Talk:Serbs of Croatia/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5

←

Archive 7

Serbs as "constitutive" nation in Socialist Republic of Croatia

Latest comment: 8 years ago147 comments20 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The question on this RFC is not well written, and it is way to long. But the discussion hinged on the term "constitutive nation", and its lack of definition. There is consensus that the section implies something that is not sourced (loss of rights), and that "constitutive nation" is not defined and it needs to be defined. There is also consensus for the wording used in the Croatian War of Independence article. While sources were provided, none of them provided the definition of "constitutive nation" nor did they provide the implied claim. AlbinoFerret 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a RfC is needed here, and I think that anyone who reads the below paragraph will agree. I see much debate but the paragraph still stands in the article. I will try to present it in a neutral way by stating the issue, and each side's sources and brief argumentation.

This is the paragraph: "Amid political changes during the breakup of Yugoslavia and following the Croatian Democratic Union's victory in the 1990 general election, the Croatian Parliament ratified a new constitution in December 1990 which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities. A majority of Serb politicians have misread this as taking away some of the rights from the Serbs granted by the previous Socialist constitution,[40] because the Constitution of SR Croatia treated solely Croats as a constitutive nation. Croatia was the "national state" for Croats, "state" for Serbs and other minorities."

Extended content

I think that the issue is obvious, but I will restate it. The first sentence says:"new constitution in December 1990 changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority", while the very next sentence says:"the Constitution of SR Croatia treated solely Croats as a constitutive nation". That is a clear contradiction. The paragraph is also written in a very confusing way even without that contradiction.

The dispute is the following. Were the Serbs a "constitutive nation" in Socialist Croatia? The following question is also interesting from Wiki's point of view to the sources. In the above discussion editors have presented a great number of sources that simply state the fact that the "Serbs were constitutive nation in Croatia", without any elaboration or any reference to the primary source. On the other hand, a source that says otherwise gives much wider elaboration and references the primary source. So the question is (as I see it), which bears more weight, quantity or quality?

Here is the primary source [1]. Unfortunately it isn't in English.

The first thing to notice from the primary source is that the paragraph speaks of the "constitutive nations" while the primary source does not contain any mention of that term. This is also stated in one of the secondary sources listed below.

The first side's secondary sources state:

(1) "the equality of the Serbian and the Croatian nations, as constituent nations of the federal unit of Croatia, were recognized in every respect"

(2) "The secessionist Zagreb regime first removed from the Croatian Constitution the constituent nation status of Serbs living in Croatia"

(3) "Since the constitution of the Yugoslavian Federation regarded the Serbs in Croatia as constituent nation of the Republic of Croatia"

(4) "Serbs living in Croatia had been members of a constituent nation while Croatia was part f Yugoslavia" -> this one in my opinion doesn't go along with the rest of sources from this group, but the source which goes against this group of sources

(5) "The international recognition of Croatia, as well as documents adopted by the Croatian Administration prior to the recognition, stripped the Serbs from Croatia from their status of constituent nation and active subject in decisions concerning the Constitution of Croatian State, and specially the status of Serbs in it. What does this mean? It means primarily that the Serbs in Croatia have been down-graded from nation to national minority, or to use a new European euphemism - an ethnic community."

(6) ".previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities"

(7) "Croatian nationalist Franjo Tuđman in 1990 brought a new constitution that proclaimed that ethnic Serbs would become a national minority rather than a constituent nation within an independent Croatia."

(8) "the original draft of the Croatian constitution did not recognize the Serbian minority as a constituent nation - a right they had during the days of communism"

(9) "It also changed the status of Serbs from a constituent nation in Croatia into a minority"

(10) "Previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia and enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities."

(11) "The new Croatian constitution ... renounced the hitherto protected status of ethnic Serbs as a separate constituent nation embedded in the old constitution and defined Croatia as the sovereign state of Croatian nation."

The first side's arguments are:

(1) The majority of sources say that Serbs were a constitutive nation, while there is only one source that says otherwise.

(2) The only source that says otherwise is Croatian, so it is prone to be biased

(3) "Croatian authors doing their best to deny that Serbs were constitutional nation in Croatia prior to 1990"

My note: I couldn't find further arguments that the Croatian source is biased, or unreliable, apart from the quote stated under number (3)

The second side's secondary sources:

(1) "The accusation that the Croatian government allegedly wanted to oust the Serbs from the constitution of Republic of Croatia are also followed by the accusation that with the adoption of the amendments and the constitution of Croatia in December 22nd 1990 they allegedly lost the constitutionality in Croatia. The chronology of the events during the period from the first announcements about the adoption of the new Croatian constitution shows that the thesis about the announcement of 'ousting' of the Serbs does not stand. There is no doubt that these were accusations which had to justify further extremist action of the SDS in Croatia pointed against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Croatia. Thesis about the loss of constitutionality would then allude that such a thing until then existed, apropos that it was defined by the provisions of the constitution of SRC. Analysis of that constitution shows that was not the case. First we should emphasize that the very term "constitutionality" was not even used anywhere in it. In it's Chapter 1 SRC is defined as 'national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of nationalities which live in it'. The claim that SRC is a national state of Croatian people and state of other nations and nationalities who live in it is strengthened by the provisions from the General Principle of the constitution SRC, passage I, in which it is found that 'Croatian people, along with Serbian nation and nationalities in Croatia, (...), won (...) in a common struggle with other nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia in a liberation war and socialist revolution it's national freedom, (...), and founded it's state - Socialist Republic of Croatia (...)'. The quoted text undoubtedly and in singular terms marks specifically Croatian people as the ones who established the SRC. According to that fact it [SRC] was defined as a national state of only one nation, the Croatian nation. The Serbian nation was however emphasized, but regardless of that the mentioned definition did not mark the SRC as the national state of Serbian people. Only then such a definition could be accepted as proof that Serbian people in Croatia were constitutional. Also we should caution about the use of the terms 'nation' and 'nationality' in the constitution. Namely, neither the constitution of the SRC, nor the constitution of the SFRY (also from 1974) did not have the term 'national minority' (or other similar terms for the denotation of a national minority). The exception from that rule is the formulation in section VII of the General Principle of the constitution of the SFRY from 1974, in which it states that the SFRY advocates for 'respecting the rights of national minorities, including the rights of the peoples of Yugoslavia who live in other countries as national minorities'. Considering that the entire section VII refers to international relations, it is reasonable to assume that the terms used within it were those used in international law. In the SFRY the status of 'nations' consisted of the members of those peoples whose national states were within it's composition: Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Muslims. So Macedonians, Slovenes, Muslims and Montenegrins also had the status of nations in the SR Croatia, as in all other federal republics, regardless of their numbers, traditional presence and similar cases. Members of all other nations, whose home national states were outside the composition of the SFRY, had the status of 'nationalities', also regardless of their numbers and other significant factors. So it could happen that Albanians, who made up a large majority of Kosovo (and also constituting a large portion of the Macedonian and Montenegrin population), had the status of nationalities, while the far less numerous Montenegrins and Macedonians had the status of nations. Otherwise the constitution of the SFRY from 1974 does not define the terms "nation", and "nationalities" respectively. Formulation in the introductory portion of that part of the constitution, in General terms, Chapter I, says that the nations of Yugoslavia, together with the nationalities with which they live, united in a federal republic of free and equal nations and nationalities, points to the fact that nations were considered those whose people had national states as part of the SFRY as it's national republics. The exception were the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Considering that five republics were at the same time national states of one of the nations in the SFRY, and that Bosnia-Herzegovina was constitutionally defined as a tri-nation state (the state of Muslims, Croats and Serbs), it is very easy to come to a conclusion as to what are the 'nations of Yugoslavia', and what are nationalities. The terms "nation" and "nationalities", and their respective languages, were very precisely defined in the encyclopedic footnote to 'Yugoslavia', in the chapter written by August Kovacec, 'Languages and alphabets of nations and nationalities' (Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia, volume 6, Jap-Kat, zagreb 1990., pages 241-251). The term 'minority' was introduced only with the constitution of December 22 1990. The basic principles of that constitution talk about the Republic of Croatia as the 'national state of Croatian people', which is identical to the formulation from the constitution of the SRC from 1974. In continuation of that formulation also stands that the Republic of Croatia is a 'state of members of other nations and minorities, which are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks (...)'. Serbs in Croatia (this time defined as citizens of Croatia) were put first in the list, and 'nations and minorities' are explicitly mentioned. So it would be logical to conclude that Serbs (and not just Serbs) were considered a nation. They were treated in the same way as in the constitution from 1974, and the only difference is that other nations and minorities were mentioned as well. 'Mean' interpretations of their dissatisfaction could lead us to the conclusion that the leaders of Serbs in Croatia and their numerous followers were bothered that besides them other nations and nationalities were mentioned. And according with that we could also be 'naughty' and conclude that such 'real' Serbs held that they were more important than all others, which would give us a completely new light on their complaints about the loss of their rights. Also we should notice that the Basic Principles of the constitution of Croatia from 1990 can also be compared with the Basic Principles from the constitution of the SRC from 1974. It is important to emphasize that in those parts of these two constitutions the basic constitutional principles are only hinted at, which are more detailed in the continuation of the text of the constitution, in their normative parts. We should also emphasize the fact that the formulation about national self-determination in the constitution of the SRC was also an integral part of the General Principle (in Chapter I) and a normative part of the Constitution (Head 1). In the constitution from December 22 1990 formulation about national self-determination is present only in the Basic principle, while the normative part does not contain anything similar. That part speaks explicitly about the general rights of all citizens, and in chapter 14 it explicitly states that citizens of Croatia 'have all rights and liberties, regardless of their race, skin color, gender, language, religion, political or other conviction, national or social conviction (...).' In chapter 15 it states that in Croatia 'members of all nations and minorities are equal', and to all of them 'the freedom of expression of their national affiliation, free use of their language and scripture, including cultural autonomy' is guaranteed. In chapter 12 is guaranteed that along with the Croatian language and Latin alphabet 'in official use (...) other languages and Cyrillic script or any other script, could be introduced, under the condition of prescribed law'. I consider that the comparison of the solutions in the two mentioned constitutions shows that Serbs in Croatia had no reason to be dissatisfied with the new constitutional amendments, but that the reasons for their rebellion and later aggression of YNA and Serbian paramilitary groups in Croatia should be looked at in other places"

Second side's arguments:

(1) The first group of sources simply states the fact without further elaboration or any reference to the primary source

(2) Although there is a majority that states otherwise, the quality of those sources is much less than the quality of this source which gives much wider elaboration and references the primary source.

