, racist, and many other Bad Things. The other details revealed elsewhere in this conversation about the King of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia are essentially irrelevant, but would support this conclusion anyway. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 19:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue of the flag usage in template has been resolved. Now to make sure the issue doesn't get confused again

Direktor has provided strong evidence with the quote of the King of Yugoslavia recognizing Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (DFY) under Tito, that usage of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavias' (SFRY) flag to represent the entirety of issues pertaining to Yugoslavia is appropriate because the King's quote demonstrates that there was a direct transfer of power from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to DFY, and hence DFY that was eventually renamed the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) is the direct heir of the state that was first named the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes from 1918 to 1929 and later named the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1929 to 1944. DFY was founded in 1943 and formal recognition of it by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia's government occurred both with the Treaty of Vis enacted on 16 June 1944, thereby dissolving the state of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia by transferring its sovereignty to the DFY. In addition to this, claims of a "third Yugoslavia" referring to the state of Serbia and Montenegro when it was named the "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" (FRY) as being a continuation of the state of Yugoslavia existing since 1918, have been thoroughly refuted because the United Nations did not recognize the FRY as the sole successor of Yugoslavia and international legal institutions referred to Yugoslavia as the "former Yugoslavia", a term describing the territory of a disintegrated country, after United Nations Security Council Resolution 777 recognized the dissolution of the SFRY on 19 September 1992 without recognizing a single successor to claim the entirety of the state and state institutions of the SFRY.

What is now needed is to develop a statement to include in the WikiProject title page which includes a diff link to this section in order to provide a reference to the conclusion of discussions and consensus on the matter of the flag usage in the template. The statement should briefly but concisely state the reasons why the SFRY flag is being used. Mentioning that the King of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia's Prime Minister Ivan Šubašić formally recognized the state in 1944 could be used.

The main objective here is to tie up the loose ends of the previous dispute over the usage of the SFRY flag alone, and to use this discussion as a reference for any further discussions that may arise in the future about this same issue of the usage of the SFRY flag.--R-41 (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No I don't think we need to do anything besides drop this already. -- Director (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, do you want this issue to come up again by another user? If not, note the proposed resolution here, because if it comes up again by another user it will waste that user's time and yours rehashing things, and much to your irritation and regret for not having rashly and irrationally rejected this resolution out of frustration - so don't behave rashly and stupidly about this. I suggest that we include a statement somewhere on the title page to say why the SFRY flag is being used alone and why the Kingdom's flag and the FRY/S&M's flag are not. Please do not respond with a similar cynical snarky remark like you posted above. I am only requesting that a sentence be put in the the title page saying why the SFRY flag is being used alone - it will permanently resolve the issue in favour of your argument, it will get what you want, don't be a sore winner.--R-41 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the King's quote or succession issue of Kingdom or SFRY has nothing to do with flag usage in templates of this project. Any flag supported by the consensus can be used, even a flag which was not the flag of any of three entities which were referred to as Yugoslavia. If there is a consensus to use SFRY flag, then there is no need for additional explanations in special notes. Just point to consensus, if it exists. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We already have vast consensus above, including from users like me who formerly disagreed with Direktor. If we don't include a statement that justifies its use, that statement will be lost in memory over time as new users arive here and others depart, and a similar dispute will arise and waste those users time. Considering that you in particular have wanted to include the FRY in this WikiProject against the advice and evidence of many others, I could imagine someone with a similar position to you on the FRY, requesting that the FRY's flag be used as the "last flag of Yugoslavia" for the main symbol for this page. It will reopen the Pandora's Box here, that's why there needs to be a statement here on the title page to resolve this completely once and for all.--R-41 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Direktor, do you want this issue to come up again by another user?" It never has, and it never won't. Lets trust me? -- Director (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with R-41 that a statement should be included. That statement should just point to the consensus. Any other explanation based on succession issue would be against NPOV. There were three entities referred to as Yugoslavia. Currently only first two are within the scope of this project. Until the scope remains unchanged it would be absurd to insist on FRY flag since FRY is not within the scope of this project. I think that it is not good for wikipedia, but that is the current situation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite a naive statement by you Direktor, considering that there are still users like Antidiskriminator above who have promoted the inclusion of the FRY and its symbols here and he has said that he is accepting this flag...for now, but also waiting "until" the scope and circumstances change. I mean are you that frustrated and naive to not even recognize that what I am offering here means that you win FOREVER?--R-41 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? Forever? Total Victory until the end of time? Wow, that is so appealing to me..

Actually, R-41, there's no "forever" on Wikipedia. Any consensus can be overturned by another consensus. And if someone does appear with another proposal we can point him to this discussion as a whole and note that he'll have to do some consensus-building. The conclusions of this discussion need not be spelled-out for anyone, and they're certainly by no means permanent. In short, if the issue comes up again, we can deal with it then. But I personally don't think so. Lets move on shall we? -- Director (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@R-41.I did not say I am accepting this (SFRY) flag. I had intention to organize !voting and to estimate if there is a consensus about the scope of this article but one group of editors opposed to my intention. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator, I am surprised that you consider a vote is the way ahead here. By my count there have been only a few members of this WikiProject that have contributed here, so it must be of limited interest. I would expect that a vote (however you might construct it) would attract the same members of the WikiProject. Any sudden interest in such a vote from a whole lot of other WikiProject Yugoslavia members who didn't care enough about the discussion to contribute to it would look 'fishy', would it not? By my count, the following members who have contributed have indicated they are happy with the status quo (for a range of reasons); PRODUCER, Director, me, R-41 and Writegeist. WhiteWriter has not popped back to express a recent view, but based on his earlier remarks, I'd say he was interested in a change at that stage. You obviously still are. That is 5-2, and we are not even sure about WW. So, I think this issue is pretty much as good a consensus as we are going to get among the actively involved members of this discussion, and that consensus is for the status quo. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is one more issue that was brought up: do we use the state outline or just the flag? -- Director (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

