Talk:Yugoslavs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Etymology

Is it correct that "Yugoslav" literally means "South Slav"? Could someone knowledgable please discuss this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.148.24 (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.177.82 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

concept prior to second Yugoslavia

I think I patched the article up sufficiently. Information about the existence of the concept in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (i.e. prior to SFRY) would be appreciated. I recall seeing one note about how the King banned different nationalities at one point in order to quell nationalism, but I'm not sure. --Joy [shallot] 13:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Serbo-Croats"

I'm removing the link to "Serbo-Croats" because it doesn't have a page and unless the rationale is provided, we'll only be promulgating the existence of this confusing while fairly insignificant term. I remember seeing it once on an American (or was it Australian?) TV show and wondering why they didn't bother to check whether "Serbo-Croatian language" translates into a nationality... --Joy [shallot] 13:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Minor grammatical point

It's not that there's a difference in meaning between 'the reason why' and 'the reason that', it's just that the former is an (admittedly common) grammatical error. As Fowler puts it in a slightly different context, there's a tautological overlap between 'reason' and 'why'. I'm interested, though — what did you take 'the reason that' to say that 'the reason why' doesn't? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "the most common reasons that people declared themselves Yugoslavs included..." doesn't make sense to me. We are not talking about the reasons that they declared, but about their reasons for declaring. In other words, they didn't actually have to elaborate their decision, we're explaining their state of mind, not something that they officially said.

A replacement sentence "the most common reasons that people had for declaring themselves Yugoslavs included..." would make sense, but I don't see why that would be better than using the "why". Although, I'm not a native speaker so I could well be wrong — please explain. --Joy [shallot] 10:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your suggested replacement sentence is fine — and means exactly what my corrected sentence does. The sentence with 'why' doesn't mean anything different, it's just grammatically incorrect; the correct construction is the same for: 'it's the house that Jack built', 'the country that I visited last year has just been invaded', and 'the reason that she said that she was Irish is that she's always been told that she was born in Limerick'. But, given that your new sentence is perfectly correct and reads well, I've put it in place of the old one in order to avoid any more disagreement.
(I should explain, by the way, that despite my User name I'm not Greek but English; in fact I taught English as a Foreign Language in Oxford for many years.)

Oh well. I'll take you word for it, although I've never heard of this. --Joy [shallot]

One more important point, though. Were the reasons listed in the article given by those calling themselves Yugoslavs, or are they explanations offered by others? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, both. :) --Joy [shallot]

offensive

A discussion on why someone declared some ethnic identity is extremenly offensive. Concluding that one has declared herself a Yugoslav because she did not have strong ethnic feelings is even more offensive. Finally, saying that "most Yugoslavs switched back to traditional nationalities such" is showing historical and political ignorance as well as ethnic insensitivity on the part of the writer. Most of us did not "switch back" because one cannot "switch back" to what she never was and many Yugoslavs were claiming that ethnicity since they were born. Further, many did not have a chance to declare Yugoslav identity since many newly formed countries have deleted such an option so the choice became to refuse to declare yourself as anything or to pick one of the options. This is an example of bureaucratic ethnic cleansing, further supported by the acceptance of the erasure of an entire population and trivialisation of the people through articles similar to this one.

Can you please be a little more specific? I'm not sure what part of the article, or discussion, you find offensive and why? --Hurricane Angel 03:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have scoured the web looking for information about Yugoslavs in 2006. Does anyone have a link to any site which gives accurate figures of the number of Yugoslavs today, not just in the former republics but over the world? It would make a good addition to the article. So might any political movement among the Yugoslavs from one republic to the next, I am sure there are still minor political parties but finding these things is hard. Celt 16 March 2006

An invented ethnicity: Yugoslavs

Apparently now users on wikipedia have invented a new ethnicity. I suppose people in Switzerland should be listed under the "Swiss" ethnicity too. Yugoslav is a designation that was created by the Yugoslavian census. It does not count as a modern day biological/cultural/or any sort of ethnicity. Hence, it does not merit an infobox. 72.144.60.37 07:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is an Internet Troll and there is no reason for response to his post. PANONIAN (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, this is a fine example of Ad Hominem attack. Argument is either valid or not, regardless of who wrote it.

Hiding behind "Troll! Troll!" is not a good way to contribute to wikipedia. I suggest that someone do respond to this, if you don't want to look like you don't have answer to this. --Ante Perkovic 12:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But he is Troll. Denying the right of people to identify themselves as Yugoslavs is a clear example of trolling. How would you feel if somebody tell you: "no your ethnicity does not exist, you are not what you claim, but something else"? PANONIAN (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And also, I do not see what kind of answer I can give to person that claim that "users on wikipedia have invented a new ethnicity"? It is obvious that such person never read this article, never saw results from Yugoslav censa, never met somebody who consider himself Yugoslav, etc. The second claim that "Yugoslav is a designation that was created by the Yugoslavian census" also come from the person that have no idea how census is performed - the census does not "create" designations, but only register what people say about their ethnicity. In 1981 census, number of people who stated their ethnicity as Yugoslav was as high as 1,209,024! How they could be listed in census results instead as Yugoslavs? The Yugoslav designation was created by people who declared themselves as such, not by the census. Furthermore, Yugoslavs are recognized as separate ethnicity by the authorities in Serbia, thus one sockpuppet with 4 edits on Wikipedia certainly do not know more than people who work in the statistical office of Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But, he got the point. Being "Yugoslav" is merely a political statement, not nationality. Noone is being "yugoslav" because his ancestors were yugoslavs. Those people "decided" to be yugoslavs (mostly because they couldn't decide whether they will be Serb/Croat/Bosniak/Macedonian... like the father or Albanian/Serb/Slovenian/... like the mother. "Yugoslav" is just another name for people not wanting to declare that they belong to some specific "real" nation. The "swiss" comparison is valid. --Ante Perkovic 18:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no "real" ethnic groups. All of them are invented to some extent, and all of them are political statements to an extent. Zocky | picture popups 18:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zocky 100%. There is really no such thing as "natural" or "real" nations. All of them are invented and artificial. I do not know much about the "swiss" case because I am mostly interested in things in eastern half of Europe, but if the "swiss" case is same as Yugoslav, they should have table too (of course, we do not discuss the "swiss" but Yugoslav case here). PANONIAN (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslav was an ethnic designation not a biological/cultural descented ethnic group. "Serb" and "Croat" is an ethnic group because the Serbs are culturally, linguistically, genetically, and historically tied as a people. Same with Croats. "Yugoslavs" is just, as Perkovic mentioned, a declaration. It's not a real ethnic group anymore than "United-States-ian" is. 72.144.114.25 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Panonian, despite you calling me a "troll" and claiming that I "..never read this article, never saw results from Yugoslav censa, never met somebody who consider himself Yugoslav..have no idea how census is performed - the census does not "create" designations, but only register what people say about their ethnicity..." I still haven't attacked you for being slightly "POV-pushing" in your edits.