Lastly, I'm sorry if I neglected some of the arguments or anything else. I haven't read the debate too carefully so I may have omitted something. In that case it would be advisable to add the omitted parts in a concise way.

213.5.192.78 (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup Markewilliams (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me just comment on the above RfC format: it's TLDR for me, and chances are most editors will feel the same, which is bound to limit the input - and that is bad, since RfC is all about the input. RfC is not meant to present exhaustive pro and con arguments. Also, the above RfC question is not formulated in the right way: the point of RfC is not to give an answer to a real-life question, but to give an answer to a question about the article's content. I gather that what you are actually asking is "Should the article say that the Serbs were a "constitutive nation" in Socialist Croatia?"

Even without reading the above arguments, i can say that the answer to this rephrased question is yes, because there is plenty of sources saying so. If this view is disputed by a significant number of other sources, then this dispute should be mentioned too. But, apart from that, the crux of the matter is what does the "constitutive nation" exactly mean; without explaining it properly, this bit of info is virtually useless to the reader. GregorB (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

After reading the long treatise twice, I would agree with GregorB: If both sides have sources, then both sides should be represented on the page. And the article needs a clear definition of '"constitutive nation"'. Markewilliams (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Markewilliams, it was already said before. "Constitutive nation" is undefined term in the Yugoslav constitution. The word constitutive does not appear in it and that's exactly why this debate is interesting. We have one group of sources that state the fact that "Serbs were constitutional nation" without defining the term or without referencing the constitution. Well the lack of a reference is natural, since the primary source does not speak of it. However that sources constitute the majority over the only source that explains the question in great detail. It also explains the term "constitutional nation". That is the only source that explains the term. To me it would be illogical to take definition of the term from that source and the statement that "Serbs were constitutional nation" from the source which is in direct contradiction with the source we used to define the term. The source that defined the term is the only source that explains the question is detail (opposed to just simply stating a fact without any reference to the primary source). To me personally, it will be interesting to see what will become of this. Is a single source which speaks of the question in great detail with references to the primary source be taken as more valuable than a bunch of sources that lack any explanation of the question or any kind of reference to the primary source. Quality of quantity, is the question. Or maybe both will be mentioned in the article. It will be also interesting to see how a previous consensus on this question will affect this discussion. All is very interesting from the Wiki point of view. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, but... which sources dispute the fact that Serbs were constitutive nation in Croatia during SFRY? FkpCascais (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I appear to have ignored the whole discussion above, and I will freely admit that I haven't had the stomach to read the ridiculously overbloated introduction to the RFC, which is against the rules. But it's fairly irrelevant because ISTR we discussed this before on other articles, so for example, Croatian War of Independence has been pretty stable with:

On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution, which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.^[1]

Vesna Pešić (April 1996). "Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis". Peaceworks (8). United States Institute for Peace. Retrieved November 29, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I've had a look at the current content of the article and I don't see any properly formatted references that are better than this. So I would absolutely steer clear of entertaining this fairly intricate and contentious discussion in the article and instead just add this old, yet very level-headed explanation from Vesna Pešić in here, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree with you. The above formulation ("...which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution") is excellent, as it focuses on the reception of the changes, not their actual legal impact. GregorB (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Perceved by Serbs" may imply that that was not the case, and that only Serbs perceived it that way, so it all really depends on the edit itself, on where and how this citation will be added. FkpCascais (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a source that says "due to constitutional changes, the Serbs lost the right to foobar, which they had before" (where foobar is something with real-life relevance), I think it is fair game to talk about the perception. GregorB (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Gregor, please see the sources from the discussion above. FkpCascais (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty. So when plenty of sources say "The sky is blue" there is no reason to say that "Crazy John perceives the sky as blue" when talking about the color of the sky. Then, Joy, I understand your unwillingness to read the previous discussion, but if you are going to make proposals that deal exactly with the issue that was discussed there, well, maybe it wouldn't be bad for you if you gave a look at it, at least to the sources. I thank you very much for bringing this beautifully formatted source, it may be very usefull, just don't forget that the content of the sources is more important than the way they are formatted in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

From almost 9 years ago - [2]. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also how in the 9-year-old version, the context was not lost - it was a tool for fuelling extremism. As far as I'm concerned, we're pretty much done here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me Joy but can I please ask you to be clearer; what is "a tool for fuelling extremism" and what is pretty done? FkpCascais (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow me gentleman to remind you the sources:

Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution edited by Snežana Trifunovska, page 477, it says: "at the Second and Third sessions of the National Anti-Fascist Council of the Peoples Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH),...,the equality of the Serbian and the Croatian nations, as constituent nations of the federal unit of Croatia, were recognized in every respect." And then at bottom of the page goes in detail.
Integration and Stabilization: A Monetary View by George Macesich, page 24, it says: "The secessionist Zagreb regime first removed from the Croatian Constitution the constituent nation status of Serbs living in Croatia."
The Quality of Government by Bo Rothstein, page 89, it says: "Since the constitution of the Yugoslavian Federation regarded the Serbs in Croatia as constituent nation of the Republic of Croatia, this important change..."
Soft Borders by Julie Mostov, page 67, it says: "Serbs living in Croatia had been members of a constituent nation while Croatia was part f Yugoslavia."
Minorities in Europe: Croatia, Estonia and Slovakia by Snezana Trifunovska, Katholieke Universiteit, on page 23 says: "The international recognition of Croatia, as well as documents adopted by the Croatian Administration prior to the recognition, stripped the Serbs from Croatia from their status of constituent nation and active subject in decisions concerning the Constitution of Croatian State, and specially the status of Serbs in it. What does this mean? It means primarily that the Serbs in Croatia have been down-graded from nation to national minority, or to use a new European euphemism - an ethnic community." FkpCascais (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Ethnic Violence and the Societal Security Dilemma by Paul Roe, page 94, says: "...previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities." FkpCascais (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Serbia by Lawrence Mitchell, page 28, says: "...Croatian nationalist Franjo Tuđman in 1990 brought a new constitution that proclaimed that ethnic Serbs would become a national minority rather than a constituent nation within an independent Croatia." FkpCascais (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Genocide at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century by Dale C. Tatum, page 72, it says: "The original draft of the Croatian costitution did not recognize the Serbian minority as a constituent nation - a right they had during the days of communism."
Secessionism and Separatism in Europe and Asia: To Have a State of One’s Own by Jean-Pierre Cabestan and Aleksandar Pavković, page 71 speaking about the events in 1990 says: "It also changed the status of Serbs from a constituent nation in Croatia into a minority."
Living Together After Ethnic Killing: Exploring the Chaim Kaufman Argument by Roy Licklider and Mia Bloom, page 158, it says: "Previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia and enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities." At this page is further explained about the changes in the Constitution.
Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict by Melanie Greenberg, John H. Barton and Margaret E. McGuinness, at page 83, says: "The new Croatian constitution ... renounced the hitherto protected status of ethnic Serbs as a separate constituent nation embedded in the old constitution and defined Croatia as the sovereign state of Croatian nation."

