Talk:Republic of Slovenia (1990–1991)

Legitimacy of the article

Copied from the user talk pages.

Have you seen this article? There was some talk in the Slovenian Wikipedia [1] about deleting it if someone can argument the deletion well enough. I've thought perhaps you as a historian would be willing to do so; or is this a legitimate article? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article caught me by surprise, too. We in Slovenia are not used of thinking in these categories. Nevertheless, I think the article actually goes absolutely to the point. Although we seldom realize this, the Socialist Republic of Slovenia ceased to exist with the Constitutional Amendments of March 1990, while the independent Republic of Slovenia was established only with the Declaration of Independence of June 25, 1991. In the meantime, a different entity, the Republic of Slovenia as part of Yugoslavia, existed, which was something completely different from the previous Socialist Slovenia (either the People's Republic or the Socialist Republic) but not yet the current Republic of Slovenia. I never thought of that, but now I realize this was the case, although we often tend to forget that. I believe the article should stay, since it is legally, politically and logically well founded. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional explanation (in Slovene). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and we often tend to forget that the Federal State of Slovenia came to and end in 1945, and that the stalinist People's Republic of Slovenia came to an end in 1963 - because they were all the same Yugoslav republic with changes in their name and systems of government. First we had the Federal State of Slovenia, with one system of government, then we had the People's Republic of Slovenia, with another system of government (Stalinism), then the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, with a market socialist/Titoist system, then came the Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991), with a capitalist/multi-party system - then the Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991) proclaimed independence and became an independent country, the Republic of Slovenia.

Guys, the "Socialist Republic" articles are on the six Yugoslav republics, no matter what their name and current system of government might've been at any given time. This is because they're mostly known by that name in English, as Viator admits. If this, frankly lousy, one-year period of the Yugoslav republic's history demands a seperate article, so do certainly the Federal State of Slovenia (two years) and the stalinist People's Republic of Slovenia (18 years). Nobody is "forgetting" that the Socialist Republic of Slovenia lost the prefix "Socialist" and became a multi-party/capitalist state in 1990, I believe that's mentioned in the SR Slovenia article.

The point is, do we need some twenty articles on the six Yugoslav republics (4x6-3 = 21), or six? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Direktor here. The separation is artificial and does not add anything to the understanding. I deem it a bureaucratic manner of thinking "this entity has changed legal name oh-so-it-must-get-a-separate-article". Just use common sense: Slovenia was in transition from a federal unit to an independent state, and we do not need to devote a separate article to each step in this process. Reader is much better served by having one article per state, or as little as possible, which explains the history in a coherent manner. Just merge it... anywhere. No such user (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991) could use a separate article for the following reasons: in all other cases, just the name was changed, but the status of the entity in Yugoslavia, as well as its political system, remained intact. With the case of the 1990 constitution amendments, a new entity came into being: this was not more a Communist country, but a semi-independent democratic republic. After the elections of April 1990, these constitutional changes were implemented in a way that drastically changed the de facto status of the republic within Yugoslavia. In any case, even if we choose to keep the article as it is (which is ok, too), we will have to expand it: now, there is more written about the one and half year of the Republic of Slovenia thatn about the previous 45 years. Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the system changed as well - quite profoundly in fact. One may argue that the change from stalinism to market socialism is just (or nearly) as profound as the change from market socialism to capitalism. The constitution was drastically altered on previous occasions as well, as we all know, and introduced a "new entity" (which is all highly subjective).

Just a warning all, Imbris may choose to join in in about five hours. :( Be sure he'll contradict me in whatever point I hold, and be sure he won't change his mind. He follows me around and pretty much defines his views as opposite to mine. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Direktor: all previous name changes did not reflect a change in the political orientation of the regime. On the other hand, with the 1990 amendments to the constitution, and their subsequent implementation by the DEMOS government, the political entity established in 1945 - that is, a Socialist Slovenia (whatever the name) in a federal Socialist Yugoslavia (whatever the name) ceased to exist, and was replaced by the Republic of Slovenia which declared independence in 1991. Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: "All previous name changes did not reflect a change in the political orientation of the regime."

Quite incorrect. I can only repeat that one may argue that the change from stalinism to market socialism is just (or nearly) as profound as the change from market socialism to capitalism. The previous name changes most certainly did reflect profound changes in the political orientation of the regime.