Also, I said that "Yugoslav" is a census creation meaning that the term only originated from the Yugoslavian census - not that the census "invented" it. I'm saying people invented it and some users are now pushing it for a real ethnicity. 72.144.114.25 17:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs are no different than any other group that speak Serbo-Croatian language. Serbs and Croats are "artificial" as much as Yugoslavs in this case. If you do not recognize them it is your personal opinion, and Wikipedia is not place to present it. PANONIAN (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs aren't defined as a legitimate ethnicity anywhere. No more than "American" is a legitimate ethnicity for people in the United States. 72.144.114.25 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ante, you still believe that this user is not troll? PANONIAN (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I will give answer to him (no matter of wikipedia policy "do not feed a troll"): so, mister anonymous, who should define who is "legitimate ethnicity" and who is not? You perhaps? One interesting book I have named "Lexicon of the peoples of the World" (Mile Nedeljković, Leksikon naroda sveta, Beograd, 2001), list all these peoples whose infobox you removing as separate ethnicities, and the author of this book certainly know more than one sockpuppet on Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, Americans are quite "legitimate" ethnic designation in USA. See the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg PANONIAN (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that - thats why I brought it to your attention. It's paralleled. People can't ethnically be "American" unless they were Native Americans. Yet, the ethnic designation is still on the census. Much in the same way, Yugoslavs are an ethnic designation on the census - but in what way are they possibly an ethnic group? Maybe if you had someone who had a Croatian grandfather, Macedonian grandmother, Serbian grandfather, and Slovenian grandmother - I guess that could loosely qualify as a "Yugoslav" - in a very silly way though. 68.212.177.48 03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You are a troll and a vandal. You will be blocked. Good bye. --serbiana - talk 04:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, that is an example of fine, well sourced argimen ;). --195.29.145.162 07:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The only definition of ethnicity that covers all the world's peoples is ethnic identity - i.e. what those people think they are. If there are two persons who think they are X in the ethnic sense, they have a common ethnic identity (i.e. both think they are X), which makes them members of the ethnic group X.

But, even based on other criteria, Yugoslavs are no less genetically, linguistically, culturally and religuously related than e.g. Germans. Zocky | picture popups 10:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Yugoslav was an ethnic designation not a biological/cultural descented ethnic group. "Serb" and "Croat" is an ethnic group because the Serbs are culturally, linguistically, genetically, and historically tied as a people. Same with Croats. "Yugoslavs" is just, as Perkovic mentioned, a declaration. It's not a real ethnic group anymore than "United-States-ian" is."

Genetically and linguistically different, you say? As different as let's say a German with a Berliner accent and a Deutscher with a Munchen accent? We can skip the language details because we both know how different the languages are, but can you show me your genetic research on Serbs and Croats. I would prefer both DNA and mitochondrial DNA sources. --Hurricane Angel 12:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL Where did I say say that Serbs and Croats are genetically and linguistically different? 72.144.150.20 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And now to conclude this ridiculous discussion with official sources published by the Statistical Office of Serbia: http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/Zip/SN31.pdf According to this official document, 80,721 citizens of Serbia declared themselves as Yugoslavs in 2002 census and in this document they are listed in a table which had this title: "Stanovništvo prema nacionalnoj ili etničkoj pripadnosti po popisu 2002" (English translation: "Population by ethnicity or nationality in 2002 census"!!!!). If Statistical Office of Serbia treat here Yugoslavs as an ethnic group, then they are ethnic group. People who work in the Statistical Office certainly better know what is a definition of an ethnic group than one kid that even do not know how to register nickname on Wikipedia. Every further comment is futile. I rest my case here. PANONIAN (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia, we use a policy WP:CITE. Unless you can site a reference that claims "Yugoslavs" is an ethnic group. The statistical office of Serbia does not register people purely as ethnic groups. In fact, most censuses don't. Even the United States census has American as a designation. Good luck finding a reference claiming "American" is a legitimate ethnic group. You're ignoring what is said on this page even! "Yugoslav was an ethnic designation used by some people in former Yugoslavia, which continues to be used in some of its successor countries." "Czechoslovakian" and "Soviet" is an ethnic designation too, but neither are ethnic groups. Unless you can cite a reference which specifically says Yugoslavs is a legitimate historical ethnic group, the infobox is inappropriate. You can hide behind your "Troll! Vandal!" accusations all you wish. 72.153.53.193 16:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I already cited my source and I will repeat it: http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/Zip/SN31.pdf If you do not know to read Serbian, learn it, but Yugoslavs are listed there as an ethnic group, so they are ethnic group, thus your "opinion" about the subject is COMPLETELLY IRRELEVANT. Got it? PANONIAN (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, census results in Serbia do register only ethnic groups in this listing: people that did not declared their ethnicity are listed in the line "neizjašnjeni i neopredeljeni" (meaning in English: "did not declared or stated their ethnicity"). PANONIAN (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just one question for the Anonymous user 72.153.53.193: exactly what makes a group of people a "legal ethnic group"? And what is anybody anyway if not a statistic of a designated ethnic group? Do you really think there is anything more concrete about being Russian, or Irish, or Turkish? Take the term "legal" and consider the world's largest recognised stateless nation, the Kurds. They occupy large sections of four big countries. Three of those four governments (Syria, Turkey and Iran) never recognised the national claims of these people in the past, whether they do or not now is something I don't know. However, had Iraq not given the Kurds some form of autonomy in the early 70s, would that mean that so-called Kurds are not a legal ethnic group? As for "designated ethnicity", tell me, which people ethnicly affiliated to the Germans but originating outside of German territory (not descending from an earlier diaspora) call themselves German? In Vienna they declare themselves Austrian, so if areas accross the border into Bavaria had been absorbed into Austria before becoming a part of the modern German state, would those people (remember, never having lived in what you know as the Federal Republic of Germany) still claim to be ethnic-Germans living in Austria? If so why? What would they share in common with Hanoverians some hundreds of kiloemtres north, but have so different from the rest of Austria, itself a small country? All this according to you makes "German" (and others, too many to mention) ethnic designations as well. --Evlekis 09:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A very real Ethnicity

Without political fueds, Yugoslav would be the MOST realistic ethnic group for the Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks. With this said, there is no difference between the three other than religion and preference of alphabet (i.e; cyrillic / latin). The only reason this ethnicity does not exist realistically is because politics has prevented it from thriving.

I agree but on the whole, it is neither here nor there. Each of the three nations have a religion synonymous to the name but that doesn't truely stop one of its members from converting, nor one from another religion accepting the other's nationality, but if the Muslim chooses to be Muslim-by-Nationality as many still do, nor having accepted Bosniak, then it will be strange for him or her to be Roman Catholic and still pertaining to the original religiously inspired nationality. The key difference is down to ideology, there are those who strongly feel that difference in religion, linguistic variation and history should not necessarily prevent people from embracing those ethnicly affiliated to them to create a nation. Therfore, supposing a Mostar-based Catholic wishes to be Yugoslav, as shall we say a Muslim living among Gorani along the Serb (Kosovar)-Macedonian border belt may also choose, they are automaticly national affiliates regardless what their family members and local friends may think. Suffice it to say that the Muslim's neighbour's (a declared Goran) reluctance to accept the Mostar-based Catholic as a member of his nation does not fictionalise the dreams of the pro-Yugoslav neighbour, but rather alienates himself from his pro-Yugoslav neighbour. One's nationality is only what one declares. As democratic people, we must respect this.Evlekis 18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