For merely aesthetic reasons, can we please not use the state outline? If you look at the one on the project page, the star looks even larger than it does on the flag, and swamps the effect of using the state outline. I would prefer we used the flag as the symbol of the WikiProject in all respects (barnstar etc). Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of edits needed

If anyone wants to add input into the Croat–Bosniak War edit war, please do so. [wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Croat–Bosniak_War&diff=498284401&oldid=498029543 This] is the main source of contention. Apparently, any input of Croat or Serb victims of war have been accused of being "nationalistic" and "POV-pushing"-I'm sure I don't need to go on. As you can see, the main points of contention are the killings at Trusina (deleted), Kakanj, Travnik and Zenica killings (deleted), Grabovica killings (deleted), --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

New template

I've created a new topic template for Yugoslavia, but it needs improvement. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Were the forces in the Yugoslav Wars supporting any form of union of their territory with a state led by Belgrade, one faction?

I have been writing a proposal for an article on all of the forces that opposed the various secessionists and sought union of specific territories with a state led by Belgrade - the Yugoslavists in the Yugoslav People's Army who sought to keep any republic from separating, the large group of Serb irredentists supported by Milosevic, and the brief instance of Montenegrin irredentists who wanted Montenegro to annex Dubrovnik while supporting a federal union alongside Serbia. I have clumpted them together as "unionists". However I may be writing on a factual fallacy, that they may not have been a single faction, even though they did cooperate with each other, this may be wrong. Furthermore the term I chose, "unionist", for one side, and the other side "secessionist", may look bad by Wikipedia standards if one sees an article titled "Unionists in the Yugoslav Wars", because the term begins with a capital "U", making it look like an official title. There was no official title for those forces that supported union in a common state led by Belgrade, I chose "unionist" because it seemed like an accurate term. I'd like to see what other users think.--R-41 (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Yugoslavia acceptance of A-Class assessment by WikiProject Military History

G'day all, This project does not have a track record of many A-Class reviews. In order to progress more articles to A-Class and FA status within this WikiProject, I propose that we agree to accept A-Class assessments from WikiProject Military History, which has an active and comprehensive process for A-Class review. Thus, if an article passes A-Class for WikiProject Military History, it would automatically be promoted to A-Class status in this WikiProject as well. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Occupation of Serbia in World War II

G'day all, Just wondering if anyone else has a view about the creation of this article Occupation of Serbia in World War II. I initially PRODed it as a WP:POVFORK but may have been too hasty as it now appears to be an article about the areas of modern-day Serbia that were occupied in WW2. Not sure if that is really kosher though. Two new editors suddenly appeared and created that article, and also started a bit of an edit-war on Šabac, but the edits and areas of interest look a lot like some new editors that have recently been blocked (generally for sockpuppetry and disruption). Any thoughts? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If occupation is what is defined by wikipedia article then it is obvious that territory of Serbia (as toponym or territory of what is modern day Serbia) was actually occupied during WWII. This occupation is notable event and deserves an article on wikipedia. There are many articles about similar events, many of them listed within Category:World War II occupied territories including Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany, Occupation of Lithuania by Nazi Germany, ...

Will you please clarify why do you think this is POVFORK?

Unjustified accusations (for sockpupetry and disruption) are very serious issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well hello, Antidiskriminator. I think you have misunderstood my point. Latvia and Lithuania were both sovereign states when they were occupied by the Soviet Union. Serbia was not, it was part of Yugoslavia. Do you have any examples of an article that actually corresponds to what this article is attempting to do? ie talk about the occupation of a state that did not at that time exist? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect and irrelevant. I haven't misunderstood your point. You ignored my explanation. This article is about the occupation of Serbia (as toponym or territory of what is modern day Serbia). This territory was actually occupied during WWII. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So by that rationale articles titled Occupation of Kosovo in World War II, Occupation of Malaysia in World War II, or Occupation of Slovakia in World War II would also be ok? Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We could go on like this forever. I could now present examples of the Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany, Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Japanese occupation of Guam, Japanese occupation of Kiska .... It is easier to read the definition of occupation or a name of the category "Category:World War II occupied territories". Not states.

I think I gave a fairly clear arguments for my opinion and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Occupation of Yugoslavia in WWII

I would like to raise this issue, which has come out of the recent creation of a Occupation of Serbia in WWII article. The issue is about making the effort to use the appropriate contemporary name for the period. I have sought advice from the MILHIST team, and so far they are unanimous articles should be titled using the contemporary name. In fact, there has been the suggestion that we would be rewriting history if we used the names of the current territories or states. Given that it was the whole of Yugoslavia that was occupied (not Serbia, which did not exist at the time as I have pointed out already on this an other fora), I am beginning to think that an article should be created titled Occupation of Yugoslavia in WWII with sections for each territory that was divided up amongst the Axis, one of which would relate to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, another to the NDH, and also one for each distinct area that was occupied or annexed by the other Axis states. Each of these sections would summarise and be linked to a main article on the subject of that section, which would go into more detail. Some similar articles already exist, although, in some cases they also use a modern name and territorial designation rather than the appropriate contemporary name. Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941–1944 for example, uses a contemporary name which combines three divisions that were made by the Axis, Banat, Bačka and a part of the NDH (Syrmia). Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate contemporary name of the occupied territory was Serbia. Your claim that Serbia did not exist at that time is incorrect. In fact the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia did not exist until Serbia was occupied. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

what is your reference for that? Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of bringing this issue to WikiProject Yugoslavia and MILHIST (where you are one of the main contributors) maybe it was much better to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia to get an answer if the territory referred to as Serbia ever existed before 1941? What do you think about it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there is no need to do it. In fact, it was much easier to use google. "occupation of serbia" 1941. Note that first two hits are works of Jozo Tomasevich. Here is his work War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration which extensively use the term "occupation of Serbia". Let me remind you that it is the work you frequently and excessively use in articles you edit. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

