Talk:Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo

talk prior to the merge

Please see Talk:Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo/Archive 1 and Talk:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946–1974). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The title is wrong and misleading. It is misleading because it presents Kosovo as administrative unit of Yugoslavia while it was administrative unit of Serbia which was part of Yugoslavia. It is wrong because in period until 1963 it was FR Yugoslavia, not SFR. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Say again? The City of Belgrade was an administrative unit of SFR Yugoslavia, too, are you sure you want to claim that a title such as Belgrade in SFR Yugoslavia would be misleading?! Also, we seem to have adopted the SR* convention for all other articles, which is why I went with that; it's "wrong" only insofar as it is not perfectly precise, because someone might see "SFR Yugoslavia" and think "1963-1992"; but at the same time, that would also be "wrong" because in this context the end year is 1990. I'm not sure if precision is worth the effort, but in any case, Kosovo in the second Yugoslavia or even Kosovo in Yugoslavia would be fine by me, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No. The city of Belgrade was an administrative unit of Serbia which was part of all Yugoslavias. Its not about precision. It is about factually inaccurate? Is there any particular reason to insist on Yugoslavia instead of Serbia?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, what is it about then? Ultimately, what if we rename it to Kosovo in SR Serbia, your earlier complaint stands - it wasn't SR Serbia in the entire period, it was PR Serbia earlier. (But, again, those two entities are described in one article.) If we rename it Kosovo in Serbia, that's clearly out of the scope of second Yugoslavia, presumably duplicating other articles. If it's Kosovo in Serbia in Yugoslavia, any English reader will instantly think that's a silly title, and it's also out of the scope of second Yugoslavia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, note http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatia_in_the_first_Yugoslavia&action=history - nobody has cared about that detail for five years now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I pointed to an issue of misleading and factually inaccurate title you chose for this article. I don't think you addressed it with your comment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

*crickets*

Can you suggest a non-misleading and a factually accurate title or? Or would you rather revert the merge and split the two articles than do that? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I find your comments like "Er, what is it about then?" and "*crickets*" uncivil and non-constructive. Taking in consideration our previous interactions I would politely ask you to please refrain from such comments in future when writing to me.
• I think members of WP Serbia or WP Kosovo should be consulted to determine what is the best way to resolve this issue. It would be better if you have done it before you merged two articles, especially taking in consideration that only editor who participated in discussion about this unclear and controversial case is very much involved in the subject and warned multiple times because of his actions connected to the subject. This talkpage is not visible enough for such important decisions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a particularly important decision - you really have to be invested in anything involving Kosovo and Yugoslavia that the distinction between two slightly different names of the same state in a particular history article becomes important. The question stood in the relevant talk pages, both under the said WP banners, in plain sight, since late April. That the merge proposal was barely noticed in the last three months was indication enough that it didn't require much extra consideration or boldness to undertake. Besides, silence implies consent, not veto.

Ultimately, the simple fact that you won't compose a coherent opposition proposal, and are instead resorting to this kind of wikilawyering, makes your first point disingenuous - I find your obstructionism disruptive, but I still have to assume good faith and indulge it. And so I have done so, despite your apparent unwillingness to build consensus. And I will indulge you further by explicitly posting to those two talk pages now. (One argument for the change also doesn't imply veto.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I pointed to the issue and proposed the best way to resolve it. That is far from being disruptive. I wish I could say the same for your comments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't propose any actual way to resolve it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that was a fun read. Imo all three articles need to be merged into the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo article. -- Director (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Three? What's the third one? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point. It was wrong to merge only two articles. Either all three articles should have been merged or none of them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

But, again, what is the third one? The 1990-1992 content that's now at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija or something else? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I misspoke (miswrote). I meant APKM, SAPK, and this thing as in "all three". -- Director (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you just mean use the SAP Kosovo name for this article? That's fine by me, it can be said that it matches the existing scheme of SR articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You made a serios error, Joy. Not this article, it should be merged into Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, not here. Also, in its last state, with infobox, as an entity. Just merge content from here then. Thats what user told in the first place anyway... --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your English isn't ... allowing me to be certain that I understood you. You also basically agree with DIREKTOR that SAP Kosovo is a good name for the entire period? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What period? SAP Kosovo existed until 1990 and constitutional changes in SR Serbia, before breakup of Yugoslavia which is irrelevant for life span of this province. Kosovo as province of Republic of Serbia had three different constitutional names, all three represented with separate articles. Either all three articles should have been merged or none of them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So your position is that the status of the province of Kosovo was entirely unaffected by the breakup of Yugoslavia? The real-world dispute over the province at the time ("Republic of Kosova") is somehow orthogonal to Yugoslavia, despite the fact the latter proclamation meant that Kosovo wanted to secede from Yugoslavia? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. I have never said that. Your comment is straw man and red herring. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