"Yugoslav" is a political term only. Of course literally, they are "south Slavs" just like Poles and Russians are "north Slavs", but if someone from Russia referred to themselves and Poles as that, it would be obvious that the goal was political. In it's early inception, people calling themselves "Yugoslavs" did so out of support of some socialist-imperialist ideal. Today, it is nothing more than Serbian imperial propaganda. Any Croat that calls himself a Yugoslav today is a traitor as far as I am concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.177.82 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In so far as ethnicities will unite so as to separate from others, all ethnicities are formed on some form of political platform. You need never fear a Croat calling himself Yugoslav because to do so would be self-contradictory, a man can be Croat or Yugoslav but not both. It makes no difference what his parents were, for to say that a man's parents are Montenegrin so he is Montenegrin is equally erroneous. A man's parents are Montenegrin, Croatian, or Roma because that is how they declare themselves. If everyone had to be what his parents were then the whole world would be one and the same ethnic group. Otherwise at what point can one start to refer to himself as something his parents are not? Likewise you can achieve the opposite result when a person, such as Siniša Mihajlović will call himself Serb when born to two parents declaring Yugoslav. His parents' own parents all being Serb one side and Croat the other only brings us back to Square One, which is that these were the ethnicities by which they identified. There is nothing more rigid about being Croat/Serb than there is Yugoslav. The centuries gone by have not only seen change in the way people embrace nationality, nor only that more than one demonym could have been used simultaneously by the same person, but also that individuals and chunks of the population have redesignated themselves at various times either by force or by choice. So "nations" in all cases are nothing more than imaginary communities. Furthermore, there is no link between Serbian imperialism and Yugoslav identity. Serbs are Serbs, Yugoslavs are Yugoslavs. If anyone traditionally embraced Pan-Slavism and continued to call himself Serb or Croat, then he did so accepting that Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were three ethnicities. In this case, nobody would attempt to call themselves Yugoslavs. Also in addition to your "today's Serbian propaganda", those declaring Yugoslav may be any of the three major faiths within the former SFRY or even athiest, and they may speak any of the languages, Slovene or Macedonian included. And even if a Yugoslav meets your quasi-criteria that make him "Serb", how Serbian can he be if he is refusing the name? How Serb can he be if taking a name that can be used by non-Serb Slavs? It is simple, history has seen Bavarian, Saxonian, Prussian or Swabian identities, so you can stretch your argument to denounce a "German" ethnicity too, claiming that too to be on some political basis. In fact, that argument would be even stronger, think about it, the continuation of West Germanic dialect speakers into Holland means people suddenly become Netherlanders/Dutch, why not still German? Down south, Austrian or Swiss, and back north, Luxembourgish or Flemish (with the exception of Belgian Germans who remained in place after the borders were redrawn). Take your argument to the Germans page. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

More

There's more to a Yugoslav people than presented dully in this article - the origin dates back far beyond. And the fact that the majority indeed were "Yugoslavs" fro twenty years isn't relly emphasized. --PaxEquilibrium 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs Abroad

This one is difficult, I am very interested to see the source which speaks of tens of thousands of Yugoslavs in the South American countries. The reason that it appears odd is that those countries have similar economies to our Modern eastern European microstates (lies, filth, government corruption, empty promises, puppets to the US, rich presidents and poor normal people etc). That is not to say that they could not have ended up there some other way though. The interesting point is that each country has its own manner in carrying out its census and I see that in the UK, one is categorised by his declared ethnic group which doesn't always correspond to ones chosen nationality. What I'm simply saying is that there must be a few numbers here and there in every country where there remains a Yugoslav diaspora who declare themselves Yugoslavs. Naturally, most will choose their modern republic or more familiar affiliation (eg. Serb if Orthodox from Bosnia etc), but it would be interesting to estimate the number of Yugoslavs from the diaspora countries such as Australia, Switzerland, Sweden and the UK. The question is, how?! Evlekis 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

Photo strip

I have added a photo strip for the people who helped form Yugoslav identity. Reisender 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Lepa Brena, Ljudevit Gaj

I think thats a very good idea, but Ljudevit Gaj and Lepa Brena should be added to the Photo Strip, too. They had the strongest feelings for the yugoslav nation.

Many people had strong feelings for the Yugoslav nation but the photo strip can only have so many faces. These tend to be those who were more instrumental in the country actually being what it was. So Gaj maybe, Brena though is just a modern celebrity; there must be thousands like her even if it is not immediately clear. The problem with the strip is Vuk Karadzic. I could be wrong but the literature I have read about him makes him sound more Serbian than Yugoslav, meaning that his linguistic reforms were in the name of Serbian and his vision of a larger state meant incorporating Bosnia and much of Croatia on the grounds that those people were Serbs; I could find this easily enough but it is all secondhand (ie. written in English by analysts). Evlekis 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

Actually Vuk Karadzic's works contributed to the formation of Serbo-Croatian, and the photo strip shows the people who contributed to Yugoslav identity. Vuk Karadzic is an essential figure in the formation of a union. Also, much of the Croatian language is based on Karadzic's formation of the alphabet. 68.118.250.233 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not what it should show. Many people contributed to Yugoslav identity without being Yugoslavs themselves. // estavisti 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavs means "South Slavs" and those people fall under that category, especially Vuk Karadzic.

That's disingenuous and you know it. If the two terms were synonymous, we wouldn't have two articles on the two topics (see: South Slavs). "Yugoslav" is also a political identity, which doesn't exclude national identities like Serb, Croat etc. You'll notice that this article is about the ethnicity (it uses the ethnicity infobox). There is no evidence that Vuk considered himself to be of Yugoslav ethnicity, although he did believe in South Slav unity (not the same thing).

All I'm saying is that we should discuss this before deciding whether to insert it or not. You ramming it in by reverting repeatly is just annoying and not conducive to an atmosphere of cooperation. I won't revert or edit it for now, but I suggest you don't see that as you having "won the argument". // estavisti 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We're having a discussion here. Now the point is that Vuk Karadzic was living in a time when the ethnicity was being formed (obviously he couldn't be something that was not created YET) but he was for the idea, thus his works were used to unify the Croat-Serb people. He was a supporter of the union and we know what that leads to. Also, in the book A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples it is clearly stated that the union meant to combine the "one and same people" who were dispersed into different "tribes." From what we know, Vuk Karadzic supported the Yugoslav ethnicity by being for such union. He himself being of the "serb tribe" would make him a Yugoslav, having believed in such cause.

Well, you seem remarkably uninformed... And we're discussing this after you rammed your change through, but anyway... It's your opinion that "Vuk Karadzic was living in a time when the ethnicity was being formed". Do you have any sources to back up that claim? He was "for the idea"? What idea? You don't even specify. What is A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples? Who wrote it? Who published it? How do I know it's a reputable source, and not something you just made up? Even if I take what you say at face value, what can some book say, against the man's own works? Take a look Vuk Stefanović Karadžić. Every work has the word "Serbian" in the title. Take a look at these reputable sources that refer to him as a Serb - Encyclopaedia Britannica, University College London, Microsoft Encarta etc. On the other hand, we have your opinion that he belonged to the Serb "tribe", which is - frankly - offensive bullshit. Are you even serious? --estavisti 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion? Have you read the Vuk Karadzic page? Do you know what the Illyrian Movement was all about? No! The book is written by Fred Singleton BEFORE the civil war. Also, please do not attack me with your over worded sentences. Vuk Karadzic was for the idea when the Yugoslav Identity was taking shape. And yes, those who supported this idea saw this unification process as something similar to what the Germans had gone through. Please read the book, you can find it on Amazon.

Number of reputable, verifiable sources you provided? Zero. One book which was written during the Communist period. And you don't even provide quotes from that one book. What may be "clearly stated" in your eyes may be nothing of the sort to others. Number of points you answered? Zero. The fact remains, I listed three credible, reputable sources that list him as a Serb. His work deals with the Serbian language - not the "Yugoslav" language, not the "South Slav" language, not the "Serbo-Croat" language, but the Serbian language. It's not disputed that he had pro-Yugoslav leanings. However, that is a political orientation, not an ethnicity, and so his inclusion in the pictures of famous Yugoslavs is misleading and incorrect, and merely an expression of your political opinion. // estavisti 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that he is a Serb, but being a Serb can qualify you to be a Yugoslav , as many have proclaimed themselves to be. Also, his serbian works were used to link serbo-croatian .. please read up on that. He is a big figure in the unification of the language of former Yugoslavia.