There are many more, these were just the first ones that appeared in my search. So, can I ask you Joy what is exactly that you pretend? Cause from what I see, we should also change the wording at other related articles so they would reflect what the majority of RS say. FkpCascais (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by I'm done here is that it's clear to me that I have no additional arguments that will elucidate the issue any further. It is a political distinction that was a mark of the time, and has no significance today other being a comparably trivial factoid, and perhaps being used in promoting a political talking point (contrary to WP:ARBMAC). We have an RFC about a single ancient hot-button political issue that refers to Serbs in SR Croatia, while at the same time the article has an entirely empty section about the Serbs in SR Croatia. Any further pontification on this issue, such as what you did above, is WP:NOTHERE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My only concern was that the fact that plenty of sources saying Serbs were constitutional was not forgotten and also to point out regarding GregorB and Markewilliams agreement on including both sides of the dispute in the article that we are lacking sources saying the opposite. The source you brought doesn't contradict either the group of sources I presented, it simply confirms that Serbs perceived the events that way. Don't take me wrong, but without my attention, it seems that you and Gregor were supporting a change in the article that would exclude the Serbian loss of constituent nation rights as a fact and leave it just as if it was an exclusively Serbian perception of events, which is a substantial difference. Regarding your opinion about its significance today, that is entirely irrelevant, all that matters here is that we correctly add in the article what the majority of RS say. I am not seeing any relevance if the issue is a political hot-bottom, if other users use it for promoting whatever, this is just about sources. I also really hope that your mentioning on how my continuation of discussion on this issue would mean breaking some Wikipedia rule in your view was not serious since we still have some aspects that need to be worked out, like choosing the best sources among the ones brought here for using in the article, and also, this discussion can be used for making the same edit at the Croatian War of Independence article. Yours and everyones help is always appreciated. Thank you Joy. FkpCascais (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about rights "with real-life relevance" with a reason, and the above-quoted sources illustrate this reason well: as far as real-life relevance goes, they collectively draw a blank. This is precisely why the matter seems to be chiefly about the perception. Of course I'm not disputing the change in the constitution, and I feel it should be mentioned, but I see no fault with the wording suggested by Joy. GregorB (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gregor. I don't know how relevant or not that can be for every-day life in Croatia cause constitutional articles and laws are generally relevant depending on what people do with them and how they use them. There are many laws, for instance, which are written but ignored in every-day life by citizens and the authorities, while there are also laws which are applied rigorously. The relativity is even more visible in this kind of constitutional articles which may have different levels of interpretations. We can really only speculate how much real-life impact the inclusion or omission of Serbs as constitutive nation in Croatia would have. I can guess that, for instance, if Serbs were left as constitutive nation they would have probably have much less difficulties implementing the use of their language, or that the inclusion by itself could serve for Croatian citizens to have bigger awareness about the role played by Serbs in Croatia... not wanting to contradict you totally cause I think both of us are here in land of speculation, but the difference and impact in every-day life could even be significant in the social, cultural and other spheres. So, it may seem safe to add the fact in the article just the way most RS mention it. FkpCascais (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Impact on real life was also discussed in the previous section,GregorB. FkpCascais spoke of the possible impact, but the impact Serbian claim that they lost their constitution was not present at that time. If you see the sources, you'll see that this question was not raised on official or legal level. It was only used as a part of that day's propaganda. As said earlier, Badinter's commission was formed to deal with the legal questions, especially the constitutive issues like this. This issue was not raised in front of Badinter's commission or any other relevant international institution, nor the constitutional court of Yugoslavia. The source from second group speaks of that in great detail while the sources from the first group do not even reference the primary source, although there's a bunch of them. I personally agree with Joy's suggestion. I would just add the following to the sentence: " On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution, which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution. Although this issue was highly represented in media, it was never raised in front of Badniter's commission or any other relevant body." 89.164.241.4 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the references in the article that existed at the time I posted were by and large of lesser quality than what I mentioned. Some of the new ones you cited are contradicted by others as far as I recall, so we would need third ones that discuss this controversy in order to be actually useful to readers, as opposed to teaching the controversy. Ultimately I remain under the impression that the context Pešić's work puts this in is what is most useful to readers - it doesn't simply engage in legalistic terms but cuts through to what was actually important. You mention a Licklider & Bloom book that discusses further than your Google Books search term - I suppose you should examine that one for more actual insight. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I need to say that I absolutely oppose the removal of "Serbs lost the constituent nation status" which is widely sourced, and I am not sure if I missed something but is there any source contradicting that? Also, I beleave that it is clear to everyone that saying that Serbs perceived it that way implies that Serbs were the only ones perceiving it that way and leaves space for doubt if the fact happened or not. FkpCascais (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is called the Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia which says nothing about Serbs being "constitutional" or anything similar...same with the constitution of Yugolavia, it only states that SR Croatia was a "national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people and all other nations and nationalities". As for your sources...first, your "sources" are nothing but dogmatic propaganda and beliefs of the authors themselves...which btw is ok but should be emphasized as such...and second, these sources fail to list any primary source they are calling upon, while at the same time we have unspoiled direct black on white constitution paragraphs which are as clear as the sky. Now for example if you had any reason you would recognize this fact and work to rectify the ridiculous and ludicrous paragraph in the article which goes against itself and against the primary source. People like you make me sick and avert me from ever participating on Wikipedia. Shokatz (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Unusual for you to ask if there are any sources opposing that, when you are perfectly aware of the source which you called to be biased because it is Croatian and added that "Croatian authors doing their best to deny that Serbs were constitutional nation in Croatia prior to 1990". Let's not play dumb and let's not suggest that there are no sources opposing your sources. Joy [shallot] had given a reasonable solution to this RfC. The solution is to accept the consensus reached on Croatian War of Independence article which was established by a great number of editors. If this discussion yields a different consensus then we again have a problem. We can't have 2 articles say completely opposite things. Then a RfC is needed again on Croatian War of Independence article and then we need to include all the editors that participated there to establish a single conclusion to a single question. In fact that would be a good idea to do anyways. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Shokatz, this is the last time I will close my eyes to your PAs. If you being confronted with reliable sources saying what you don't want them to say makes you sick, then the problem of your sickness is entirely yours, so I believe everyone here would prefer if you keep your health problems to yourself. Regarding the constitution, it actually confirms that the mention of Serbs was removed. What exactly that removal means is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide, but scholars. Seems that the vast majority of sources agree that Serbs lost their constituent nation status. If you want to challenge this, you should stop repeating your own interpretation of primary sources and find what secondary sources say regarding the matter. If you cant find any substantial amount of secondary sources backing your interpretation of the constitution, then please stop disrupting the discussion. The war in Yugoslavia is a widely covered subject in English-language publications, and something allegedly so obvious, as you claim it is, not being found in even one single English-language source clearly indicates you are wrong. So please, bring secondary sources, not your opinions. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, by seing editors supporting the denial of Serbian loss of constituent nation status supporting Joys proposal just confirms that the proposal goes in the direction of that denial and thus, in present situation, the proposal becomes unacceptable. The proposal clearly indicates to readers that the Serbian loss of status was an exclusive perception of Serbs while the reality may be another. When in fact, by observing all sources, the reality seems to be exactly the opposite, in the sea of sources, only one Croatian author challenges that. FkpCascais (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what you will do or not. I lost my patience for all this some time ago...personally I don't even know why I am here since it's pointless to discuss anything with you nor do I have time or will to bring this to relevant bodies of Wiki managment. The only reason why I haven't reported you yet for continuous personal attacks is that I just cannot be bothered with this crap anymore. As for your "reliable sources", they fail to satisfy two major points of being an actual RS, which are: 1. They fail to mention the primary source they are calling upon, thus making blanket statements out of their ass and 2. they fail to explain what this term even means...what exactly is this "constitutional nation" when the Constitution itself doesn't mention it at all? Also your claim that the Serbs were somehow "removed" from the 1990 Constitution is just a blatant lie and fallacious claim as I have already proven by posting a direct quote from the Croatian Constitution. Not only are the Serbs indeed mentioned, there was a whole amendment regarding the Serbs in Croatia and their position within the state. You are nothing but a POV-pusher who degrades the quality of this article, but you don't care since you think Wikipedia is actually some sort of "battleground" where you can enforce your own agenda in an attempt to justify the illegal actions of the Serbian leadership in Croatia during the 1990s...of which btw. most were convicted of war criminals. It is because of you that projects like WP:ARBMAC were formed and users from the Balkan region are looked upon as pariahs here. Shokatz (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't care? You are reported. FkpCascais (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

My pants are shaking. You are aware that every personal attack you made against me is still on this page? Good luck. Shokatz (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You are the only one that goes against the consensus established on Croatian War of Independence article which is edited by much greater number than this article. Ok, let's say you manage to push your edit to this article. What then? Will we change the same sentence in the Croatian War of Independence article? Of course the proposal goes in the direction of denial. As said earlier, this wasn't a real issue but a part of propaganda. Thus I think we have to mention that this. If this was a real issue back then, then the issue would be brought in front of Badinter's commission which was established to deal exactly with that kind of legal issued during breakup of Yugoslavia. Serbs were no more "constitutional" nation in Croatia than Croats were in Serbia or any other Yugoslav nation in any other Yugoslav republic. All Yugoslav nations constituted Yugoslavia and all Yugoslav nations were constituent in every Yugoslav republic. The source carefully explained that, but you seem to neglect it although the source directly references the constitution whilst none of your sources reference the primary source. We can battle with Wikipedia rules, but it's obvious what's the reasonable thing to do. Follow up the already established consensus on this question. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

When substantial new evidence is provided as in this case, consensus can always be re-examined and changed. Also, can you please indicate me the place where this consensus was archived? Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Joy had spoke of it. Could you define substantial? Up to now you posted a great number of sources which speak of "constitutive nation" whilst none of those sources defined the term. How can we have a substantial new evidence if we do not even know about what they are speaking of? New evidence to what? Do you realize that you are trying to push an edit containing and you don't even have a definition of that term? Constitutive can be a great number of things. Please define the term, because it is obvious that no one of us here know what have we all been discussing. The only source which provides a definition goes against your position? So the question is , why are you trying to push a term to which you provided no definition. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your challenging of a strongly sourced statement with wikilawyering is doubtfully going to take you anywhere. Till you provide sources I am not continuing any further discussion with you. I appreciate if you respect that. Best regards. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I just thought you had a definition of the term you are trying to introduce, but it's hard to introduce something without a definition.141.136.211.26 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The statement is so clear and so well sourced that any further asking of definition is just wikiloyering and disruption. What you are doing is like someone opposing a strongly sourced Bob Dylan birthdate of May, 24, 1941, with a question of "Wait! But, what is life? You cant add that till you don't define me life." ... Please stop talking and find some sources, will you? FkpCascais (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really. This is far more complex question and none of your sources gives an explanation to the term. How are we going to state something in the article when we don't know the definition of the term? The term that is not mentioned in the primary source. The term not explained by none of your sources. The only source that explains this term is the source that opposes your view. Ok, if you think you don't need to define a term you are trying to introduce, them be it. We shall see how much such request has. As I said, it's interesting that the definition is given by the source that opposes your sources. Now to explain the complexity: Serbs were constitutive nation of Croatia as one of constitutive nations of Yugoslavia. Every nation of Yugoslavia were constitutive in every Yugoslav republic. For instance Croatians could not be a "minority" in their own state of Yugoslavia, not in any republic. So Croatians were constitutive nation of Serbia as much as Serbs were a constitutive nation of Croatia. However if the term speaks about the constitutive nations of Croatia then Serbs are not constitutive nation of Croatia. They are in the sense on the Yugoslavia, but not Croatia. I hope you see how complex that is. Once Croatia declared independence all Yugoslav nations became a "minority" from a "nation". The change in the definition was needed because Croatia was no longed a Yugoslav republic. In fact, the first Croatian constitution from 1990. did not even used the term minority solely, but it used the definition of "other nations and minorities". To repeat, it is natural that the Yugoslav terms of "nation and nationality" had changed once republics became independent, however no change in anyone's status had occurred. I hope you can see how complex that is, and your sources do not give any definition to the term "constitutional nation". How can we introduce it in the article if we do not even know what are we introducing? That is why I agreed that the sentence from Croatian war of Independence is used as suggested by other editors. It does not use the undefined term but it says that Serbs perceived that they lost some rights. The source for that edit had been provided. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There's only one source that gives the definition of the term and it opposes you opinion. So what now? How can we introduce something without a definition? I think there's not much value in sources which state something had been revoked, without defining what that is. Ok, we will stop here, I asked for a definition of the term you are trying to introduce and you feel it is not necessary that the sources define the term nor that they reference that term to the primary source. I'm interested to see how that plays off. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