where to begin with that? I took it to MILHIST because you had made it clear you had no intention of discussing it further. I have never before had any interaction with the editors that commented on both the posts I made, on reliable sources notice board and on MILHIST Talk. As for Tomasevich, who is apparently overused as a source (whatever that means), he makes it clear in Vol 2 that Yugoslavia was at the time of the invasion, divided into banovina, none of which was called Serbia. Do you have a source for your apparent contention that a territory called Serbia existed at the time of the invasion? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. If we're looking to have an article that describes the WWII history of the territory that became Serbia after WWII, it should be called "History of Serbia during World War II". The fact is, there was no Serbia (or Croatia or Slovenia..) in 1941 to be occupied. Serbia did not exist at the time (between 1918 and 1943/45), and it is absurd to suggest that the Germans created "Serbia" and then quickly occupied it hence "occupied Serbia" :). The title is misleading. If, on the other hand, we're looking to have an article of a much wider scope, it should be "Occupation of Yugoslavia" (no need for "in WWII").

I believe such an article ("Occupation of Serbia in WWII") would be nothing more than a WP:POVFORK. The period should probably be covered in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. Though that is just my own opinion, and I admit that issue is debatable. -- Director (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The title is not misleading. It is well sourced, like explained on article's talkpage. Or you think that Jozo Tomasevich and his works are not RS, together with thousands of other works about occupied Serbia during WWII? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As was elaborated in great detail on countless occasions - that is a misrepresentation of the source. One can speak of "Serbia" as a geographic area purely, even during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, much like one can speak of "occupied Bosnia" or "occupied Slovenia" or "occupied Macedonia" - that does not mean there existed some damn imaginary state. I refuse to repeat the same discussion for the literally 50th time. Familiarize yourself with the sources and with the discussion yourself. The only WWII country called "Serbia" was the Federal State of Serbia de jure founded in 1943, and much of it was indeed occupied, a state of affairs that lasted about a year.

Other than that, there was no state called "Serbia" that was occupied during WWII. The title suggests otherwise, and it is misleading nonsense. -- Director (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The title does not mention state. It meets Wikipedia:Notability request because the occupation of Serbia during WWII is notable thopic which has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah but it lacks precision because the title makes it appear there was a state called Serbia in WW2, mainly because there is a state called Serbia now, and most readers would assume that when they saw the title. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. There are thousands of sources using exactly the same words.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I will be very surprised if Occupation of Serbia in WWII does not become a WP:POVFORK defended to the death by its creators. I will suspend my involvement in this discussion and see what happens. I fully intend to monitor the new article to avoid it becoming said WP:POVFORK, and I will take persistent removal of properly and reliably sourced and relevant information from any article (on any subject) to the appropriate forum, as is appropriate and in accordance with WP policy. I'm off to be more productive elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion over at WikiProject Serbia

G'day all,

I know some of you are also members of WikiProject Serbia, so please excuse the double-posting. I would like to draw your attention to the discussion thread over at that WikiProject regarding the name of the WW2 German-occupied territory of Yugoslavia (sometimes known as 'Nedic's Serbia'), which is currently titled Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Here is the link to the discussion thread. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't rush over there, the discussion has taken another track. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Vojvodina

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Axis occupation of Vojvodina#RfC:Is this article subject notable, and if so, is it an acceptable fork of existing articles?. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Move request

There is an ongoing discussion on moving "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" to "German-occupied Serbia". Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Enver Čolaković

A [WP:RFC|request for comments]] about the language Enver Čolaković was writing in is filed at Talk:Enver Čolaković#Request for comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see

I am informing you about one move request related to this project.

Requested move

If you are interested, it would be nice to participate, we need uninvolved editors. All best! --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Stana Katic

Firstly, my apologies if this isn't in the computer format. I quite obviously lack certain skills in IT.

On Stana Katic's page, I wrote that her name in Serbian is 'Stana Katić, Стана Катић' and a different user requested that that be removed because there isn't a credible source to prove that her name in Serbian is Katić. I personally believe that her name should be written in Serbian/Croatian, since she's from here and that's how we write our last names. Take Bill Rancic as an example. I'm not sure if he ever was in Croatia, having been born and raised in Illinois but it is clearly written 'Rančić' in Croatian. Also, on Milla Jovovich's page, her name is written in Serbian and Russian since that is her ethnicity. I recently found a video on youtube where her mother was interviewed about her son's bakery business. Her last name was written Katić. Considering they wrote her name like that, it was obviously double-checked. Please, answer. --Lena.martinovic (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Since she was born in Canada, it's unlikely any of her documents carry the original spelling, so you shouldn't force it in the lead section, but you can use it when describing her parents. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But see Bill Rancic. He was also born in a country that 100% does not carry the original spelling, yet his wikipedia page has his last name clearly written "Rančić" in parentheses.--Lena.martinovic (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's actually more of an exception, and a bad one at that, given that even his father was named Edward, which is not a Croatian given name. I'm going to move that bit down there, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See both articles now - I think that's reasonable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my confusion, Joy, but I'm not sure I understand what you were referring to as being "reasonable". I'm not challenging your comment — I'm simply saying I didn't understand it and would be grateful if you could rephrase or elaborate on what you meant.

The state I had left them in just prior to leaving that comment :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Bill Rancic, I just removed the Croatian form of his name from his article — it turns out that his grandfather moved to the US from Croatia, and the cited Croatian-language source (the two cited sources in the article appear, in fact, to be two copies of the same material) is not, IMO, sufficient indication that the guideline whereby we "should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known" (see WP:UEIA) is satisfied in this case.