As the strip should show people who themselves identified as Yugoslavs, Vuk Karadzic is a Bad Idea. Nikola 19:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Nikola. I have revised the strip. Reisender 19:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Goran Bregović is arguably the most famous self-identifed Yugoslav. Duja^►

There is another problem with all of this. Many people were proud Yugoslavs during the time of the country and in the end, some of those played a part in its disolvement. Here is an example: take the Montenegrin speaker of Parliament Ranko Krivokapic. He has said on RTCG that during the time of Yugoslavia, he was one of its biggest supporters but without the 4 out of 5 republics, there was no point in Montenegro being united with Serbia. Now just supposing that he became who he is but 80 years ago, the likelyhood is that he wouldn't be here today, and being known of course, he could have been on that photostrip. So what is to say that Ljudevit Gaj would still have supported a united South Slavic ethnic group had been fortunate to still be alive in 1992?! And the other thing: it is known that people today declare their nationalities as Yugoslav (I have family who do this though I don't personally), and it is primarily on them that the article is written, but, from 1945-1991, each citizen of Jugoslavija had his own internal nationality, I doubt "Yugoslav" was actually applicable then because it had to correspond to one of the six republican adjectives, or Muslim, otherwise a name for a people based outside of Yugoslavia (ie. Romanian, Albanian, Italian etc). My point is that "internally", Goran Bregovic could have been a Serb, or Croat (probably not a Muslim unless that was his faith which I don't believe was) and he STILL could have been a proud Yugoslav. I am not against the photostrip, only it is difficult to establish what really is what. Ragusan 14:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

> To correct you, during Yugoslavia the ethnic group "Yugoslav" was allowed and many people did proclaim themselves as that.

I only said I doubted it was used. All right I know it was once upon a time widely used. The first census showed 85% or so as Yugoslav with hardly an entry for Serb or Croat etc. The other 15% were mostly other nations (Albanians etc). I just didn't think it was used after 1945. My point was that many who believed in the cause whilst it was active did abandon it when it came to supporting an independent republic. I mean, if the overall percentage of Yugoslavs from all six former republics today is about 0.1% (an estimate is difficult because they hardly register in Slovenia, Croatia or Macedonia), then there MUST have been millions more proud Yugoslavs during the SFRJ. No way does 0.1% control 99.9%, not even with all the military and oppression. Please don't think I am in any way against Yugoslavs or people who choose that name! Ragusan 20:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

> You're right, but the ethnicity has no faults.. this is something political now. The people who lived can only be viewed on the times they lived, not in another century, etc. So, what I am saying is that Yugoslav is no longer used because of political fueds.

At long last we have statistics from Croatia. 176 is better than nothing! Jordovan 13:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gaj

There is no mention, at least not in Wikipedia, of Ljudevit Gaj ever having spoken in the terms of Yugoslav or Yugoslavs. His fairly liberal linguistic policy is a natural predecessor to the Yugoslav idea, but it is just that - a predecessor, not a constituent. Unless someone has evidence to point otherwise, he should be removed from the image. --Joy [shallot] 16:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there isn't. Gaj's lifetime predates the first time when Yugoslav was accepted on censa as a regocnised ethnicity. But then I don't honestly know that any of those people call themsleves Yugoslav. We can say that Tito did, but then where is the significance? A President for Life for over 25 years, infallible; yet if he had to be, why didn't he make everyone else this ethnicity in the same way that people had to become French, Spanish, Italian, German, Polish etc. when they too became absorbed into their respective countries. The Yugoslavs today are few, and I doubt any of them are notable; they are at most every day communal people fully blended into their societies, or as they may feel: the other ethnicities revolve around them. If this comes to a concensus, I would vote to remove the gallery all together. Evlekis 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if none of those people ever considered themselves (officially or unofficially, it's the thought that counts) Yugoslavs, then they could all be removed, yes, that is true. But I'm not arguing that, I'm simply saying that the case of Gaj is particularly strange. The others don't seem too controversial. You will notice that I'm not arguing against the inclusion of Ante Trumbić, who was another Croat who predated Yugoslavia itself, because in his case there's a rather clear connection to the Yugoslav Committee. But for Gaj, there is no such clear link. --Joy [shallot] 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If that be the case, then I'd get rid of him all together because you will never find the type of link you are looking for. In his place, I'm currently in favour of adding Oliver Dulić. I'm sure there will be no dispute if you remove Gaj along the grounds you stated. Evlekis 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Slovenia

As you'll all see, there is a link for Slovenia now and it appears that they too systematicly fail to take this ethnicity seriously in that they have acknowledged the numbers yet place them in the section "undeclared" where they also display the small numbers who have declared themselves regionally, again, the individuals are discriminated for their choice. Evlekis 15:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

World War 1

The result of Yugoslav nationalism. (I added this as it is very important and it was the result of Yugoslav nationalism)

Probably due to some kind of nationalism because the ethnicity isn't factual. It's like being a Soviet or a Czechoslovak. Yugoslavs is just a nostalgic thing mostly for people born to mixed nationality parents, but it should be like everywhere else. Half-French, Half-Spanish kids don't go round calling themselves Latins or Romans and Half-Serbs Half-Slovenes shouldn't hide behind "Yugoslav" either. Either they should accept that they are the one which matters to them more, or go on record as being mixed. Serbs and Croats are distinct ethnicities and nobody is geneticly Slavic, only linguisticly, so what is someone who is half-French half-Serb? an ethnic European? 195.27.52.149 11:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What a load of trash. You ovbiously havn't got a clue. People declare themselves Yugoslavs, they are accepted. I choose to be Serb and there is nothing more definete about that. As Yugoslav means South Slav, the term "Slav" not only underlies everything that from where modern Serbianism is derived, but it goes on to include other peope in other places, who happen to want to call themselves Bokelji, Hrvati, Makedonci, Bulgari itd. I am Serb not because it was passed down to me, you want the facts? It wasn't, my father is to this day another nationality and my mother doesnt actually come from todays Serbia. I don't need to say more.I want to be Serb not so much because I come from there but because for personal reasons, I dont want to take Slovenes, Croats and Bulgarians as what I call my nation (Montenegrins and Macedonians are OK, but they dont wanna be Serb and I cant force them). So if they wanna be Yugoslavs, that they are, you cannot distinguish what makes someone Macedonian and another one Serbian in the same town. Even in Bosnia, the three religions and three nationalities dont all corelate 100%. As for genetics. Remember friend, there are hundreds of millions of Slavic peoples, genes are different accross the board compared with Basques who are only a small group. BUT, if you want to take a small group of South Slavs from the same place, but those who give themselves different nationalities, you'll see they are geneticaly closer than to their own people living on the other side of same country. If genes told the facts, Serbs and Croats would never argue over who is the Muslims of Bosnia, they'd take blood tests and see. Stop attacking Yugoslavs. Jordovan 15:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a nation

Yugoslavs are not a nation. Never were, never will be. Before the country was created there was never such a people to call themselves Yugoslavs. Yes you had your Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Slovenians, but never "Yugoslav". The country was a federation, that meant "made up from little pieces". It was at most a rendition of "Greater Serbia". When they saw they had the chance to take over Croats and Slovenes, they jumped at the chance, same way they annexed Kosova. The term was used to force people into a forced "brotherhood" they never believed in. Serbs and Croats don't even have the same ethnogenetical origins. All the nations have their own ethnogenetical origins and so "Yugoslav" isn't a nationality or an ethnicity either. I vote this page for deletion with immediate effect. Lepa Brena was a Bosniak, and the so-called Yugoslav "Tito" was Half-Croatian, Half-Slovenian. How can he have been Yugoslav? Ethnicity is about genes, Slavs are not united, only by language. Speedy deletion. Shqipman 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Yugoslavs are not a nation, however there are people who consider themselves to be Yugoslavs by nationality (and they apparently consider Yugoslavs to be a nation). The rest of your writing is complete nonsense. Nikola 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a Yugoslav nation, in 1929-2003. Please see Nation. --PaxEquilibrium 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction. There is a Yugoslav nation. Check the censa of Canada, the USA and Serbia! (esp. Shqipman) Evlekis 18:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Serbs and Croats are ethnically identical. Himmler's nazi documents should not be taken as a scientific fact. Albanians and Serbs/Croats are not ethnically identical, but I am sure that you are aware that albanians were a minority in Yugoslavia.