SUPPORT change to the same sentence present in the Croatian War of Independence that Joy [shallot] had purposed. That is more a important article with a lot more editors who had extensively debated this issue there. The consensus from that article should extend to this one. However, if not, then the consensus reached here should extend there. We can't have 2 articles say opposite things and surly we can't have this article state 2 contradict statements in consecutive sentences. I gave my support because the issue had reached a consensus among a lot of editors who edited Croatian War of Independence article, and this article had not even reached a consensus. In the least case, just fix it so it says one thing, and not 2 contradict statements. 89.164.237.182 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What consensus? Please point out the discussion of that alleged consensus. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Look at Joy [shallot]'s edit from 15th September. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not a consensus. So please stop referring to your desired edit as consensus when that is not the case. If you want to challenge the statement that Serbs lost the constituent nation status they had in SR Croatia, please provide reliable secondary sources. FkpCascais (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Joy can say more about it. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

UGGH... I quite agree with GregorB's initial comment: is anyone at all capable of summarizing this issue in a couple sentences? If you want input from more than suspicious IPs.. I'd ask you to please lay it out in brief. -- Director (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree, summarize could work quite well. Serbian side perceived it one way, while Croatian side perceived it the other way. It should be also mentioned that, although the question was often present in that time's it was never brought in front of any relevant body, most notable the Badinter's commission. That way the readers will know it was never a real issue, but only a part of that time's propaganda, as the source presented in the previous section states. The Croatian War of Independence article already summerized it. Here it is: "On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution, which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution". I would just add the following statement: "Although highly emphasised by Serbian media at that time, the question of Serbian constitutive status was not brought in front of Badinter's commission, nor any other relevant body.". This way we know the impact those claims had, and the impact on the present day. There is no impact to the present state, and the this is just another on long forgotten propaganda claims of the 90'. Even then it did not have any impact, since it was emphasised only in media.141.136.211.26 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that you all don't see that this user is the same sock-puppet. -.- --Tuvixer (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That is crystal clear. Indef-blocked user evading block. FkpCascais (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here User_talk:Shokatz#Hello the IP admitted he is Asdisis. FkpCascais (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Refarding the issue, this has nothing to do with Serbia vs Croatia, but with well sourced statement being opposed by wikiloyering and nothing else. FkpCascais (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

1. The paragraph within the article is contentious, one-sided and above all goes against itself...in first sentence it states one thing and in the next two goes directly against the first sentence. 2. The supposed RS's (which are plenty) posted here supporting the supposed "constitutional status" of Serbs in SR Croatia is nowhere to be found in the actual primary source which is the Constitution of SR Croatia. 3. We don't have a definition of what this "constitutional nation" even means since, again, it was not mentioned or defined by the Constitution itself. These are the main issues here I was trying to raise here which users like Tuvixer and FkpCascais outright blatantly refuse to address. I urge you to go read the paragraph and tell me honesty that it satisfies the quality standards we are trying to achieve here. It's ridiculous. Shokatz (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Shokatz Are you a lawyer? Are you a professor of law, or maybe a judge? Please, you have no idea how to read a constitution, and you are here presenting as a source your understanding of the constitution, which is by all means false. That statement is backed up with a lot of sources presented here. You are basically saying "ignore the sources, I know, I am the best, those sources are invalid just because I say so!" That is not how Wikipedia or any normal discussion works. ;) You have no authority in this, when you present viable secondary sources then the discussion can continue, this now is ludicrous. You don't know how to read a document of law, or even worse, you are trying to push for a change by trolling this talk page. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No one needs to be a lawyer to see that the first group of sources does not reference the primary source in any way, nor that it defined the term "constitutional nation". That can all be seen from the secondary sources. I don't think Shokatz is interpreting the primary source, since he had presented secondary source and all he said comes from that source. He is not interpreting the primary source, but he is repeating the interpretations of the primary source given by the secondary source he presented. It is listed in the top of this RfC. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that there is nothing about "constitutional nations" in the Consitution. Stop repeating the same crap over and over again. It makes you look stupid. And please you are the last person to lecture me how Wikipedia works. Get a grip on reality. Shokatz (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say otherwise. Bring sources or shut up. Stop disrupting the discussion and being offensive and uncivil towards other editors. It is obvious that this aggressive behavior of yours is due to the fact that you have no arguments or sources but all you can do is this that you are doing. I really hope admins will pay attention and block you or at least topic ban you, because your attitude is not appropriate at all. FkpCascais (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources cite a primary source. Bring me a reliable source and I will shut up. I was the one who started this discussion in first place and it is you and Tuvixer who are disrupting it...need I remind you that you both outright dismissed everything I posted including the direct paragraphs from a primary source. And yes I may seem annoyed indeed...what should I be when I am stuck in a loop with brain-dead individual like yourself. Shokatz (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations are a perfect mirror of yourself. If you are unable to participate in this project without being uncivil and without expressing all your frustration and, as you called it yourself, your "sickness", this encyclopedic project isn't for you. There are numerous other projects on the internet, I hope you will find some in which you will feel comfortable. This project, Wikpedia, is not about personal beliefs and opinions, but about gathering reliable sources in order to apply Wikipedia:Verifiability and adding in the articles what the reliable sources say. You are so lost by now that you don't even understand that you are angry with me, but I am nobody just a wp editor, you should be mad with the authors that wrote things that go contrary to your imagination. I just gathered what neutral reliable sources say, so you have no right whatsoever to attack me. You surely don't expect me to ignore all those sources just because of your personal attacks and forum-like chat, don't you? Please reflect about this and change your attitude. FkpCascais (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Update, IP blocked. Here is the report. FkpCascais (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If I recall from my own research into this some years back, the pre-1990 Croatian constitution mentioned Serbs. Then, in 1990, the HDZ government drafted a new constitution that did not mention Serbs. Even though said mention did not grant any kind of special status prior to 1990, and the category of "constituent nation" was/is a legally non-existent one, this was seen by Croatian Serbs as a degradation in their status, from "constituent nation" to "national minority"... even though no change in legal status actually occurred. Though it was definitely a slight and seemed to confirm fears that the Serbs would be marginalized as second-class citizens (though many of the more stupid Krajina peasants might have actually thought they'd be slaughtered or whatnot).

As I see it, this entire issue revolves around the term "constituent nation" and its actual definition. One ("Croatian") side sees the term as indicating a formal, legal category, and emphasizes the fact that its no such thing - whereas the other ("Serbian side") sees the term as simply referring to a nation mentioned in the constitution. Sources should be brought forward, not on whether the Serbs were a "constituent nation" pre-1990, but what the term actually means in this context. And we must be clear on what the sources that use the term actually mean by it.

And as an aside, lets be sure not to pretend for one second that the Milosevich regime in Begrade wasn't hostile to the HDZ regime in Croatia, and did not do its best to capitalize on Tudjman's stupid, probably-meaningless change in terms of inflaming unrest and starting the damn rebellion. -- Director (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Serbs were mentioned in the 1990 constitution, the only change that actually occurred were the terms "narod" and "narodnost" (nation and nationality?) into "national minority". For example the 1974 Constitution stated "SR Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and all other nations and nationalities", the 1990s constitution said: "Republic of Croatia is constituted as a national state of Croats and national minorities: Serbs, Hungarians, Czechs, Italians, ..." etc. Currently the only source which actually discusses the issue of the "constitutional nation" is the one by Bonacci-Skenderovic and Jareb which the user FkpCascais proclaimed to be a "right-wing nationalist"....for whatever reason known only to him. My opinion (which may or may not be relevant) is that the "controversy" occurred due to the fact Serbs were a "constitutional nation" within Yugoslavia and as such had the same status all over the former state (as did all other "constitutional nations in other republics), however by the constitution of Croatia the only "constitutional nation" would be Croats and since Croatia went independent they would be "degraded" in that sense. This is a complicated issue that needs reasonable discussion and consensus on how to proceed, something the above mentioned user has shown he is not capable of. Shokatz (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this ought to be pretty simple: the only issue I can see is whether Serbs had any special legal status granted by the 1974 SR Croatia constitution (specifically, not the federal constitution). If not, regardless of what exactly is meant by the term, I think its obvious it would be misleading to unequivocally refer to any revocation of "constituent nation" status. A source simply talking about "constituent nations", should not be used as evidence to the above effect, as it may well only refer to the (virtually meaniingless) change in phrasing - interpreted by Serbs as a loss of "constituent nation status". I stress: unequivocally. It is justified to represent the Serbian view. -- Director (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources I provided are enough than clear. If anyone wants to go deeper into the exact meaning and consequences of it, he is welcome to find secondary sources regarding the issue. Now, regarding the statement that Serbs lost the constituent nation status, that is already well sourced. FkpCascais (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No. They are not... You need to define the "constituent nation status". What does that mean? Is it an actual legal status? Or does the phrase merely refer to prominent mention in the constitution? Because if its the latter, to use the formulation without qualification is misleading - as it implies the former.