As for Stana Katic, there is also (as best I can tell) no evidence from reliable English-language sources that she has (or has ever had) any significant personal notability except as "Stana Katic". Both Katic and Rancic were born and raised in English-speaking countries, and in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, it can / should be assumed that their official records in their places of birth and upbringing have shown their names written in the Latin alphabet without diacritics. I still think Katic's ancestral Serbo-Croatian name does not belong in her article and should be removed, but I'm going to refrain from further editing of this article for now because I don't want to risk the possibility of being seen as waging a one-person edit war over the issue. If (as I believe to be the case) the general consensus agrees with me on this issue, then I don't need to carry the torch all by myself.

Milla Jovovich's situation, I believe, is different. She was born in Ukraine (then part of the USSR, of course), and to the best of my understanding, her ancestry has always been a well-known aspect of her notability, so I believe the inclusion of the Russian, Serbian, and probably also Ukrainian forms of her name can easily be justified.

Upon first reflection, I would not have any objection to references to Katic's or Rancic's immigrant ancestors being accompanied by the original Serbian/Croatian spellings and pronunciations of their names — assuming, of course, that information about said ancestors is sufficiently relevant to the main subjects (as shown by reliable sources). My main objection all along has been that the mere fact that a North American actor has some particular ancestry is not enough to automatically support inclusion of an ancestral form of their name, in the absence of sources showing that this person him/herself has used that name or has become notable via that name. — Rich wales 19:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's continue this on the relevant talk pages. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Communist insignia

I've given thought to the many well-founded objections brought forth in previous debates (esp. by R-41) to the use of communist imagery to depict Yugoslavia, and have been puzzling for some time for a means to correct the problem somehow without using the insignia associated with the pre-communist authoritarian regime (or Milosevich), also feeling that new fantasy flags and coats of arms might be a step in the wrong direction. I finally realized: this is a Wikipedia project - we're in no way bound to use exactly the colours and symbols Yugoslavia used. Why not simply use a silhouette of Yugoslavia, and avoid any ideological connotations by using Wikipedia's white and light grey? Eventually I came up with this, neutral design and colour scheme that I hope will meet the approval of the community. This is my bid for a solution to the "communism problem". -- Director (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is the best way to go about the matter. It'll avoid the WP from leaning towards any real or mythical symbols and is the most neutral answer. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Good decision.--R-41 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A design that purposely avoids obvious solutions in order to be "neutral" is by this very fact not neutral, and is rather taking an ideological stand. GregorB (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In what way, specifically? I don't necessarily agree that Yugoslav communist insignia are the "obvious" solution. -- Director (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, choosing a flag to identify a country is natural: that's what flags are for. (This was of course not the only Yugoslav flag; that's a separate question.) To me, the notion that by using the flag for that purpose we somehow support the flag's ideological connotations is simply odd. Instead, using a neutral design then seems to send a message: see, we dislike communism so much that we even refuse to use Yugoslav flag to identify Yugoslavia. C.f. WikiProject Soviet Union and WikiProject Fascism (now a workgroup within WP Politics). GregorB (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslavia is a former state in the Balkans, just like Austria-Hungary was before it. Really, in spite of my former position that communist symbolism may have made a political statement, I accept that the SFRY the last flag of the last internationally-recognized state of Yugoslavia. The issue of using only communist-era symbolism is more of a problem for an article on something that can still pertain to the present, such as Yugoslavism. As Yugoslavia existed in two forms, a centralized monarchy that became a royalist dictatorship, and a Marxist-Leninist-led state, that is its history. Just as Austria-Hungary will always be remembered as a state that only granted self-rule to its German Austrians and Hungarians, and not its other populations, that is its history. So if one wanted a WikiProject Austria-Hungary just as there is this one and WikiProject Soviet Union, the common civil ensign regardless of its monarchist pretensions, would be an appropriate recognizable symbol.--R-41 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

@Gregor, well that was certainly not the message I was going for. But the assumption there is that someone will #1 arrive with the pre-conceived expectation of seeing an SFRY flag there on WikiProject Yugoslavia, and #2 that he/she will start interpreting the absence of said expected flag. "#1" is by no means a given: a flag is certainly the standard means of identifying a country - but this is a WikiProject. One that includes the country in question, but also an entire host of related topics. I was going for a "way above those sort of things" kind of message. Hence the haughty, bland, hipster colour scheme :D.

Hmm. One possibility was to incorporate the Wikipedia "W" into the WikiProject's logo.. -- Director (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Even though I was in the past one of the most adamant people pushing for an alternative of the SFRY flag, I've changed my mind 180 degrees when you mentioned that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia recognized the then-Democratic Federal Yugoslavia as its successor, and the SFRY was the last manifestation of a recognized Yugoslav state that began in 1918 and collapsed from 1990 to 1992. If this were on the topic of Yugoslavism, then having only the SFRY flag would be a problem as that is a political concept with many variants. But as a state, it only had two variations of governance, a monarchy and a Marxist-Leninist state. Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union shows the hammer and sickle emblem of the country, it does clearly does represent all of the political views of the people in that country, but that was the prominent symbol of the state.--R-41 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Scope