Well that's right. Of course there are principles beyond politics for choosing such a nation. Obviously choosing to be Serb, Croat or Bosniak also has its ideologies, theories and principles but I shouldn't take the Shqipman comments too seriously. He didn't make too many friends anywhere on Wikipedia, not even among the reputable Albanian Wikipedians. Evlekis 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"All the nations have their own ethnogenetical origins and so "Yugoslav" isn't a nationality or an ethnicity either." Yes, you're so correct. I've heard about this American ethnicity, it's so real! --Hurricane Angel 08:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is an ethnicity, people use it to identify and that is the end. It is not a nationality in the "relationship to state" sense but it forms its basis on its members as well as those closely affiliated having a Slavic background. Apart from that, if you make a closer inspection of just about every single "accepted" ethncity, you can place question marks on all of them. I don't simply refer to those in the former Yugoslavia, I mean across the world. Evlekis (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The article

Let's leave this stupid irrelevant subject. It's been proved conclusively that this nation exists and that it is founded on solid principle. People can be what they choose. If he wants to be American with no affiliation to European or Asian ancestors, so let him. It's getting exhausting. Does anyone agree that this article should be moved from Start-Class to Level B? It seems the meet the criteria. It has an infobox, it has sources and the infobox matches the sources too. It's a bit advanced for Start Class, any comment? Balkantropolis 08:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are partially correct, but not everyone can be a "Yugoslav." One must come from the tribes that make up the south slavic people. It is not the same as American. For example, an ablanian or greek could not be a "Yugoslav." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.129.28 (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Interesting point. I see what you're saying and that is also "partially correct!", not because you're "partially wrong" but because it is a paradox. Of course a Greek or an Albanian could not be a Yugoslav, but if he wishes to be, what is stopping him? It's only what you decare on the census what makes you what you are; but then once you have declared it, if you are serious in your desire for people to see you as that, you don't additionally identify as being Greek or Albanian. It's one thing for Serbs and Croats to rally around a unifying flag which flies for both groups but not others whilst still maintaining their Serbian or Croatian identity, but totally different when they are not calling themselves Serb or Croat in the first place, but Yugoslav. This is what the article is all about: I'd gamble my life that if you were to count the number of people who still see themsleves as united across all six former republics and their resepctive diasporas, the number would be high in its millions, but the sources used only give us those who have chosen the name itself. That means those who have disassociated themselves with the proposed nationality which "other people see them as being!" --Evlekis 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry i have huge objection to this article.I consider myself fully Yugoslav,:my mother is half Serb half Macedonian,the father is of foreign non european descent.however I am of protestant religion.I demand that ASAP under tab religion you add "protestants" besides all those you named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.108 (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable Yugoslavs

If those displayed are in any way controversial, then it may be worth noting that Serbia's speaker of Parliament Oliver Dulić self-identifies as Yugoslav. It is of particular importance as he is a contemporary polititian and only 32 years old. Evlekis 03:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I also would like everyone to take a look at this: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=41413

Count me in, too; I believe that, in the near future, Yugoslavia will once again become one nation. (Tovarishch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.147.168 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Tito and the resistance to Germany

This article states that Yugoslavs have affected world history at many times; as an example it mentions that Tito would have been the first to organise resistance against the Germans in WWII. That's simply not correct. There were resistance groups operating in countries such as France and Norway even before the invasion of Yugoslavia, and the Chetniks had taken action against the Germans before Tito decided to, only after the German invasion of USSR.JdeJ 15:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The article meant that he was the first to organize against them in Yugoslavia. Article has been changed.

That is of very little relevance. He wasn't the first in Europe and he wasn't the first in Yugoslavia. And once again, removing tags without providing credible sources is vandalism. Not that I think you'll mind, as you have quite a history of vandalism with both your main account and your sockpuppet.JdeJ 06:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the article, it seems you don't do reading. He was the first in Yugoslavia to organize a real resistance. Cetnik government ran in exile when Tito organized the resistance. You must do the reading. Also, Cetniks goals werent a unified Yugoslavia as they committed atrocities against croat and bosniak populations and cooperated with nazis.

I've read the article, thank you very much. I've read quite a number on Yugoslav history as well. To begin with, there was never any Cetnik government, only the legal government of Yugoslavia that escaped the Nazis. Regardless of the Cetniks' goals, their attrocities and their alliances (and I don't dispute any of your points there), they were still the first resistance. As for the fact tag, you haven't provided any source for it. The article in itself can never be a source for a claim, so please provide a reliable external source or stop vandalising the article by removing tags. JdeJ 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

they are not the first resistance. Show me proof. Tito's partisans were the official resistance group. When I say Cetnik government I mean the monarchy , the king fled the country and Tito's partisans took charge. I am not vandalizing, but I see that you have no sources. I will put my sources in if it means you will back off with false history.

Don't try to turn the tables and hurl out false accusations. I haven't written one word of this article, so what is there I'd have to prove? Nothing at all. You, on the other hand, make several claims without giving any sources, and when you are asked for sources you just remove the tags instead of giving any sources.JdeJ 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. My sources are now listed.

How is Tito's communist's listed as the first resistance in Serbia!? The Chetnik's were absolutely 100% the first fighting force even documented by 1942 TIME magazine where Draza Mihajlovic was named man of Year [1] So lets delete this preposterous abomination of a article and write the truth please.98.228.74.209 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavrilo Princip

Can someone explain this? --78.0.116.133 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He identified himself as a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming to unify all Yugoslavs in any form of state except that of austro hungary. Read up

He's more a Serbian nationalist than a Yugoslav, but that's just my opinion. He's not the best example!!! --78.0.110.91 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, that's your opinion and opinions don't cut it in an encyclopedia. He was pro Yugoslav (as he called himself that) and because he wished to have Yugoslavs under austro-hungarian rule build their own country, instead of being subjected to it.

Another non-existent race

This is one of the worst articles on the whole of Wikipedia and needs to be speedily deleted. What rubbish? I cannoty understand how some Serbs just cannot get over the fact that they lost their Communist Empire. So shameful are they as to continue a quasi-existence calling theirselves "Yugoslavs" to disguise their Serb identity. Everyone knows Yugoslavia was an artificially constructed land whose borders were drawn up by the west and there was never a Yugoslav nation or tribe before. Inside the land you had various ethnicities: Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Bosnians, Kosovans, Serbs, Albanians and Muslims, all with totally different backgrounds. But because Belgrade was the capital and Serbia was the centre of it all, I don't see why we need to dedicate an entire page to present a fallacy, a false lie, a non-existent dream. Who goes round with a "Yugoslav" passport? Which country would let you in? I bet now even Serbia won't let people in with these fake documents, not since it rid itself of the fascist dictator and Butcher of the Balkans Milosevic. Please delete this page. X Ray Tex (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You delete it. Evlekis (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All of the above text is just a nationalistic trash. Yugoslavian race exists and will exist; over half a million Serbs, Croats, Bosnians and Montenegrins are declaring themselves as 'Yugoslavs'; that big number of people with Yugoslavian consciousness is stable and growing each next year. We, Yugoslavs know exactly who we are and no idiotic nationalistic propaganda, which caused all the senseless brother-killing wars between our peoples in the past, can change our way. Those are the facts, and the nationalists can just helplessly watch the filure of their hopeless separatistic proplaganda, all over the world and forever. Cheers. 24.86.116.250 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

More and more Yugoslavs declared.