So what was the legal status of Serbs in Croatia under the 1974 constitution as opposed to the 1990 constitution? What rights/privileges did they (or I should say you) enjoy under "constituent nation status" that they lost 1990? Source that. Because if the answers are "exactly the same" and "none" respectively - we can not imply otherwise by using such "TV Belgrade" terminology without qualification.. -- Director (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the sources I brought. Don't just look at them, but actually go to the page and read them. The statement is more than well sourced. Please stop wikiloyering. If you want to expand or contradict the statement, please provide secondary sources. FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't wikilawyering. I did read the sources. I'll ask you again: what does it mean to lose "constituent nation status"? What rights or privileges does it grant? -- Director (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not up to us editors to decide. We are here to add in the article what the majority of reliable sources say, and the absolute total of reliable sources is backing the statement. Do you have any, preferably English-language, sources contradicting the statement? FkpCascais (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that you are discussing in good faith when several editors asked you to define the term you are trying to introduce and you refuse, and continue pushing it in the article. Your sources nor define the term, nor reference the primary source, and there is a source that does both of those things, so it is unclear why are you suggesting there are none sources opposing it. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

When providing over 10 sources clearly saying A is B the case is clear. I will add more sources:

Croatia by Piers Letcher, page 20, it says: "The HDZ also put Crotias 600,000 Serbs on the defensive by changing their status from "constituent nation" in Croatia, to "national minority" and many Serbs in government lost their jobs." I will continue bringing more, one by one. FkpCascais (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fkp. If there is no change in legal status, it is misleading to state, without explanation, that Serbs "lost the status of a constituent nation". Serbs weren't fired because of any requirement in the 1990 constitution (and your source doesn't say that), they were fired because the HDZ government was an (ultra)nationalist government. -- Director (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Direktor, please, all these sources are clear (I am bringing more). You are a smart veteran editor, you know what the situation here is. You will certainly not get the statement excluded by just saying that the change was irrelevant iin your view. Meanwile, another source:

Living Together After Ethnic Killing: Exploring the Chaim Kaufman Argument by Roy Licklider and Mia Bloom, page 158, says: "Indeed, the Draft Constitution referred to the Croatian nation (Hrvatski narod) but it n longer referred to Serbs in the same respect. Previously, a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia, ..." FkpCascais (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This source is speaking about the change in the phrasing and not the change in any rights. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

They are "clear", they just don't justify what you want. Fkp, budimo realni, as the Purgers say. You can't imply there was a change in legal status if there was no change in legal status. Nobody will contest there was massive-scale discrimination against Serbs at that time, but to pretend that this is because of some requirement in the constitution is ludicrous. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, such actions (discrimination on an ethnic basis) were unconstitutional according to the 1990 constitution.. or any modern constitution.

Its fine imo if you want to use that phrasing, as it is used by sources, but unless you can show that the constitution actually changed the legal status of Serbs, legally i.e. constitutionally, then we must make it clear there was no real change in the status of Serbs (i.e. that they constitutionally enjoyed no more or less rights/privileges than under the 1974 constitution). -- Director (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This was never a legal question. The phrasing had changes in the new constitution but no change in anyone's status had happened. Of course, Serb leaders used that change in the phrasing to further extend their rebellion. If it was a legal question then it would be put before the Badinter's commission, but it never left the media and the propaganda circles controlled by Serbia. I think you asked a great question. What are the concrete rights the Serbs lost that the previous constitution guaranteed them. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop re-posting this, please... -- Director (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Asdisis, get a life. @Direktor, do you see me "wanting" anything else but what the vast majority of sources says regarding this issue? Yes, or no? FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop calling me Asdissis, you are obviously obsessed. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. You wish to be misleading by omission. You want to imply there was some kind of constitutional change in the legal rights/privileges of Croatian Serbs, when you have not shown anything of the sort. -- Director (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That's right. We can include a sentence that works just fine in the Croatian War of Independence article that the Serbs perceived that they lost some rights by the new constitution, but he is trying to push a very undefined term that suggests that Serbs lost some rights. The term itself is undefined by any of his sources, while he refuses even to admit that there are sources that oppose his opinion. Not only the term is undefined, but it suggests that Serbs lost some rights that they had before, without naming a single right they lost. He was asked to define the term by several editors, but he refuses. He was asked by you and me to name the rights that the Serbs lost, so we can include that to the article, and not some undefined term, but he refuses to discuss in good faith. He is deleting my comment, calling me a sock. He had reported another user that doesn't agree with him. I don't think he will report you since you are obviously more experienced than him, but I think it is obvious he is not discussing in good faith.54.157.243.172 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording at that article with be changed in order to reflect what the majority of reliable sources say. You were blocked, please go to your talk-page and deal with your block. You will be ignored till you do that. Have a nice day. FkpCascais (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Mediterranean Europe by Duncan Garwood, page 119, says: "On 22 December 1990 a new Croatian constitution was promulgated, changing the status of Serbs in Croatia from that of a constituent nation to a national minority." FkpCascais (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have 14 (and bringing more) sources backing it. Are you saying all those sources are wrong? Based on what? FkpCascais (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This source goes into the constitutional changes in detail: Historical Dictionary of Croatia by Robert Stallaerts, page 53, regarding the 1971 constitutional amendments says: "It stated that Croatia was the state of Croats and Serbs." Please see the entire page. Its 15 sources, some very strong ones, supporting the statement. By now, saying these sources are all wrong without presenting any sources o back it up is pure disruption. FkpCascais (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The constitution says that "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities [national minorities in essence] who live within it". That is in no way speaking of "constitutional status". Read the source which gives an extensive explanation on this matter. You are completely ignoring the sources that go against you. This source obviously gives a wrong impression. It neglects to say that SR Croatia is a national state of the Croatian people and it neglects to say that it is a state of all other nationalities. That is a very important info. It is suggest this sentence is speaking of the "constitutive status" and that is not possible if you don't omit "other nationalities". The new constitution said that Croatia is a "national state of Croatian people and a state of members of other nations and minorities, which are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks". The only difference between this two definitions (which do not speak of any constitutive status) is that Serbs were not mentioned explicitly but them were listed with other minorities. Just to note that Serbs were mentioned explicitly in the SR Croatia's constitution because of their extensive participation in antifascist struggle. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If we take the usual definition of the constitutive nation, that would be the nation that constituted a state. Both Yugoslav and SR Croatia's constitution define who constituted it. Yugoslav constitution defines that Yugoslavia was constituted by all Yugoslav nations, while SR Croatia's constitution defines solely the Croatian people as a constituent nation. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And here we go again, you should be topic banned for WP:UNDUE and obvious one-sided POV-pushing. You just inserted a paragraph completely omitting the 1974 final version of the constitution which clearly stated that "SR Croatia was national state of Croatian people" and then and only then a state of Serbs in Croatia and all other nations and nationalities. You should be topic banned...seriously. Shokatz (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What other side? There is no UNDUE or other side, all sources point out the fact I added. There are no sides here from what I see. If there are, can you please bring here the sources? Sources we can verify please. Report me if you really think so. FkpCascais (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This really is indeed the point, Fkp.. Serbs were mentioned in a significantly less prominent position in the constitution, and they were now called a "national minority" as they were not before. This is true, and very noteworthy, and since many sources do, imo you can even call it a loss of "constituent nation status" if you like. But you can not imply there was any change in their legal status, or any loss in rights and privileges as compared to 1974. There wasn't, not in the constitution at least. If you use that wording, we have to make that clear. -- Director (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with the wording; it is not me calling it loss of constitutional status, but it is the authors of the sources I brought doing it, and, unless proven on contrary, it is the view shared by the vast majority of sources regarding the issue. If you want to add anything else, it needs to be well sourced and cant enter in contradiction with what the majority of sources say. FkpCascais (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Director. I fully agree that the Serbs had not lost any rights nor any status they had. FkpCascais had not presented a single source that defines the so called "constitutional status" nor any source that speaks of any rights the Serbs lost with the new constitution. There is a source that does all that, but he even denies its existence so he repeats that there are none sources that oppose his view. However, Director you said something wrong. Serbs were not called a national minority in the new constitution. The secondary source listed above speaks of that, but here's again the sentence from the new constitution: "Croatia is a national state of Croatian people and a state of members of other nations and minorities, which are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks". As the secondary source explains the difference is only that now we have explicitly listed other nations and minorities, wile the old constitution just said "other nationalities". The source gives an extensive explanation of that.89.164.106.38 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fkp. The issue is not whether Serbs "lost constituent nation status". The issue is that the formulation misleadingly implies a loss of legal rights and privileges - which did not occur and which you have not sourced. You can be deliberately obtuse all you like, but unless you source it, the text won't imply it. That is, you can write "lost cn status" if you like, but it must be followed with an explicit clarification of what that phrase means (or rather, what it doesn't mean). -- Director (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Direktor, I added near verbatim what sources say. Whatever you are saying that I am implying in my edit, it is not me implying it, but the sources, and if they do it, they certainly have a reason to. Do you have any sources saying what you claim, which is that Serbs didn't lost any status or privileges with the constitutional changes? If you don't, then thee wording expressed in the majority of sources which I carefuly added in the article, is correct. FkpCascais (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are you editing article without a consensus and with this RfC opened???141.138.21.230 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Director,I agree. I know my word doesn't mean much since I'm an ip but I think the valid arguments always count, even if they come from an ip. I personally think it is unreasonable to introduce the term that is undefined and that implies that Serbs lost some rights, without even naming a single right they lost, when there is a source that gives an extensive overview on the whole question. I also don't know why FkpCascais is insinuating there are no sources that say the opposite. In my opinion, the best source is the one which both defines the term constitutional nation, and references the primary source, while his sources simply state the fact without any kind of explanation or definition of the term or any kind of reference to the primary source. As I said this is very interesting issue from the Wiki-policy point of view. I'm not to familiar with Wiki policy , but I'm thinking with my own head objectively. Maybe everyone's wrong except FkpCascais, but I think that we all at least discuss in good faith. 141.138.21.230 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fkp. No, I can't prove a negative, nor do I have to. I already explained that this issue revolves over what "losing constituent nation status" actually means. And if you can't show it means anything more than a change in wording (i.e. Serbs being called a "national minority"), then your entry must be followed by that being explained.

I know what you're doing. You have quotes that, when quoted directly, imply something other than what they actually say. Namely that Serbs were in some way constitutionally disenfranchised - when they were not. So all you'll do here on out is just be deliberately obtuse, and repeat "I'm following sources", "this is sourced", etc. perhaps spamming citations in the text and edit-warring like a maniac, talking about how "its sourced" etc, etc. You know full well you're avoiding the issue, which is not WHETHER the Serbs "lost constituent nation status" as such - but WHAT THAT MEANS. So do me a favor, and focus on what's actually being discussed. And no, you can't just enter the phrase without explaining it, since its misleading in and of itself. -- Director (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Direktor, are you challenging the fact that Serbs lost their constitutional nation status in 1990, a fact which is agreed by all 15 sources I provided, yes or no? If you are, you are doing it based on what? FkpCascais (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Define "constitutional status" any maybe that could be answered. Or at least define the concrete rights drawn from that status that the Serbs lost. 141.138.36.84 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. I disagree with entering that phrase into the article without explaining what it actually means. So far it seems that all it means is that Serbs were referred to as a "national minority" - and absolutely nothing else. That needs to be made clear.