Looking at the WikiProject as it is now, I wonder why we shouldn't expand its scope to include modern-day, post-Dayton topics. I actually think R-41 may have been right in his suggestion to "free-up" the scope a bit from DIREKTOR's old definition. We shouldn't limit the members' ability to add Yugoslavia-related articles to the project with such arbitrary period boundaries. I don't think there's a single project on Wiki with such a rigid scope restriction. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, at that time there were pretty few people here, and I was simply trying to define the project and give it some structure. I disagree. Like I told R-41 - this is a project about a former country, it simply must end at Dayton or else we're creating some sort of imaginary Yugoslavia.. -- Director (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a WikiProject, its purpose is to organize user efforts not make some kind of political statement. You'd have to be pretty paranoid to view the removal of arbitrary scope restrictions as a some sort of "Yugoslavist plot". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. you might be right on that point. Come to think of it, a scope expansion might greatly assist in focusing and organizing user efforts in the general topic. Who am I to say you can't add post-Dayton articles to the project? As long as we keep it within the boundaries of ex-Yu, alright; I'd say its fine. -- Director (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I reckon there is a point in having a bright line, but I never understood why it was 1995. Maybe when Yugoslavia was no longer in the name of any country, in 2003. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm won over; I see no point in drawing any line at all. As far as I myself am concerned, any article in any way related to Yugoslavia can be added. In fact, I would be particularly opposed to drawing any line at the renaming of the FRY: no real reason whatsoever. -- Director (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So essentially any article about a country that once was part of Yugoslavia is now part of this project? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats pointless... Maybe, only up to 2003, as proposed above? For the entire usage of term Yugoslavia. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OMG WW, we agree on something. ;-) Seriously though, surely this wikiproject is about Yugoslavia, the concept and the geographical areas and events that took place there. The idea of a country for all South Slavs, the lead-up to its creation, its existence and things that happened then, people that lived then, etc. What relevance does the current political situation in Slovenia (just for example) have to Yugoslavia unless the situation can be directly linked to events that occurred while Yugoslavia existed? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I oppose something and WW arrives to support it.. never seen that before either. A day of miracles. There's no way I can agree to a 2003 "boundary". The "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" isn't "Yugoslavia" any more than Slovenia, Croatia or Serbia; its name change is an entirely internal Serbian matter and is in no way especially relevant as to the subject of the project.

WikiProject scopes are a very loose and informal thing (apparently). In present times there is such a thing referred to as the Yugosphere, also known often as "the region", or "our region" in the news. I would contend that anything and everything within the Yugosphere can be described as related to the subject of the project. I would propose a compromise in the sense that temporal boundaries only remain as a loose guideline (but not the 2003 boundary in any case). -- Director (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"I don't know how "loose" they are, actually. I admit up-front that this is a sideshow as far as I am concerned, as it took me about six months to draw the conclusion that this Wikiproject is a bit of a wheeze in many ways, but I just think you're on a hiding to nothing expanding it in this way. You go right ahead and reap the whirlwind. No skin off my nose. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the only reason this subject is so carefully restricted - is precisely the avoidance of said nationalist "whirlwind". I ought to know, I myself restricted it. The point of a WikiProject is to organize editing on a particular subject. If modern-day subjects related to Yugoslavia can be better organized by loosening up my restrictions as PRODUCER suggests, then I say cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war. Though, in my own assessment, I think at this point there's little cause to "fear" some sort of massive backlash: this is just a WikiProject. -- Director (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I am not interested in 2003, or 1995 for that matter. To me, Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 1992. I would have thought that experience in this area would have decreed caution. Of course, I will eat my words in 2014 if you haven't had to "reap the whirlwind". Again, good luck. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it we speak honestly, Yugoslavia existed up to 2000, when it was deleted from United Nations. --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that's exactly how it played out. Yugoslavia was considered dissolved in 1992, that I know for certain, with five successor states each granted equal shares in succession. Either way, most sources will doubtless have 1992 as the end year. Pehaps even 1991. In that respect I agree with Peacemaker - I picked the Dayton accords as (the 1995 date) as the "boundary" to include the three wars of dissolution (or rather two, the brief Slovene conflict shouldn't really count on the same order). -- Director (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's repeat history: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Archive 2#WikiProject Yugoslavia should be extended to include modern times because Yugoslavs still exist.2C there remains Yugoslav culture.2C and issues of the Yugoslav wars. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What's to repeat? That discussion just sort of petered out. I myself was undecided at that time, now I too kinda think it might be a good idea. -- Director (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It petered out because people pointed out how pointless the expansion in scope would be. Do answer the same question now - is Varaždin in your proposed scope or not, and why? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of those events. Was Varaždin not a part of a Yugoslav state for 74 years? In fact, if I recall from my visit, practically the whole town outside of the center was actually built during the Yugoslav period. Take Split, for example: I'd estimate up to 80% of the current city was built in Yugoslavia - most of that directly by Yugoslavia (including such things as the Split Theatre, the shipyards, all the hospital facilities, the entirety of both the commercial, passenger, and military ports, the Terminal, the Museum of Archaeological Monuments, the Poljud Stadium and essentially all sports facilities, the ACI Marina, every bit of industrial capacity in the city, etc. etc..). If someone believes adding either article to the project will aid in its improvement - he/she certainly has cause.

Additionally, R-41 is accurate in drawing attention to the present-day "Yugosphere region" and the common cultural aspects present in all ex-Yugoslav countries (their cities included). Croatia itself is by its constitution a direct continuation of a state founded by Yugoslavia. Or, to be more accurate, it is a country founded by Yugoslavia (the Yugoslav assembly). -- Director (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