But you just said that right there, above - breakup of Yugoslavia which is irrelevant for life span of this province. I asked you again to verify, and you denied it. What do you think, then? I'll repeat my earlier question: should this article integrate the 1990-1992 content that's now at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija or something else? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Breakup of Yugoslavia is irrelevant for the life-span of the SAP Kosovo. That is what I said. SAP Kosovo was de-jure and de-facto province of Serbia. Breakup of Yugoslavia and latter proclamations are irrelevant for the life-span of SAP Kosovo.
• Life span of this province of Serbia has not ended in 1992 and you know it. Your insisting that Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is 1990-1992 content is against NPOV policy.
• All three separate articles about Kosovo as province of republic of Serbia should be merged, or none of them. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree on the claim that SAP Kosovo was somehow magically not part of Yugoslavia. The federal constitution enumerated all the republics and provinces so they were part of Yugoslavia de jure and de facto. I'm not saying there wasn't AP Kosovo and Metohija after 1992. I'm just saying it was part of another sovereign state (SFRY != FRY). Because Kosovo and Serbia have been part of two different states during this general period, it's illogical to merge absolutely everything. Top jurisdiction cannot possibly be irrelevant to lower-level provinces. The inference would be that someone might think of merging any other arbitrary subdivision that involved the same territory in the same article, which would be silly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This could well last weeks.. lets just have two articles, Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. I don't mind having the post-1992 Kosovo articles merged into the article for the modern-day APKM (such as it is), but to have them all merged there is too much. By the opposing logic SR Serbia and Republic of Serbia (1990–2006) should be merged into Serbia, not to speak of the other federal subdivisions.

There's no question, however, that this article should be renamed to Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo (per naming conventions). I'll write-up a proper infobox. -- Director (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@Joy: Your comment is another straw man fallacy. Nobody said that Serbian province of Kosovo was not part of Yugoslavia. Nobody supported your "Kosovo in Yugoslavia" title so please be so kind to stop arguing about it.

• I object to merging only two out of three articles about Serbian province of Kosovo. Either all three articles about Serbian province of Kosovo should be merged into one article or they should remain separate articles. In order to avoid generating huge walls of text that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion I will refrain from further discussion about this issue for now. Please do not proceed with further expansion of this article until consensus has been reached how to resolve its issues. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Antid, are you through with the display? At least try to maintain a reasonable position

• There is no way we can merge the SFRY period into the modern-day Serbian Kosovo article.
• There is no way we can keep these silly WP:POVFORKs about every name change this entity had.

"District of K&M", becomes "AP of K&M", then its "SAP Kosovo", blah blah.. Its all one entity. The only significant change is the breakup of Yugoslavia and the new country this province became part of. Example: we do not have a separate People's Republic of Serbia article, but we do have a Republic of Serbia (1990–2006) article.

The only question is whether the 1990-2006 period of the province should have its own article, or just be included in the (modern-day) Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article. I myself say included, for a number of reasons. -- Director (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. Please revert yourself and do not proceed with further expansion or reconstruction of this article until consensus has been reached how to resolve its issues. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Chukotka what? :) Who cares about some Russian okrug literally in Tungusia, which probably needs work itself. WP:POVFORK and WP:OTHERSTUFF is something you should worry about a lot more. Again:

• we can't merge all this history stuf into modern-day Kosovo
• we can't leave silly POVFORKS

Antid, if I recall I'm the one who originally named and organized these SFRY Kosovo articles in the first place. It was an overly-detailed approach, one of the many follies of my youth :P. We always treat all the separate, communist-bureaucracy names during the 1943-1992 Yugoslav period as the different names of one entity - because the alternative is just plain ridiculous (Autonomous District of Kosovo and Metohija, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo) Now please stop causing trouble for constructive editors and cut it out with the disruption. -- Director (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It's now at the SAP Kosovo title. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

SAP Kosovo was not disestablished in 1992. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of this problem of using one particular official name for the entire period, which is why I went for a descriptive title in the first place. But, it's still just a matter of interpretation - we could easily say that even if the province was formally renamed again in 1990, it remained primarily known under the name it had in the previous 16 years, with the added benefit that it's a name consistent with the other relevant articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Again straw man. My comment was about the date. Not about the name.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