Lets be frank. I know you deliberately want to keep things vague.. but no dice. If its implied Serbs were constitutionally disenfranchised in some way - it makes the rebellion of your guys seem more justified. And that misleading implication is transparently your goal. -- Director (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I even added the word "controversial" in the sentence, despite being referred in only one source (Licklider & Bloom), and the status of constitutional nation is explained even with exemples by Trifunovska. Direktor, I don't care what you think, I am here being opposed by a group of Croatian editors in what seems to be a deliberate defense of the Croatian POV and having no consideration whatsoever to the fact that this is an Encyclopedia with rules. Please revert yourself, I provided 15 sources clearly backing up a clear statement with zero sources opposing it. If you don't know what constituent nation status means, and what it means the change of status, that is your problem, not Wikipedias. FkpCascais (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Must be explained what loss of cn status is. Discrimination in the period is not an "example" of anything, nor was it caused or mandated by the constitution (the idea is laughable) - and the sources naturally don't say any of that. Not gonna imply Serbs were constitutionally disenfranchised.

I think its particularly obvious at this point Fkp is not here to improve an article, but to push a nationalist political POV. If he were out to expand the place - why would he object to/ignore calls for explaining what the phrase actually means in this context? If not because it ruins his goal of misleading the reader into thinking there was actual constitutional disenfranchisement of some sort (hence justifying the Serb revolt)?

Its not going to fly, Fkp. Might as well switch to a POV-pusher's next recourse - edit war. And NO. You do not have any sources that support what you're trying to push into this article: namely that ethnic Serbs suffered any loss whatsoever of rights or privileges under Croatian law. -- Director (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont care what you or I think of eachother or about the subject, I care about sourced content. I see you preparing your propagandistic speach for ANI, its up to you. You are removing a perfectly sourced statement without any single source opposing it (there are none, I researched) and just because you don't like it. I really hope you are smart enough not to go with the path indef-blcked users went. If you want to challenge a 15 sources backed statement, you should not edit-war and revert sourced material, but search for sources which would back your claim. Even in comments here you made claims that when I asked you for, you couldn't provide a source to back it up. Don't doubt I will do my best for Wikipedia principles and guidelines to be respected. I am going to add what it means from the sources I told you (since you seem not to have read them, cause its there), and if you remove it, as it will be perfectly sourced against no sources whatsoever opposing it since you are unable to present them, it will be a clear case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. FkpCascais (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I also care about sourced content. And you have ZERO sources for what your text implies - namely that Serbs suffered any loss of privileges or rights under law. Your addition is, very typically, overrun by citations - but is actually unsourced in its main thrust. You don't have support in sources for that implication.

I answered your "yes or no" trap questions, so please answer mine: do you oppose explaining what loss of constituent status actually means? If so, why? -- Director (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I told you already that I am going to add those explanations which are mentioned in the sources. I hope once I add them that you will be satisfied. FkpCascais (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

By "explanation" I mean explanation, an elaboration on what that actually means, legally. Not random events unrelated to the constitution. Discrimination against Serbs was not caused or mandated by the constitution in any way, and none of your sources say that. (It was of course caused by Milosevich's subversion of Tito's 1974 federal constitution, and his takeover by coup of half the votes in the Yugoslav collective Presidency in the previous year; or in other words: an attempt by Serbia to take over the country on a wave of Serbian nationalist fervor.)

P.s. In spite of what you apparently think, I'm actually trying my best to be as fair and objective as possible. I think you may know I have no great sympathies either way. You can't do what you want to do, though: you can't imply a meaningless provocation in wording actually meant something in terms of legal rights of the Serbian population. That's objectively not fair. -- Director (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I would really appreaciate if you provided less opinion and more sourced sources. I honesty don't know what you want neither why you objected a 15-sources backed statement. You wanted more explanation, a simplified version wasn't enough, that is OK, here it is: expanded version. Every word is sourced and anyone can check all sources because I provided links for easy verifiability. Also, I will like to point out that I was careful to bring only English-language sources, none Serbian, so you cant cry "Oh Serbo-propaganda TV Belgrade blabla". All sources deal with the constitutive aspect. Is it OK now? If you object, please do it with reliable sources to back up your objections. FkpCascais (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "talk" you wish to dismiss is that pointing out that you have no sources. Not really, not for what you want.. You can babble on repetitively 'til kingdom come, and ignore talkpage arguments and questions - it won't get you anywhere. Take this wherever you like, bringing down your position couldn't be more trivial: deliberately-misleading attempt to imply non-existent constitutional disenfranchisement of the Serbian minority - through out-of-context quotation and without any support whatsoever. Bye. -- Director (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I read your posts here and all you provided is your personal opinion. While all I did was adding what sources say. Major difference. FkpCascais (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I said is a statement of opinion. My point is insistence on clarification. You quoted sources literally - hoping nobody would go into what the terms they use actually mean, and when its put forward that the point be clarified, you start being evasive. You of course know full well there was no change whatsoever in the legal standing of Serbs, you have no sources to show otherwise, and are in essence refusing to clarify that point for fear of undermining your "Serbs victims" narrative... Being deliberately obtuse to that end.

Its a very old show you're putting on, and its not doing much for the audience. Like I said, its trivial to point out what you're doing and why you're not supported. -- Director (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If 15 authors (and there are more) are saying clearly that Serbs lost their constitutive nation status in 1990, and you cant provide a single one saying they didn't, can you please explain why should we believe you and not them? You are still insisting there was no change despite 15 of them saying there was. It is not me saying anything, it is the sources. You are challenging the sources without any backing, just with forum-like chat.

Now, angry because this doesn't fit the denialism that seems some circles in Croatia have been promoting, you start saying it is Serbian propaganda, Belgrade TV, etc. despite ignoring that none of this sources is Serbian and that this is the predominant point of view regarding the events in English-language sources. You accuse me of making "Serbs victims narrative" just because I gathered neutral sources and prefer to use them than believing in your baseless objections? You claim you are Croatian but not a nationalist, but if you want people to believe you can mantain neutrality in Serbian-Croatian disputes you will have to do muuuch better than this. Needless to say who is victimizing here.

Everyone can see what the sources say and what am I doing. You talk about support, I don't need no ones support when I have the overwhelming majority on my side and I am adding exactly what they say, neither was I expecting any support since I was the only Serbian editor here while all other are Croatian. By the way, besides the indef-blocked IP, whose support do you have? Also, I will like to point out that there was some shamefull uncivil behavior on behalve of some users here, and opposing a 15 reliable sources backed statement with just talking, personal attacks and orginal research, should not be allowed and should be sanctioned immediately. FkpCascais (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you oppose explaining what the "loss of constituent nation status" actually means? Are you prepared to clarify that it refers to a change in wording (who "Croatia is a state of.."), and that there was no loss of political rights or privileges as compared to the 1974 constitution? (Snezana Trifunovska is obviously Macedonian and very much local.. a Communist functionary in the SR Macedonian government, and a graduate of Belgrade University. Forget about that, unless you want a couple dozen Croatian books from the '90s..) -- Director (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that constitutions formulated that way are making a distinction between nations with nation-wide supreme importance and the others. Being top-level, constituent nation in this case, indicates that your culture, language, costumes, etc. will be the ones representative of the nation. If it is so irrelevant as you claim, why is that Croatian nationalists as soon as got to power, changed it? The implications of having more than one nation considered constituent in one country may be considerable. You wanting to disregard Trifunovska for being Macedonian is unacceptable in my view. Also, you can bring Croatian authors, but you know that if at the end the only ones challenging this are them, it will have to explicitely mentioned. Now, I prefer not being me explaining it, couse I am just an editor collecting reliable sources, but I would prefer if you read the pages 23 and 24 of Trifunovska. FkpCascais (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see that this source says: "Croatian constitution did not really change the position of the Serbs in Croatia...however in the view of the Serbs this was exactly what had happened...". How do you explain that even your sources are contrary to your stand? I thin we all agree that this is the sentence that should be included in the article. This is the sentence that had worked for a long time in Croatian War of Independence article. The Serbs had viewed it that was but it had not really happened, and to avoid the confusion we can explain why the Serbs viewed it that way. There is a source that extensively explains how Milosevic's regime and all of Serbian controlled media used that in their propaganda to further ignite the rebellion. I think we reached a consensus, since I think we all except you agree that this sentence should be included in the article and now you strongly emphasis this source which has the exact sentence that functions well in Croatian War of Independence article and that Joy had suggested a long time ago, along with a source from Croatian War of Independence article. What's your opinion on this sentence suggested by Joy, Director? 141.138.16.172 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't be a cheater, why did you selected only one part of the sentence clearly altering the meaning? The sentence says the following: "Some would certainly argue that the provision contained in the 1990 Croatian Constitution did not really change the position of the Serbs in Croatia..." and then explains further the issue. You really think senior Wikipedia editors are stupid and don't check everything? Editors like you trying to manipulate get blocked for tendentious editing. FkpCascais (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To repeat:"however in the view of the Serbs this was exactly what had happened", not "this is exactly what had happened". 178.167.108.103 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Director could you explain this thought that the Serbs were called a national minority in the new constitution? I'm focused on the primary source and I can't see that. 141.138.36.84 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We should be able to discuss the primary source openly and with arguments that the secondary sources back up. However, I can only see here a battle with secondary sources that don't even define the term nor they reference the primary source, when there is a source that both explains the term and references the primary source. I don't think this discussion is in good faith, and it's obvious who's not willing to discuss in good faith. 141.138.16.172 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"It is obvious that constitutions formulated that way are making a distinction between nations with nation-wide supreme importance and the others. Being top-level, constituent nation in this case, indicates that your culture, language, costumes, etc. will be the ones representative of the nation. If it is so irrelevant as you claim, why is that Croatian nationalists as soon as got to power, changed it? The implications of having more than one nation considered constituent in one country may be considerable."

I agree with everything there. Its not irrelevant at all. Like I said, its a significant, very notable change in the wording of the constitution, which now mentions Serbs in a less prominent position than before, right among other national minorities. As you say, it has a lot of symbolic significance, it implies this is now a Croat nation state, makes a distinction between Croats and Serbs as a minority - and that's a lot - but its nothing beyond that. Its kinda like a collective "fuck you" to Serbs: its there, it degrades, its a brazen provocation - but its not more than that. It doesn't mean Serbs had any less of a legal standing than before. And I can't agree to your implying that. Do you understand? Make it clear the change had no such concrete effect.