City being built up during a period can easily be a ridiculously vague concept. It was also built in the Kingdom of Hungary; you wouldn't find it strange if it was tagged with WikiProject Hungary? Or for some older city, like Daruvar, do we tag that with the Roman Empire WikiProject template? IMHO this is still a pointless slippery slope. I'd much prefer to see people write better content about the Roman, Hungarian, Yugoslav history of places, rather than see hundreds of petty little nationalist scuffles breaking out over what is essentially a pointless idea of tagging. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, lets move now to the condescending remarks and extreme "examples". These are wikiproject tags - what's ridiculous is talking about "slippery slopes" on such a subject. If people on WikiProject Hungary want to add Varazdin to that project - they're completely within their rights. In fact, if the members of WikiProject Serbia decide to add Tokyo, once again: completely fine. I for one certainly would not object if Daruvar or Split were tagged with WP Roman Empire; or if Croatia itself were added to WikiProject Hungary; or if Split were added to WikiProject Italy etc. etc. But again these examples you bring up are kind of extreme. Its not the same thing to discuss adding Croatia to WikiProject Hungary or WikiProject Yugoslavia, simply because Hungary is not the same thing as Yugoslavia. History and culture are complex, and these sort of things need to be viewed on a case-to-case basis. -- Director (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You will not mind, but we're not magically insulated from the outside world. If an change will contribute to the encyclopedia in a minimal way, but will at the same time lead to a time drain for editors, then it shouldn't be done. We shouldn't waste admin time having to go around protecting talk pages. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not a "change" at all, its a talkpage edit. And if you bother people about it they'll just tell you what I told you above: if someone wants to add it to the project - they can. Its not a "stamp" of some sort that makes the article somehow "Yugoslav"/"Hungarian"/"Roman", etc. There are always battlefields in the Balkans articles, and nationalist IPs and such prowling about doing all sorts of damage [2]. I've never given much thought to what they "might do" and I don't plan to start now. -- Director (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we should encourage the segregation of articles based on some fear that only nationalists roam Wikipedia if we do so then we are failing to assume good faith of our co-editors from the get-go and are only helping to foster an unhealthy environment of non-collaboration. That's not to say that Joy's fears are completely without warrant, but I think it's silly to edit in constant fear of "what ifs". When a number of Bosnian massacre articles were tagged with WP: Death (complete with a skull image), I found it incredibly tasteless and there was a failure to consider the greater scheme of things on my part. I sure as hell thought that there was going to be an uproar, but there was just an initial minor dispute and to this day I've yet to see any major dispute regarding their placement. Let us build more bridges not burn them. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

?

I added a few article requests if that is ok?--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Mirko, bravo. Those are really much needed and important! --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@MirkoS18 Sure. You can add to WP Yugoslavia anything in any way related to Yugoslavia. Regardless of whether its modern or history. I'll amend the scope statement. -- Director (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible alternative to the rather dull grey sihoulette map

I found this image of the Monument to the Unknown Hero that was constructed and completed in Avala near Belgrade in 1938, on the 20th anniversary of the end of World War I. It was designed by famous Croat Yugoslav Ivan Meštrović. The monument was constructed for Yugoslavs who died in World War I. This is an important monument of the former Yugoslavia that is not too controversial. Flags and maps are not always used on countries' WikiProject, Wikiproject Iraq for instance has its main picture of art portraying Lion of Babylon.--R-41 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah.. -- Director (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not?--R-41 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i agree. It is not such a massive symbol of Yugoslavia, R-41... Do you have some other possibility, maybe? --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The best alternative I can think of would be a picture montage of important cultural people, places, things of Yugoslavia within the map of Yugoslavia with a shadow behind it for emphasis, and with a text saying "WikiProject Yugoslavia" below it. You may not understand what I am meaning, so I will explain. What I mean is that a montage within the map with the pictures not going beyond the edges of the map.--R-41 (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, a montage would look nice on the project page, but what we need is a simple .SVG symbol. -- Director (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Maybe one of these? I like numbers 1, 3, 8 and 9.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah#2. We went over all that. We need a neutral symbol as well, without any negative historical connotations. Personally, I like the current one.

I had an idea maybe to create a symbol just with six torches burning together.. without any red stars or wheat and such communist stuff. -- Director (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha, sorry but it just remained me on Winston Churchill's cigar airbrush. I do not know, current picture is a little bit drab and without any color (and shows map of Yugoslavia only after Second World War), but maybe it's better to stay on it if we can not find another solution that would not require interventions to achieve political correctness.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

But, is there ANYTHING that was consistent during entire duration of all Yugoslavia's? Any symbol, representation. Torches are only from SFRY... There must be something! --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is the Illyrian coat of arms.. not that I particularly endorse it. It was supposed to represent "Illyria", which is essentially an older name for Yugoslavia. It predates both states, and can't be associated with either. Nor can it be associated with Austria-Hungary, having been forbidden by the authorities thereof. Its problem, of course, is that it kinda looks like a Muslim coat of arms. Specifically that of Turkey. However, when the coa was designed, the flag of the Ottoman Empire was something else. The Illyrian movement, though it did consider them Illyrian territories, was little-present in Bosnia, Montenegro, and Macedonia. -- Director (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I think option #8 would be the best, it's simple, it shows the flags of the two recognized states of Yugoslavia, and it would look good in the WikiProject template. But options #4 and #5 are out of the question given the contentious dispute between Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo over the sovereignty of Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, vehemently; for all the numerous reasons we've listed before... If we're going there we might as well have the SFRY flag, etc. etc. -- Director (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with having both flags of the two recognized states of Yugoslavia? MirkoS18 has stated that he/she believes option #8 is a good choice.--R-41 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In terms of recognition, they're the same state, if we're expanding the scope that version is inappropriate, I'm sick and tired of fake flags and fake "flag collages" etc. etc. We have discussed "#8" already, and it has been rejected. There's no way I myself could ever agree to it, and I don't have anything else to add to my previous statements on the matter. I do not want to get into another one of these sort of pointless discussions. -- Director (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What about the collage idea of pictures of important places, people, things, from the former Yugoslavia on top of the map that I mentioned earlier? Why does it have to be in SVG format? A large enough PNG format would work just fine for resizing and such?--R-41 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Its not a bad idea.. but I'm not sure it'd look good on the tag. Depends on what exactly you have in mind I guess. -- Director (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

If you wish, uninvolved editors are welcomed to help in this requested move.