After Lepa Brena, Goran Bregovic, Johnny Stulic, Mira Furlan, Zdravko Colic, Boris Novkovic, Bruno Langer, Kemal Monteno, Kaliopi and many other famous ex-yugoslavian stars declared their Yugoslavian consciousness, there are more and more people from all walks of life, who put the REASON before some artificial national divisions from the past. These noble people who believe in the obvious FACTS that Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins are one and the same people, and that Slovenes and Macedonians (and Bulgarians) are slightly different linguistically but are an extended and crucial part of the Yugoslav identity, like it is defined in the article, are found today more and more often between the ex-yugoslav politicians. Oliver Dujic, Damir Kajin and Zeljko Komsic are the examples of this evergrowing number of consious politicians, free of any slavery to the nationalistic delusions. The most popular ex-yugoslavian premier Ante Markovic, who miraculously stabilized Yugoslavia just before the miserable nationalistic euphoria destroyed it, is also a declared Yugoslav. There are many, many others, who because of the political conditions in their artificial post-yugoslav 'banana-states' avoid declaring themselves as Yugoslav, but are Yugoslav in their hearts. The times are changing, and the nationalists everywhere are losing their battles evidently. Someone like it or not, many new good, bright and successfull days for all good-natured and evergrowing Yugoslavs are coming. Christmas blessings to all Yugoslavs and their supporters. Cheers.24.86.116.250 (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ethnic credibility

In the book A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples by Fred Singleton, it states that Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks are one and the same people. "Once the South Slavs had settled in the Balkans they also became separated from each other, partly because of geographical obstacles, and partly because of the historical circumstances of foreign occupations."

is it considered a fact or "propaganda"/"speculation"/similar? more information would be nice. 91.15.128.102 (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither really. It is just one ideology shared by some. So not a fact, and not propaganda; the point being made is simply about the existence of the book. Evlekis (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk?

Obviously it is more fun to edit war [2] than talk, but sometimes you just have to do the boring thing or Balkan Sanctions beckon. So: including YS as well as Serbia looks like double-counting to me, quite apart from the fact that YS doesn't exist any more. Also, why does the infobox say >400k when Germany alone is >500k, let alone the total William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The German data (1985!) and the Swiss data (1991) are from the period when Yugoslavia still existed. The censuses in these countries do not actually contain data about ethnicity, only country of origin. As such, according to their modern censuses they have zero Yugoslavians. Therefore, we have two instances of double-counting. First, we are using statistics from both Yugoslavia and its successor states. Secondly, we are using out-dated counts of "Yugoslavs" who are today (and for the past 18 years) counted by these countries as Croats, Serbs, etc.--Thewanderer (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the likes of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes etc. registered separately in those censa (Germany and Switzerland). Each country has its own system of compiling ethnicities and none are worse than the British system. But if you're sure that these details are additional to those who only call themselves Yugoslav, then feel free to remove those pieces. Evlekis (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

links for persons declaring their yugoslav identity

i do not doubt that these people still identify as yugoslavs, but i would like to see some links. is that possible? Zna (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Censi data are linked in the article, can't you read? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

i meant for the famous persons. Zna (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Meštrović must be removed from the infobox picture post-haste. Certainly not a Yugoslav for the vast majority of his life.--Thewanderer (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How about at the end of his life? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Background

It is not true that catolicism in Slovenia and Croatia came with the Italians, Germans or Hungarians. Croats accepted catolicism during the time of Kingdom of Croatia. The process of christianisation of Germans and Hungarians took place at the same time. At the same time it was done by the Slovenes. Orthodoxy, on the other hand was created second half of the 11.th century, obviously under no influence of Greeks or Russians, but mainly because of Byzantine separatist policy towards Vatican, as Byzantines wanted to have Church that is independent from the remote Vatican. - Totally wrong assumptions.....Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Serbs/Croats on this page

Why are Croats such as Tito on this page and not on the Croat page as well as say Kustarica and Andric for the Serb page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukic12345 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian letter is cyrillic...

Why is the name of Yugoslavia, in the beginning, where it should be (Macedonian:Југославија) is typed in Latin??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.164.144 (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Stjepan Bobek

Stjepan Bobek is Croat. "Nikada nisam imao nikakvih neugodnosti u Beogradu zato što sam Hrvat. Nitko me nije nikada povredio po nacionalnoj osnovi." Translated: "I never had any unpleasantness in Belgrade because I'm a Croat. Nobody ever hurt me on national basis." Stjepan Bobek said that in an article by Ljubiša Stavrić (Ispovest Stjepana Bobeka, Partizanove legende) published on 27.10.1995. in Belgrade magazine NIN. It was reprinted in a book Stjepan Bobek - Štef: nogomet je moj život (by Fredi Kramer, publisher Oto Bobek, Zagreb, 2008., ISBN 978-953-55526-0-4) on page 362.

Here's, again, in Kurir, where he in 2006 says: "I am Croat." Zaista nikada niste imali problema zbog toga što se deklarišete kao Hrvat? - Sportski sam čovek i bežim od politike. Ja sam Hrvat, normalno, ali istina je da sam zavoleo Srbiju. Translated: You realy never had any problems because you declared as Croat? - I'm a sports man and run away from politics. I am Croat, normally, but its true that I came to love Serbia.[3]--Rovoobo oboovoR 13:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

per-republic articles

I've merged in the separate article about .hr Yugoslavs in here because of extensive discussion at Talk:Yugoslavs in Croatia. The articles about .ba and .me Yugoslavs have followed suit because there's no proper claim of notability in there for standalone groups (granted the .ba number is big, but it's from 1991). Only Yugoslavs in Serbia remains, because there's 1% of relatively recent population listed, in 2002. OTOH, that was while FR Yugoslavia still existed, so it may not be entirely relevant either - if people want to merge it in here, it's perfectly legitimate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was not closed and there were no serious arguments why these articles should be merged. So nothing is perfectly legitimate. I will continue the discussion at Talk:Yugoslavs in Croatia and I still hope that a rightful solution can be found, which is not based on prejudices and nationalism. Habel (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No serious arguments, heh. Prejudices and nationalism, not heh. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Let's discuss the non-Croatian matter here. The Montenegrin group is just over a thousand people and slowly shrinking (per official census history). That number alone is not sufficient for standalone notability - the information on the subject's existence is basically verifiable, but arguing for an article just because of that is a classic case of WP:ITEXISTS. Instead, secondary sources need to be presented that discuss this group in its own right and prove its own notability. You have previously provided zero sources for that. Today I see you linked the article http://www.srbijanet.rs/vesti/drustvo/76878-perkovic-pozvao-crnogorce-da-se-izjasne-i-kao-jugosloveni.html whose notability isn't obvious (no article SrbijaNet to explain it e.g.), which doesn't even come from the same country (Serbia, not Montenegro), and which doesn't actually help the claim that this group of people is notable standalone, only that there is one person representing one unknown but topical NGO making a press release. That's simply no proof that there needs to be a standalone article on the topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For Yugoslavs in Bosnia and Herzegovina - this article also has only two sources - the 1991 census, which is long obsolete and doesn't convey any useful information about how things may be today, and this article: http://www.opendemocracy.net/heather-mcrobie-anes-makul/yugoslavs-in-twenty-first-century-%E2%80%98erased%E2%80%99-people It comes from openDemocracy.net, which is basically an e-zine, but seems to have a legitimate analysis. It, however, does not demonstrate well that the Yugoslavs in Bosnia and Herzegovina today are a notable standalone group - to the contrary, it just shows that a fledgling NGO can't even fight through the bureaucracy. The rest of the analysis does not focus on Bosnia and Herzegovina, but on former Yugoslavia in general. The standalone notability of the event of not recognizing the NGO is not demonstrated - a single article does nothing to dispel the concern of WP:ONEEVENT. So, once again, there is no proof that there needs to be a standalone article on this topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

To Habel

Your contributions were fine and nobody has cancelled them. Joy has merged the pages, not blanked the article and redirected it. The fact is simple, people identifying as Yugoslavs and those who value south Slavic unity and brotherhood or just relations are all orphaned subjects, no article can include them all and disclude everything else. You'll make more friends here if you accept this detail, the discussion may not have been formally closed by an admin but concensus has been to merge. You are more than welcome to add to the sections in the article but it is pure WP:OR to link them together. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Removals

I have removed the image from the infobox. Sources wich claim that certain persons are Yugoslavs are newspaper articles, and we also have other articles wich claim they are Serbs, or Croats, or Bosniaks. Like, for example Emir Kusturica was listed as Yugoslav, while we have a source where he personaly claims to be an ethnic Serb, like here. Also, about Josip Broz Tito, we have far more serious sources wich represent him as ethnic Croats, not even half Croat half Slovene, but only Croat. This is the reason why I removed the image, but not only these persons are disputed, I just showed them as an example. --Wustenfuchs 18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Famous Yugoslavs

• Nikola Tesla - Source that "claims" him to be a Yugoslav - [4], at the same time claims he is Serb. User that put such edit made vandalism. No sentence says he was a Yugoslav, but Serb. (I wont mention article on Wikipedia about him)
• Emir Kusturica - reason above
• Miroslav Krleža - More serious source
• Ivo Andrić - declared him self, first as Croat, then as Serb. See the article about him.
• Ante Marković - Croat again, also no source for him being a Yugoslav.
• Gavrilo Princip - Should we start with serious literature?