"Constituent nation status" is a purely symbolic position, a position of "honour", shall we say, in the constitution, which has been revoked. It clearly has been revoked, but you can't imply there's anything beyond the symbolic that occurred here.

And keep to neutral sources. No locals, you know the drill.. Trifunovska is a Yugoslav source, Belgrade Law Faculty. If not, if we reject that "filter", we're going to be using Croatian sources too, and I myself then certainly won't acknowledge any weaselly objections based on their nation of origin. -- Director (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Every subject is in the equal position in that sentence, and that sentence does not define any constitutive status to anyone. If we take the usual definition of the word "constitutive", they SR Croatia's constitution is defining solely Croatians as a nation that constituted SR Croatia in it's first sentence. However the constitution does not hold any definition or mentioning of any constitutional status. I'm also puzzled in how the Serbs are mentioned in a less prominent position. They are explicitly mentioned in that sentence. The fact that some of the "others" from SR Croatia's constitution are now also explicitly mentioned does not diminish anyone's position. The Serbs viewed it as so, I agree, but we have to explain why. I obviously don't matter here, but I'm glad I can leave a trace of arguments here, so at least it can be viewed that someone put them to the table. 141.138.16.172 (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

But why all the alarm? No one is wanting to add anything else beyond what is found in the sources. Are you challenging any part of the text I added and why? FkpCascais (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think he explained that several times. Why are you reluctant to have a discussion in good faith? You simply want to war with sources by neglecting the other side's sources and the flaws in your sources. 141.138.16.172 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree you're not discussing in good faith. What you're doing is called a red herring. I explained several times that you actually DO NOT have support for what you want. Its not a matter of challenging anything you brought forward, but challenging its introduction alone - without clarification as to the terms used therein.

Are you going to parrot your "sources song" again? If so, how many times? I'd like to spare myself the trouble of reading any more of that transparent playacting. -- Director (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I added in the article exactly what sources say, but you dislike what they say because you believe otherwise. So you accuse me of wanting to add something I don't have support for, but unfortunately for you, it is not me wanting to add anything, but the sources actually saying it. You are unable to provide any sources to back-up your claims or to challenge mine, so you are doing endless unfounded objections here hoping some miracle will happend. I cant change the text to something unsourced or something opposite to what sources say. All I can do is give you an advice to search for sources that say what you believe. Seems there are none, so I cant help you more than that. FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that what you are doing is saying "Sources are saying it, but we need to add an explanation that they are not really meaning it and things were not like that". That is what you mean by "clarification". No chance. You need to recognize that what you call "you want" is not me wanting, but sources clearly saying (all of them), and what you actually want is to add the opposite of the sources claiming, and I cant see how you expect that to happened. Can you be objective and recognize that the case is closed?FkpCascais (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are asking for a clarification, right? Just write here then the clarification you believe is missing there. FkpCascais (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

All the sources say it that the Serbs viewed it that way, because of Milosevic's propaganda aimed to start a war in Croatia and to create greater-Serbia. We are going in circles because you are not willing to discuss in good faith. The bottom line is that you claim the Serbs had and lost constitutive status without being able to define the term or to point to the primary source to sustain your suggestion. The other side on the other hand had both defined the term and referenced the primary source. Since you aren't willing to discuss in good faith and since you provided no new arguments during this RfC I suggest we collect the arguments and the sources like in the 1st post and let other experienced editors decide. It's impossible to reach a consensus with someone who is not discussing in good faith. And you pretty much deferred all other editors from this RfC except for me and Director. If he had not shown up, it would end up your way just because of your disruptive behavior that makes people don't care what the article says, just that they don't have to deal with you. You posted a lot of comments without a single new argument and you are trying to push your way against the sources. Your behavior was so disruptive behavior that people rather left the discussion and left the article says 2 conflicting statements in 2 consecutive sentences, than to discuss with you. And this is not your fist time as I can see. I'm looking at your contributions and almost every discussion involving you ends up with a RfC and you constant disruptive behavior. You are constantly trying to ban other people that don't agree with you. There's a written trace to your behavior and it's a shame no one reviewed it. No wonder Wikipedia in not considered a credible source with people like you editing it. 178.167.108.103 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop posting. The previous IPs you used at this discussion were blocked, and now you are using this one, you are evading block, and everyone knows that. That is why you are being ignored by everyone. Anyway, this discussion is near over, and it is only Direktor and me still participating. You desperately called for Joys help but he didn't gave it to you cause Joy is an administrator here and a senior editor who knows to recognize the situation. Gregor is in my view the finest Croatian editor, initially seems he didn't knew about my sources, but after seeing them he left the discussion by saying that the change in the constitution should be mentioned. Then Tuvixer who was the editor who first started opposing the denial that was being made by an already senior, but well known as nationalist, editor Shokatz. And now there is Direktor, my well known college from discussions, the two of us have already discussed here on talk-pages during almost a decade more lines than probably all the books you read in your life. Direktor isn't indeed a Croatian nationalist, and he is participating here because of 2 reasons: he saw here a great opportunity of having a challenging discussion in which he could make use of his argumentative skills which are excellent, and because despite not being a nationalist, he does have some strong pro-Croatian views in the matters of Serbian-Croatian disputes. He also knows how Serbian arguments about the 1990s are usually weak in sources, not because they may be right or wrong, but because the West backed up quite strongly the anti-Serb rhetoric and, as we are at English Wiki preferably working with English-language sources, that rhetoric ends up usually being easily found. However, this case is different and the situation was noticed by some editors which know the danger of opposing sources without anything substantial. You obviously seem not to care about your reputation, otherwise you wouldn't lie as you are doing in this last comments. Not long ago, you criticized the fact that senior editors have more weight that newcomers (you). That may seem an unfair situation, but it really isn't, and I will explain you why. This is an online encyclopedic project. This is not an online fighting video game as you seem to view it, although confrontations and discussions are obviously an every-day reality here. However, the winner here is not the one who wins more fights and gets his will and POV included in articles, but the one who knows to be objective and neutral. Usually those are the ones that become veteran editors. Experience tell us that no one is absolutely neutral and objective in all issues and absolutely everybody has a dose of POV inside, but the winners here are the ones doing their best to work here always maximally applying the Wikipedia rules and principles which are written in a way to make you become objective and neutral. Veteran editors also often learn a lesson that trout always ends up having its way. So, what were you thinking when you tried to lie about one of my sources when you said it says something that if you read the entire sentence you clearly knew it was not saying it the way you said here? What are you thinking now by saying that "All the sources say it that the Serbs viewed it that way" when besides one, all others are clearly not making that distinction and are saying things happened that way? Do you really think people here are stupid and are not going to see the sources and check what they exactly say and are just going to tell you "Oh, well, you are right then.", really? Do you see how childish is to lie just showing that you are desperate in wanting to do things your way? You did the same at Nikola Tesla, that is what got you blocked, people just hate that kind of attitude, it is all that an encyclopedia doesn't need. Why don't you stop, think, and go to your talk-page, and honestly ask for unblocking? Since you want this much to participate here, that is the only way you can do it, cause what you are doing now, being an evading-block IP is just a loss of time. Also, a personal question: do you really think that hiding the fact that Serbs lost their constituent nation status in Croatia is going to do any good to you or Croatia? Whoever is studying this case, he will read the books which all say this. There is no good in hiding obvious facts. FkpCascais (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