Talk:Commissioner Government

Thank you for your time, all best! --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:History of Vojvodina

Your attention is drawn to Talk:History_of_Vojvodina#Request_For_Comment_re:_WikiProject_Banners_on_this_page. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright rules on photos in Yugoslavia

Hi, I don't know if you're aware that in Yugoslavia the copyright duration on photographs was 25 years (no matter whether signed or anonymous). (Article 84) See a similar case for Slovenia at commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia: all photographs published in Slovenia before 1 January 1970 are free. I suggest that you also update the guidelines of your countries there if applicable. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Order of the National Hero.jpg

File:Order of the National Hero.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Scope #3

I for one am a long-time member of this WikiProject and I would really prefer it if other members wouldn't unilaterally decide that they have a consensus for a scope change as if my explicitly explained arguments somehow magically don't count at all. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have read the discussion in archive 3 and PRODUCER suggested a scope increase, I also agree and you are the only one in opposition that I can see and you did not respond. That looks like consensus to me. Anon7mous (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Exhausting other people in discussion is not WP:CONSENSUS. BTW it'd be less hard to assume good faith with you if you weren't making these kinds of slanted edits right off the bat. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, if it needs saying, also read /Archive 2 etc. We've been down this alley before. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I should also probably mention the relatively recent User:Oldhouse2012 debacle that involved a Balkan WP tagging flamewar. I really don't want to waste any more time on anything resembling that kind of nonsense. I would much prefer that we all use that time that would be spent on duplicating Talk page tags to write some meaningful referenced content about Yugoslavia in the relevant articles instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok Joy, what's this now? I forgot to amend the scope last time, and remembered to fix it when I saw the reverts at Split. What now? Regardless of whether or not you got "exhausted" - you're the only guy to oppose PRODUCER's initiative: please respect consensus. Even I, the guy that actually wrote the ancient restrictions you're edit-warring to restore against consensus, even I agree that they're dated and that their removal will be beneficial for those articles.

And why should we read Archive 2? To find more people who disagree with you? What does it matter if we had another, older discussion about this?

I could not care less what wacky nationalist weirdoes may or may not do when they see a WP:YU banner. Even if some kind of ruckus is raised (imo an unlikely eventuality), who'd be forcing you to get involved? If you do not wish to be involved - don't be. Can't see any logic there. And btw, the very claim that adding any WikiProject banners is somehow "slanted" betrays much about your likely motivation in removing them. -- Director (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In the vtwo discussions, my points about this being scope creep and pointless flamebait were not responded to adequately. What you describe as an accidental failure to "update" the scope after the last discussion - I would describe that as correctly interpreting the result of the discussion as a failure to change the consensus, and leaving the scope unchanged. Tomobe03 independently joined me in reverting the recent edits to this effect. If you think you somehow have consensus for this change now, you're badly mistaken.

And I honestly resent your insinuation that I'm biased against the project whose encyclopedic goals I've been making a significant contribution to since long before its formal inception. You too are making it really difficult for me to continue to assume good faith from yourself when you make such comments. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Having noticed the issue after being reverted on a talk page, here are my 2p: I really don't care what wikiproject banner is slapped onto talk pages - add WP Yugoslavia to Imotski article, that's fine, but what purpose does it serve? The next thing would be to tag Sarajevo as WP Austria-Hungary, WP Ottoman Empire, WP Hungary, WP Croatia and so forth to likewise zero gain. The banners are IMHO meant to indicate project members that a specific article might benefit from their input in terms of specific types of sources, be those Ottoman Empire history books or whatnot. WP Yugoslavia at the moment seems practically dead in the water - it has a lot of contributors who largely squabble over what will banners look like and where will they be added. All (or virtually all) high quality peer reviewed content within the project scope got there as product of WP MILHIST or WP Serbia or WP Croatia contributors - core articles on the Kingdom of Yugoslavia or SFR Yugoslavia, its leaders, policies etc are piles of text (or images) of fairly low quality. Once again, go ahead and argue endlessly over banners, project page color scheme or banner graphics if you prefer... or do some encyclopedic work. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Tomboe03 are you a member of WikiProject Yugoslavia? Anon7mous (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No. I just contributed one third of all GAs of WikiProject Yugoslavia without being a member. Why?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What difference does it make? I am a member, and I agree with Tom. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Tomboe03,if you would like to participate in determining the scope of the project, would you like to join? :)

@Peacemaker67, so you agree with Joy that DIRECTORs old restrictions shouldn't be removed? Anon7mous (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Anon7mous, Wikipedia projects don't function in a way that you get anything resembling a formal vote in matters by way of joining a WikiProject. Please read WP:PROJGUIDE etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Practically nothing on Wiki functions as a "formal vote", but ultimately its the users that choose to participate in the project that agree on its exact scope. Users that do not wish to participate are not called upon to decide (or influence) what it is the others that do join should direct their attention to. Tomboe is naturally welcome to state his opinion on the matter, as is anyone, but ultimately if he does not wish to participate in this project its up to those who do to decide what it is they wish to include. Why do you cite WP:PROJGUIDE?

And frankly, from Tomboe's condescending (& frankly rather offensive) comments on this project's functioning one gets the impression he would rather abolish it altogether as opposed to join. In light of this I do indeed question the weight of his opinions with regard to what articles we, the participants of this project, should focus our attention to. But enough about Tomboe..

Clearly with Peacemaker's added opposition we are not in complete agreement. Does anyone have a proposal as to how we might arrive at a consensus with regard to PRODUCER's proposal for removing the scope restrictions I added years ago (rather unilaterally :))? -- Director (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment was/is perceived as offensive. I was merely calling a spade a spade. I made a similar comment regarding incorrect B-class article classification on WP:HR in order to improve that aspect aiming at improving article development process - and the project benefited as a result of months of contribution by GregorB, me and others who chipped in.

By pointing at a significant weakness, I meant to spur on some constructive thinking into improvement and development of the project main objective(s). The criticism is not meant to insult any individual nor advocate abolition of the whole project - quite the opposite. How will each project member (or contributing non-member) contribute to the objectives is a matter of individual preference. How will project coordinator(s) motivate the members to contribute to resolution of the major objectives or contribute at all within the project scope is a matter of their creativity and experience.