I'll say again, are we supposed to have twenty articles on the six Yugoslav republics? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: All previous name changes did not reflect a change in the political orientation of the regime. The change of the name "People's Republic" to "Socialist Republic" can hardly be said to mirror the shift from 'stalinism' to 'market socialism' (whatever that might mean in political terms). It was a simple change of names (which was of course part of a general change of Yugoslavia's policies). In 1990, however, the entity established in 1945 (a Communist-dominated constituent state of the Yugoslav socialist federation) de facto ceased to exist. This time, the change in name did reflect a radical shift, not only in the economic policies (as your comment seems to suggest), but of the structural political-institutional framework of the state, transforming it (unilaterally, one might say) into a semi-independent entity in a dissolving Yugoslavia. Viator slovenicus (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Viator, I don't see your logic. The simple fact is that both the constitution of Slovenia, and the name of the state were altered on previous occasions. Yet for some reason this particular constitutional and name change is "special", and now we need a seperate article on 13 months of this Yugoslav republic's history? The six "Socialist Republic" articles are the articles on the six Yugoslav republics, and "Socialist Republic of XY" is by far the most common name for these republics. This is not a seperate new country we are talking about. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The article should be merged. For example, in 1861 it was called "Narodna Republika", then later "socialistika republika", etc... and others too. We can not have this many separate topics for all the former yugoslav states. No. (LAz17 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)).

I agree with Viator. The article should stay or at the very least not be merged with the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. The change of the name "People's Republic" to "Socialist Republic" (etc.) and the constitutional changes at that time did not mean any revolution. This was still a Communist-dominated state, happily part of Yugoslavia. The last rename and the change of constitution, however, brings a completely new entity in existence. The continuity that lasted from 1945 ended. This is not the Communist-dominated state anymore, but a new democratic state, the Republic of Slovenia, moving in the direction of the independence. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I cannot see how this is a "new entity". The wartime Federal State of Slovenia was not a strictly "Communist-dominated" state either (communists had the leading role, but there were other political forces as well). FS Slovenia transformed profoundly after the war (late 1945) when it changed its name into PR Slovenia. It had a new constitution, and became "Communist-dominated".

Seriously guys, this really makes no sense. I honestly think a seperate article on 13 months of history is completely unnecessary. In the larger context of Yugoslav articles it simply makes no sense. I might be persuaded by neutral sources that regard "Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991)" as a "new entity". I emphasize the word "new". It seems highly unlikely anyone would consider this a "new entity" that lasted for a year and then became a really "new entity" when it declared independence. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a flaw in the following logic, folks:

Q (us): Why don't we merge this article with Socialist Republic of Slovenia?

A (you): Because it had a different name and constitution

Q (us): Why don't we merge it with Republic of Slovenia (Slovenia), then?

A (you): Because it wasn't independent.

And, as result of this logic (resembling the Buridan's ass), we have a short article without context, depicting an unremarkable 1-year period of was a transition from one system to another. Please pick one set of criteria (whichever you prefer), and apply it. But this article is really fragmentary, and doesn't make sense on its own. No such user (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well fellas, can we agree somehow then? We'll make this year into a seperate section and expand the whole Republic article properly? Its my fault, I guess I should've filed an AfD first time around, sorry. I guess I'm asking do we need one now? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see it merged with the Republic of Slovenia than the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, sources treating "Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991)" as a seperate entity from SR Slovenia would convince me towards your point of view. However, I've read a number of publications on '90s Yugoslavia and I've only found Slovenia (and Croatia) being treated simply as the same Yugoslav republic which instituted a multi-party system and elected new leadership. After all, the country was still technically on the Yugoslav presidency. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's ask it again: do we go "official" on this or can we reach an agreement on merging this fragment article in some way without complicating matters? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Republic of Slovenia or go official. I'd like to see wider input of the community. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But we agree that the article should be merged? Is the dispute "keep or merge?" or is it which article do we merge with? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think so - the article should be merged. What about renaming 'Socialist Republic of Slovenia' to 'Yugoslav Republic of Slovenia (1944-1991)' (or sth similar) and merging the article there? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly against renaming the SR Slovenia article because of this 13 month period. All right then, we go "official" on which way we merge... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And when you go "official", there will again be four of us discussing the same issue. I don't see the real need.
Anyway, when you "merge" the article, the story in Socialist Republic of Slovenia will end with this period, and the article about Modern Slovenia (History of Slovenia) will begin with it, (at least a summary of it). You don't have to merge every sentence from here to there.
I also must notice that the article History of Slovenia is very short. I am a big fan of brevity and conciseness, but this is all a bit stubby for a 2000+ year period. No such user (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... why not? :) We merge with both, how's that sound? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, I mean merging with Socialist Republic of Slovenia and Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend we simply delete the page (after merging the text). I don't see the point of a redirect called "Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991)"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. The discussion should be preserved somewhere. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)