To be concise. Your behavior is utterly disruptive because you are trying to push an undefined term to the article although several editors asked you to define its meaning. You refuse to define it. Your sources fail to do so. They fail to reference the primary source in any way. To me that makes them unreliable, no matter of the quantity. Although there is only a single source that tells otherwise, it gives an extensive elaboration on the whole question. It defines the term, references the primary source and gives explanation to the whole situation to why the Serbs viewed it in the way they viewed it. You go ahead and push your POV, but at least there is a written trace that someone objected with valid arguments. How much Serb leaders thought of this as a real issue tells the fact that they haven't put this in front of Badinter's commission. Instead this theses of Serbs loosing their constitutive status appeared only in propaganda along with the claims that Croats are nazis, that Serbs are facing a genocide, that the pope is a nazi...etc..As the source tells, it was used only to ignite the war. I know I'm being ignored for unknown reasons to me, but someone needs to speak up, otherwise nothing will change. 178.167.108.103 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You have to understand one thing: there was a change in the Constitution in the chapter that deals with the constituent nations. Authors consider that change to mean that Serbs lost the constituent nation status they had before. Authors said it all, they are the experts, not you, me or Direktor. They defined it that way. It is not up to you or me to define anything, but experts. Do you understand this? FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. Now I'm going to ask which chapter is that, for you to point it out. You are going to refuse again and so on...You are just proving my point that you are very disruptive. God knows how long you've been doing this but it's surprising you haven't been banned yet. I already gave an explanation that this is false and I'm satisfied with the arguments I gave. Whether Wikipedia's article says one thing or another I really do not case as long as the discussion shows the arguments and the whole issue objectively. If I cared I would open an account and edit the article instead of participating this futile discussion with people who are not discussing in good faith, but instead are pushing POV. I also didn't understand this. You mentioned authors and I saw somewhere around here that someone mentioned that one of the authors of the constitution explained the issue exactly as I explained it. Although I used the secondary source provided in this RfC, he had said the same thing. Also your sources have no expertise value at all when they do not reference the constitution or explain anything. Those sources have 0 scientific value regarding this issue and I hope you don't think that history students will use any of them on any notable university regarding this issue. 178.167.108.103 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that repeating old propaganda lies from the 90' will do any good to anyone? The thing is that Serbia was not defeated, so everyone responsible for the wars in the 90' just kept doing it from Serbia. Imagine if the nazi regime was not defeated, but that the allies negotiated with Germany and left Hitler on power without entering the Germany. Then this kind of discussions would be about whether the holocaust had happened. Now imagine if it weren't for international courts ICTY and ICJ. Then some would certainly deny Serbia is responsible for 4 wars in the 90'. If it weren't for Badinter's commission some would certainly claim that Serbs lost their constitutive status in Croatia. I'm not speaking here about you or some obscure authors, but Serb representatives in Croatia, Serbia as a state, and Serbian officials. Yes you can hear those claims from the people and organisations who participated in the aggression towards Croatia, like Veritas or Seselj, but you will not hear it from anyone relevant. You may even push it to the article but empty words don't mean anything, do they? 178.167.108.103 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what you or I think. We are discussing here the constitutional status Serbs had, I provided sources regarding this issue. They are the experts, they are saying what they are saying. What you or I think is IRRELEVANT. FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You obviously can't distinguish between an argument and an opinion. I provided several arguments in the previous post. The answer that you don't care about them (and classifying them as opinions) just shows that you are not discussing in good faith. You think that this discussion is irrelevant, but only what the article says, but you'd be wrong. In my opinion the discussions are more important that the article. The articles are full of POV while the discussions provide both stands and arguments. And I think that I gave more than plenty of arguments. You on the other hand had gave none, nor have answered any of the valid arguments put to the table. You may push your POV to the article but the discussion is anyways more important, and it will stay as both a testament to POV pushing and the weaknesses of Wikipedia, as well as the answer to the question if Serbs had constitutive status in SR Croatia. If no one spoke out then you would have pushed your POV to the article a long time ago, and there wouldn't be anyone to contest that and expose it as nothing but a POV and a long forgotten Serbian propaganda. I have no doubt that anyone objective not interested in stupid Wikipedia's rules would have any doubts about the answer to this question. Your aim is towards naive people that will see something stated in Wikipedia's article and think that's correct, while my aim is towards the more intelligent people. History students for instance would certainly be more interested in this discussion than in your sources which have the already described flaws. So to answer your earlier comment about "who beats who", I think it's obvious who beat who. You may have your article say whatever, I don't care very much since I already won this discussion. Well it wasn't hard since you weren't really participating pass your flawed sources. 178.167.108.103 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are still not getting it. This discussion with you really doesnt matter for anything, but I am just explaning to you where is that you are wrong. First, you don't have to provide arguments, you need to provide experts arguments. You don't understand that Wikipedia is not a place of forum where people discuss their opinions (unfortunately many indeed do this, that is perhaps why you got the wrong idea), but Wikipedia is a place editors write in the articles what specialists say on certain subject. Everything that you are saying here, is totally irrelevant to the issue here, which is the constitutional status Serbs had. You thinking that Serbs are like Nazis has NOTHING to do with constitutional changes done in 1990 regarding constituent nations. You gave ZERO specialist-backed arguments for the issue discussed here. Everything you said here is totally irrelevant to the subject here, all you did was just exposing your bias and showing how you hate Serbs, and basically you just explained how you are totally unable to contribute objectively and neutrally in this subjects, something many here knew long ago. And you being able to do anything just to punish Serbs because of your personal traumas is what got you blocked in first place. FkpCascais (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hate for Serbs? That's really a low personal attack. To answer the rest, of course it does matter. What doesn't matter are the claims your sources put forward without any explanation past the statement itself and without a single reference to the constitution. As I said, those sources have 0 scientific value. Whether sources with 0 scientific value have some Wikipedia value is really irrelevant, since those sources won't be used in any credible university. So if you think you accomplished something by pushing your POV to the article you are mistaken. As I said, empty words don't mean anything and your sources put only empty words out. Literally empty, since they do not define the term. You somehow thought you accomplished something by pushing empty words to the article. Look at this way. Even Milosevic was smarter than you since he know exactly who he can fool with this wrong claim. Not the Badinter's commission but the naive people. His own people, so he didn't even bother to go with this question in front of the Badinter's commission. Who do you think you will fool by stating it in the article? 178.167.108.103 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you able to understand that we are not talking here about Milosevic or the entire conflict or anything else but just the constitutional change that happened in 1990? Just that! And are you able to understand that when I have a statement backed by 15 sources that is not "my POV" but the statement of those sources? Did you opened and read my sources? Tell me, what do they exactly say regarding Serb status? FkpCascais (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, you say my sources have zero value and are not going to be used by any university. Well, one of them was actually published by an university. The other are all strong sources. Don't you see how ridiculous you are being? Why do you lie? FkpCascais (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I said that your sources have zero scientific value regarding that question which is a difference, since I haven't reviewed them as a whole, but only a part relevant to this discussion. 109.108.237.252 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You deleted the IP's post to get me to reply? What's to reply to? All I see is more disruptive WP:LISTEN bull... I am not making any claim myself - but am challenging your implicit claim of constitutional disenfranchisement. I don't need sources - you do. Refs provided by others above are quite sufficient to shift the burden squarely on you.

I am not challenging any claim you made, I want to add to it. I don't dislike what the sources say, I want to clarify what the sources say so you don't succeed in implying something they DON'T say. Get it? And yes, its obvious you want to do just that; obvious if for no other reason than, if that were not so, you wouldn't mind my demand for clarification.

The bottom line here, FkpCascais, is that you won't imply any legal loss of standing, rights or privileges. Which you are trying to do - and have no sources for. Modify your text with that in mind, or I myself oppose it. Not much more to be said. Promjena je simbolicna, vazna u tom smislu - ali ne konkretna, i ti dobro znas da sugeriras ovo zadnje usprkos tome sta to izvori ne govore. Ne zajebaji me.. -- Director (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So, you were making obstructions to a perfectly sourced edit just because you are afraid of what you believe I might want to do in future. I knew it from the very beginning, and I strongly opposed the change, or even removal, of the text just because of that fear. How can your fear be excuse enough for removing sourced facts? I indeed wanted to make that point actually. And there is also another thing which was annoying, which was you talking constantly as if I was already wanting to add the things you are afraid of. First, I presented the sources here, all verifiable, so you were able to see exactly what they were saying about the issue; and second, I never expressed any desire in wanting to add anything else beside what was backed and agreed by the sources.

Why you acted as presuming I wanted something beyond sources, something more radical, was either because that would discredit me (as if I was some POV pusher), or because you really believed I would do that. Either way, by acting that way you failed regarding AGF towards me and it was offensive.

And the last, perhaps most important regarding the issue here, is what you say in your last paragraph, specially in the Serbo-Croatian part. You are saying that the change of the status was symbolic and nothing in concrete. Sorry Direktor, the sources don't say that, they don't describe it neither as symbolic neither as insignificant as you suggest. This is just your opinion which is different from what sources are saying. So you should not zajebaji me. Don't take me wrong, but I certainly trust more academics than you. Next time you know, I am all sources. Best regards! FkpCascais (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If you did not have an ulterior motive here, Fkp, there would be no dispute. You're a Serb-nationalist POV-pusher, and have been since you started on this project. What you're doing here is quoting sources out-of-context, without adequate explanation of the terms they use, in the hopes of misrepresenting them as supporting something they don't - namely that the change in any way legally disenfranchised Serbs. It did not. It is a symbolic change in their constitutional status, one that (while serious in and of itself), does not impinge at all on any of their legal rights and privileges - and none of your sources claim it does. The very fact that you would object to making that clear - to making your own sources clearer (as opposed to misleading to anyone without some grounding in Yugoslav politics of the period) - is all the evidence anyone ought to need for your not being here in good faith... And if you did not object, you'd have no dispute with me.

To be perfectly blunt and honest (as I usually am) - I didn't think you were really, deliberately out to make the constitutional change look like it had real legal implications as to the rights of ethnic Serbs, that it was some kind of disenfranchisement. I did NOT think you were going to stick to that obvious bull. I thought you were very much in the right, that your formulation was basically ok + that small caveat to ensure the reader isn't mislead. Turns out you actually are out to mislead the reader, and hence I'm not sure I'd support you editing this article at all. Not going to waste further words, I think I've made my position clear, bye. -- Director (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are so right about me as you are about the issue discussed here: baseless unfounded accusations with zero value or academic backing. Think whatever you want, just next time remember to bring sources to the table. FkpCascais (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Direktore, you are "zajebaji" us all here. You say that the change in the constitution is symbolic and that it did not legally disenfranchise the Serbs, yet you say it is serious. Quoting yourself: "it implies this is now a Croat nation state, makes a distinction between Croats and Serbs as a minority - and that's a lot" and "Its kinda like a collective 'fuck you' to Serbs: its there, it degrades, its a brazen provocation". You should finally make up your mind and tell us: is it serious or was it just symbolic? If you don't do that, you would look exactly like you describe your opponents: obtuse and only here to make bull...

That is exactly why we rely on reliable sources, and not editors opinions. Editors often talk but have no clue what they are talking about, but want to make themselves look as they know a lot. FkpCascais (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your sources are not reliable. 109.108.237.252 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Some editors have mentioned this article. It is in my point of interest, but I see a closing request has been filed, so I won' participate. It seems the discussion reached a natural end. Relichal1 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

^ Pešić 1996, p. 10–11[The nations'] rights to be "constitutive" were recognized not only within their respective states, but also among co-nationals inhabiting the territory of other Yugoslav republics. In some cases, these ethnic diaspora communities viewed the constitutive nature of Yugoslav nationhood as giving them the right to extend the sovereignty of their national "homeland" to the territories they inhabited. Such was the case with Serbs in Croatia, who constituted 12% of the population in 1991. Later, this status would produce enormous problems, giving Croatian Serbs the "right" to secede from Croatia, and giving Croatia the right to deny them this status by designating them as a "minority" in its new constitution.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[FOOTNOTEPešić199610&ndash;11-1] Pešić 1996, p. 10–11[The nations'] rights to be "constitutive" were recognized not only within their respective states, but also among co-nationals inhabiting the territory of other Yugoslav republics. In some cases, these ethnic diaspora communities viewed the constitutive nature of Yugoslav nationhood as giving them the right to extend the sovereignty of their national "homeland" to the territories they inhabited. Such was the case with Serbs in Croatia, who constituted 12% of the population in 1991. Later, this status would produce enormous problems, giving Croatian Serbs the "right" to secede from Croatia, and giving Croatia the right to deny them this status by designating them as a "minority" in its new constitution.

[1]