Apparently, me not joining will generate yet another futile discussion on whether non-members are worthy of notice or not, therefore my next contribution to the project will be joining it in order to contribute to putting that particular discussion to an end. Frankly I was surprised to see a question if I'd join to participate in a discussion, rather than being told to improve one of the articles I pointed out if I cared that much about them - but that was exactly the point of my above comment. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well then allow me to welcome you to the project, Tomboe. :) Constructive criticism is indeed a different matter altogether as opposed to plain comments from on high. Even so, we are split rather evenly. From what I can gather of the users that voiced an opinion on the issue (see both previous discussions), PRODUCER, R-41, WhiteWriter, Anon7mous and myself are in favor of leaving my ye olde restrictions removed, whereas Joy and Tomboe (and Peacemaker..?) support their re-instatement. Peacemaker, you did not seem to be voice this opinion previously, should we count you now in the opposition? -- Director (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not dismissing any particular scope out of hand but would like to see more efficient running of any project, instead of adding extra workload for little or no gain. I would propose a limited project scope along the lines of WP:EU scope, aimed at focusing of project members efforts.

Right now, the project failed to properly assess or even tag all those articles falling into the limited scope: For instance, out of six top-importance b-class articles in WPYU, none of them are fully referenced hence failing B1 criterion (at the very least) and one of them is probably a stub (start-class if one is generous). At least half a dozen peer reviewed articles falling into WPYU limited scope are not tagged as a part of the project. In light of these issues and state of the project core articles it seems hard to justify a broadened scope which would bring nothing but a greater number of articles covering less-than-peripheral subject matter. In addition, WPYU tags may not be as problematic for inclusion in an article of a given city, but I'd be careful not to create unnecessary flamebaits - especially if someone extends the logic of including settlements formerly in a given country and tags Skopje as WP Serbia, Koper and Pula as WP Italy, Zemun as WP Croatia, Subotica as WP Hungary and so forth.

Could you please explain in a couple of sentences how exactly would the project improve from the proposed expanded scope?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you don't seem to realize you've called a person condescending while at the same time misspelling their nickname no less than five times now. :D

I don't like all this head count logic, but I have to mention the fact that Anon7mous appears to have been a WP:SPA on this issue, which is usually frowned upon because it's typically a mark of a person with an axe to grind, and that R-41 is gone (under unclear circumstances) so we can't verify their opinion any more. In any case, I prefer the strength of argument - scope creep and flamewar potential have been fairly well elaborated by now. If you don't think they were, please ask for more clarification or provide counter examples to be discussed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would just mention that i also am for scope expansion, as i already mentioned several times before. Everything that was named Yugoslavia. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with Joy on this... FkpCascais (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@Joy The page you linked says "Existing editors should act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time". I did some work on multiple articles and created a completely new one just this morning. I just started seriously editing with an account a few days ago. Either you haven't bothered to check or you knew this and still decided to make up the fact as you call it that I appear to be WP:SPA. I don't know which is more disturbing but that clearly suggests your hostile intentions towards me. I thought the entire point of this encyclopedia is to write sourced facts and last time I checked my contributions page was easily accessible.

I thought this goes without saying but I obviously have to clarify, my only intention is to contribute to this encyclopedia without prejudice.

As for R-41, isn't all of this his idea in the first place, to increase scope? Anon7mous (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Other than what I described at WP:ANI, your first edits in 2010 were reverts on topics well-known to be DIREKTOR's favorites, and your first edits this year included an antagonistic discussion (saying someone else's edits made the article look "childish and pathetic" at Talk:Croats) and a salvo of talk page edits to add articles to this project twelve hours before DIREKTOR even added his proposed change. Maybe it's just my past negative experience with meatpuppets, but to treat you as an actual newcomer seems terribly naive. I'm not trying to be hostile, far from it, but it's hard to assume good faith with all this funky business. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify my earlier comments, I believe the existing (unmodified) scope needs slight tweaking, but is basically ok. My real concerns are around the squabbling and lack of productivity than the scope, and I was agreeing with Tom about that. As regards scope, I am concerned that it hasn't been well-defined, the "Included" and "Not included" sections conflict in respect of including articles related to the breakup of Yugoslavia etc (1991-95) on one hand, and not including articles concerning the post-1992 FRY/FRJ (which was involved in the breakup of Yugoslavia right up until 1995 at least) on the other. I think some additional clarity is needed around the first dot point of the "Not included" section. I also believe the last two dot points of the "Not included" section are unnatural exclusions, as this project has close interest in many of those settlement articles. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The exclusion of FRY was discussed a few years ago, too, and there was no consensus to add it back in. I think the main point in both that, and the exclusion of later history, is that this project was originally known as the "Former Yugoslavia" project, which was actually pretty clear - when English speakers used that phrase, it referred to SFR Yugoslavia, it didn't refer to any one of its particular successors. Indeed, we still use the same distinction in main article space at Yugoslavia etc.

I agree that there's a strong correlation between writing about Yugoslavia and writing about any of its constituent parts. At the same time, its constituent parts each have their own WikiProject. Tagging every article e.g. about something that existed in SR Bosnia and Herzegovina with WP:YU is going to mean that almost the entire scope of WP:BiH is duplicated within the scope of WP:YU. That would be akin to tagging every article about Yugoslavia with e.g. WikiProject History. It's meaningless. And when we know for a fact that there are going to be people who will also treat it as flamebait, and we know for a fact that battling it out with them will waste volunteer time, then it should be fairly clear that the idea is pointless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case (I agree), perhaps it would be better to tighten the scope further and draw a firm line in terms of dates? Say at the point where the Dayton Accords were signed? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The line seems pretty much firm like that - everything up to April 1992 and after than only the ongoing leftover conflicts, up to Dayton. Maybe it's spelled out in an overly convoluted fashion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel I must "withdraw into the shadows" on this (being overcome with exhaustion ;)) until such a time as I can participate more fully on Wiki. -- Director (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)