--Wustenfuchs 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of Yugoslavs in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Here, we follow estimate from 1996

• Bosniaks - 1,805,910
• Serbs - 1,484,530
• Croats - 571,317
• others - 58,196

This leads us to conclusion that number of 242,682 Yugoslavs by ethnicity in Bosnia and Herzegovina is imossible.

Now, we follow estimates of CIA from 2011:

It is stated that Bosnia and Herzegovina has 4,622,163 citizens (as of July 2011), of wich Bosniaks make 48%, Serbs 37,1% and Croats 14,3%. Other ethnic represent 0,6% of total population wich means, that cca number of others is 27,732. Again, number of 242,682 Yugoslavs is imbossible.

If we include number of other ethnic minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegrins, Jews, Macedonians etc, how much Yugoslavs do we have?

This means that number of Yugoslavs in present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina is cca. 5000. So why would we use statistics from 1991 wich are totaly unreal and wich can awfully deceive the reader of the article? --Wustenfuchs 19:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But you took out a lot of information including Slovenia which wasn't only sourced but was more recent than 1996. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What about Slovenia? This is about Bosnian census, I haven't considered Slovenia at all. --Wustenfuchs 13:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Please, stop reverting without explanation at talk page. --Wustenfuchs 15:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New removal

• Rade Šerbedžija - [5] "Ja sam, kao što znate, Srbin iz Hrvatske". ("I'm, as you know, Serb from Croatia").

Absolutely fine on basis of link. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

POV removal of people like Tito who identified as Yugoslavs - it is a nationality, NOT an ethnicity - just like the "Iraqis" article is about a nationality and not an ethnicity

The user who has removed every single picture of people known to identify as Yugoslav is based on a POV that because Yugoslavs are not an ethnicity, they cannot be a nationality. That's insane because unless you adhere to the nonsense "ethnic purity" crap of Nazis, there is no such thing as an ethnically pure nation, if we based nationality on ethnic purity - then we would have to scrap this article, and the Italians article, and the English people article, and the Spanish people article, and the Americans article. There are many regional cultural affiliations that Italians hold strongly to - plus they have mixed ethnic heritage - ancient Italic and Roman heritage, Germanic Lombard heritage, and Arab heritage in Southern Italy; English people are ethnically related to the Angle people, the Saxons, the Normans, and the Romans; and there is no single Spanish or American ethnicity. Nationality means MORE than ethnicity - it involves cultural identity. There are Arab Iraqis and Kurdish Iraqis (and Arabo-Kurdish Iraqis such as Iraqi nationalist Abd al-Karim Qasim; and in the case of Yugoslav nationality - Croat Yugoslavs, Serb Yugoslavs, Slovene Yugoslavs, Bosniak Yugoslavs, etc. Nationality is not necessarily based on ethnicity or race - it is all about cultural identity - you can be of Catalonian ancestry and choose to identify as being part of the Spanish nationality or the Catalonian nationality, for instance. The same goes for Yugoslavs, Ante Triumbic was ethnically a Croat and by nationality a self-described Yugoslav and Yugoslav nationalist; Tito was ethnically a Croat-Slovene and by nationality a self-described Yugoslav. The Yugoslav nationality does bear some ethnic dimension to it, a regional-Slavic dimension (South Slavs referring to the Slavs residing in the Balkan Peninsula) but beyond that there is not much else that limits it. If we were to follow a mere ethnic dimension of nationality it would it be possible to describe the non-ethnic division between Ulster Protestant Irish nationalism and Republic of Ireland Catholic Irish nationalism. Again nationality does NOT always mean ethnicity, it is all about a set of cultural identity criteria laid out by those who conceived of the nationality in the first place and the adherence by individuals who believe they share that cultural identity. People adhering exclusively to being identified as of Yugoslav nationality has always been small over identification as of Croat nationality, Serb nationality, etc. and has declined further - of course mainly due to the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s - but it does not mean that the historical and existing identification by people with this nationality should not be minimalized in terms of importance or ignored.--R-41 (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is not without merit, but it has been abused so much by users that it now seems ridiculous to even attempt to find a consensus on who qualifies as culturally Yugoslav. Your example of Ante Trumbic highlights this very well. While Trumbic was one of the primary figures involved in the initial creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, he was later a member of the Croatian Peasant Party, subsequently a political ally of Ante Pavelic and finally contributed to publications against the state (late in life even publicly discussing the idea of the Croats allying themselves to Austria instead). His Yugoslav character is highly doubtful, but is usually put forward by some other users with a political agenda. Similarly Ivan Mestrovic was allegedly a member of the Yugoslav Committee in his youth, but that's about his only connection to a "Yugoslav identity". His closest ties to any contemporaries in Yugoslavia were with the Croatian "nationalist" cardinal Aloysius Stepinac with whom he maintained correspondence and made the subject of a couple works of art, his son Mate was also the head of the Croatian diaspora umbrella group lobbying for independence.

Similar flaws can be seen with most of the others in the last version of the image. Ivan Tavcar died right as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was being formed (notice that the kingdom was not yet even named Yugoslavia, so self-identification with the state would presumably involve self-identification with one of the three ethnicities!). If there's any self-identification of Emir Kusturica or Goran Bregovic as Yugoslavs, I'd be very interested to see it! Your argument makes sense in principle, but thus far it has not been implemented like that at all.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the problem is simple: FIND sources that SAY that they identified as Yugoslavs. Here are some CONFIRMED Yugoslavs: Josip Juraj Strossmayer - the founder of Yugoslav nationalism, Ante Triumbic, Josip Broz Tito - and bear in mind that two of these people were of mixed ethnicity - Strossmayer - part Croat, part German; Tito - part Croat, part Slovene; but both identified as Yugoslavs. The concept of nationality is very fluid - even at the height of of pre-Yugoslav-Wars Serb nationalism in the 1980s, many Serbs still connected themselves as being patriotic Yugoslavs - waving Serbian and Yugoslav flags at pro-Milosevic protests under Milosevic's dual-patriotic slogan of "Strong Serbia, Strong Yugoslavia".--R-41 (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds agreeable. But as you say, sources for all three please :) I've just told you how Ante Trumbic most definitely did not self-identify as Yugoslav. Trumbic did participate in the foundation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, but he originally intended the kingdom to be a confederation of peoples. A unitary state was voted in by Serb deputies (with a boycott by Croats, communists and others) and Trumbic was pushed from power and then allied to Croatian nationalists the rest of his life. Self-identification as Yugoslav? Source please.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)ž