*facepalm*.. -- Director (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is version of this article before merging performed by Joy. It clearly shows that SAP Kosovo existed until 1990. Merging this article with article about province which existed before 1974 can not result with province which existed until 1992. Period after 1990 belongs to another third article which you did not want to merge with first two articles. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In 1990 SAP Kosovo had its name changed back to the one it held 1963-73 (AP K&M), and had its autonomy restricted again. However Yugoslavia did not break-up until a year later, a bit more if you count Bosnia's secession. That one-year period is a part of the scope of this article, which aims to deal with Kosovo in Yugoslavia. Name changes are less relevant than substance. k? -- Director (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging two articles about this Serbian province with scope describing periods 1946—1974 and 1974—1990 can not result with article about province which existed until 1992. Post 1990 period can be within the scope of this article only if the third article is merged into this one. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it can of course, if, in addition to merging, we expand the article's scope for a single year. But more importantly: what third article? -- Director (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging≠changing the scope. Someone who do not AGF, not me of course, could believe that merger was only an disguise to perform significant changes and to push certain position without gaining consensus first. Both merging and especially changing the scope are very important and controversial and should be result of the consensus, which is not the case here. Joy's idea to change the scope depending on the the higher level entity issue has been discussed here and rejected. Therefore please be so kind to revert all your edits which changed the scope of the merged articles.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear when I wrote "in addition to merging", so that you felt it necessary to explain to me that a merge "doesn't equal" a scope expansion? Yes, its all a giant conspiracy (anti-Serbian of course) to change the "1990" entry in the infobox to "1992", and we're all abusing your obviously-bottomless store of good faith by such sly trickery.. I'm getting flashbacks to User:Правичност, an SPI might be worth it.

I find your conduct here is in accordance with what I've grown accustomed to: petty arguments over insignificant details. In response to your objections I can only copy-paste my above post:

In 1990 SAP Kosovo had its name changed back to the one it held 1963-73 (AP K&M), and had its autonomy restricted again. However Yugoslavia did not break-up until a year later, a bit more if you count Bosnia's secession. That one-year period is a part of the scope of this article, which aims to deal with Kosovo in Yugoslavia. Name changes are less relevant than substance. -- Director (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"petty arguments over insignificant details"? No. Please read this discussion from the beginning.

• The title of the article is not insignificant detail. Thanks to my pointing to the issue of misleading and factually inaccurate title this problem was identified and dealt with.
• Changing the scope of this article to include 1990—1992 period is not insignificant detail. This change of the scope has been based on Joy's idea to change the scope depending on the the higher level entity issue. This idea has been discussed here and rejected. Please be so kind to revert all your edits which changed the scope of the merged articles.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• #1 If you think that's a concluded discussion or that anything has been "rejected" there, I'm afraid you're displaying some wishful thinking on your part.
• #2 This is Kosovo, that's Serbia in general. Conclusions there do not apply here. Clearly you imagined there was some "third article" on Kosovo when there isn't one. -- Director (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080410204524/http://kushtetuta.independentkosova.com/kosova_1974.pdf to http://kushtetuta.independentkosova.com/kosova_1974.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080505220052/http://kushtetuta.independentkosova.com:80/english.htm to http://kushtetuta.independentkosova.com/english.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Azem Vllasi and Kaqusha Jashari

It's mentioned in various articles that cover the year 1989 that Azem Vllasi and Kaqusha Jashari were dismissed from power, but both of their pages given different dates and offices held in their respective infoboxes, while the actual articles seem to imply they were both dismissed simultaneously. Could it be clarified which offices each held at the time that they were dismissed from? It's strange, because Jashari's page seems to show she served as Prime Minister of Kosovo even after the dismissal from the office of the President of the League of Communists of Kosovo, but also that Vllasi served concurrently as President of the League of Communists of Kosovo. But this can't be right because the article for the President of the League of Communists of Kosovo Vllasi has having been dismissed at the end of April 1988 to be replaced by Jashari who the list shows and having had a term which ended in November of 1988. Is it simply that the actual articles for the two and the other articles covering this timeframe are written kind of sloppingly? Criticalthinker (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Following up on this. Jashari's page shows she was dimissed as President of the provincial party on 17 November 1988, but that she served as chair of the provincial executive council until 9 May 1989? Is that so? BTW, could someone explain in the article the difference between the "Chair of the Executive Committee" of the province, and the "President of the Presidency" of the province? And this all seems to have been in addition to the "President of the Presidency" of the provincial party. The "Politics" section needs to be fleshed out to explain how all of these were related to one another (who elected each, etc.). Criticalthinker (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)