How you can speak about nationality wich doens't exist? This article should be erased then. Changing all as it was. --Wustenfuchs 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In English, chiefly British English with which I am most familar, nationality pertains to legal relationship to state - so citizenship often suffices even though there is a list of categories for the different types of British nationality and not all amount to citizenship. Ethnicity is the singular term to refer to the demonym by which an individual identifies. So Wustenfuchs is right in his above remark. Concerning being of "mixed ethnicity", this is a contradiction in terms. Yes it is possible for a person to consider himself by more than one ethnic group and many nation's censa allow this feature. It is wholly incorrect however to claim an individual is of "mixed ethnicity" derived on the principle that his parents have different ethnicities. Dražen Petrović was born to a Serbian father but he identified strongly as a Croatian and more importantly is embraced as a national hero by the Croats. A person chooses his ethnicity, his parents each choose theirs. No convention dictates that one must adopt the demonym of either of his parents. Siniša Mihajlović is a known Serb yet BOTH his parents identified as Yugoslavs, their parents in turn were Serb on one side and Croat on the other but that simply means how they identified. As you go back in time and look at censa you come up with surprising results; ancestors to some established ethncities have identified by other names, but the modern nation may have gained elsewhere where it lost with the other hand. Some ethnicities sprung up in recent times whilst others are absent as their last members assimilated. But the biggest proof of all that a person is not obliged to follow his so-called roots is that were this to be the case, the whole world would be one and the same race and ethnic group. How otherwise can it be explained that a person is identifying as "ethnic group B" when both his parents are "ethnic group A" - the world's only ethnic group. In that case, the term would be synonymous with "human" thus redundant. If there is a lesson to be learnt from all of this, it is that ethnicity is wholly artificial and its designation with all people should be taken with a grain of salt. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note also that as a man with both parents born in Macedonia (no comment here concerning their ethnicities, mine or my brother's), some of my edits may have hinted at a pro-Bulgarian bias. This is purely source-based as I am convinced that long before the Macedonian question of nationality arrived at its modern outfit, people did identify as Bulgarian and those who didn't mainly chose Serb identity. And knowing this, I would take the greatest offence if someone attempted to convince me that the Macedonian ethnicity for Slavic people is fake - no more fake than Serbian and Bulgarian I argue. They all had an inception. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice speech. :) But in Western world, thus in Britain, nationality is very connected to state (country), as you stated. Here, on Balkans and Eastern Europe nationality is equal to the ethnicity, more or less. User R-41, obviously following the "Western understanding of nationality" tried to explain me how POV my edits were with no basis.

As for you R-41, if you follow the "Western understanding of nationality" you will find many from your list as non-Yugoslavs, they were Austian-Hungarians, later Croatians, Serbians etc. If you like the "Eastern understanding of nationality" then again, those people delcared as Croats, Serbs etc. Very few of them declared Yugoslav. For example Ivo Andrić was Croat, then Serb, not Yugoslav. You accused me of having POV, but acctualy, you are the one who has POV by simply ignoring the facts. --Wustenfuchs 23:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It is correct that the count for Yugoslavs as an ethnic designation is very low and it is also very difficult to prove a time when any notable person declared Yugoslav. Concerning the interpretation of "nationality", I don't think that is a big issue. Obviously, in Croatian, Serbian and Macedonian we all say nacionalnost or narodnost which is a precise translation of "nationality", but you can have Bosnian nationality (English term - meaning BiH passport) and have Croatian nacionalnost (Croatian term - closest to English ethnicity); this way, you know what is meant when you watch an English news report referring to ethnic Albanians from Kosovo or ethnic Serbs from Bosnia, etc. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record:

• ENG. nationality - SRB/HR. državljanstvo
• ENG. ethnicity - SRB/HR. nacionalnost or narodnost
  

Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We know that Yugoslav nationality has existed as an identity, here is evidence of Gavrilo Princip stating that he is a Yugoslav nationalist in 1914 during his trial: "The political union of the Yugoslavs was always before my eyes, and that was my basic idea" [6] "I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be free from Austria." - Gavrilo Princip, 1914.[7][8][9]--R-41 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs has a clear POV agenda here - he has revealed it himself by saying just a few comments above: "How you can speak about nationality wich doens't exist? This article should be erased then" - statement by the user Wustenfuchs. Thus he is denying that people did or can identify as being part of a Yugoslav nationality. His argument is entirely based on interpreting nationality based on ethnic identity - and no I do not buy the argument that a supposed regional differentiation on the views of nationality denies that people identified as Yugoslavs as a nationality. Nationality is beyond ethnicity, people who believe that ethnicity is the only legitimate identification of nationality will be sorely dissappointed when they realize how closely ethnically interwined many different nationalities are. Wustenfuchs, if nationality was based on ethnicity then we would not have an Iraqis or a Spaniards article now would we? Or do you propose that we delete those too based on your inaccurate ethnic interpretation of nationality? The only issue here is making sure that inclusion of people in the infobox are people who identified themselves as Yugoslavs - sure you can remove people who did not identify as Yugoslavs - but don't make up a nonsense argument that "there is no Yugoslav ethnicity thus there is no Yugoslav nationality" - because that is nonsense - nationality exists beyond ethnicity. Here's a map produced in the SFRY in the 1980s that shows the location of areas where people identified themselves as Yugoslavs: [10]. So Wustenfuchs, now that you have looked at the map, never again make that nonsense claim that a Yugoslav nationality "doesn't exist".--R-41 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry friend. But it doesn't since there is no Yugoslav nation. I don't care how it was or why. Is there Byzantines any more? No? Is there and Confederate Americans? No. But bealive me, some people still declare to be that. --Wustenfuchs 12:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"The principal proponents of jugoslovjenstvo (Yugoslavism) were Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer (1815-1905) of Djakovo and his close collaborator Canon Franjo Racki (1828- 1894), a leading historian and the first head of the Yugoslav Academy, which Strossmayer, a great philanthropist, helped establish in 1866." from Banac, Ivo (1988). The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics. Cornell University Press. p. 89. ISBN 0801494931. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs quit with the editwarring, tendentious editing, and acting like you own the article in general. You have three editors (Myself, R-41, and Biblbroks) who believe that is ok to include Strossmayer and Racki and there a reference above proving this. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You can believe anything you want, like I care. WP isn't democracy. Also, all three of you don't have source claiming this thing. His political ideology is something different from his ethnicty (Croat) and nationality (Austrian-Hungarian). --Wustenfuchs 16:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

True Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is also not an authoritarian state - people's nationality is self-determined and people's self-identity cannot be psychologically imposed on them - they will identify with what they want to identify with. Not all nations have states, there are stateless nations. Wustenfuchs, if you went to Quebec and face-to-face naively told a Quebec nationalist - "you are not part of a Quebecois nationality because you are officially a Canadian", you would get punched in the face. Bear in mind that I am an English Canadian who has travelled to Quebec and is knowledgeable about the history of Quebec nationalism, informing you of this. There are people who are self-described as Yugoslavs - Wustenfuchs, you cannot will them out of existence, so how about you look at this map [11] and look at the sources of the statistics in the infobox that show the numbers of people identifying as Yugoslavs who live in various countries. Look at these and stop denying that there are people who identify as being part of a Yugoslav nationality.--R-41 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity/nationality

On the subject of welding ethnicity to nationality, we need to remember that ethnic groups outnumber sovereign states; Kurds and Basques are famous cases. If you rewind to 1878 when the Berlin Congress introduced Romania, Serbia and Montenegro to world maps, you'll find they were only the 27th to 29th independent states, but the ethncities we know were all there. Why wouldn't they be? Is today different just because we have (depending on source) around 200 states? Not when you consider that there are about 6,000 languages spoken. Most ethnic groups remain subjugated. The other issue with linking ethnicitiy too heavily with nationality is that it does not allow for ethnic minorities, one is simply Swiss for being a citizen of Switzerland, Bosnian for coming from BiH and that is all. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs does have one point I have to be honest. The Austro-Hungarian nationality factor is irrelevant, we are discussing ethnicity. Without sources, nobody can state that anyone is of any ethnicity. I recall when Ivo Andrić was in the spotlight years back (Croat vs Serb I think) and then one editor produced a document where Andrić himself had delcared hrvat. It is true that there are people who use Yugoslav as an ethnicity and this we can prove with census results, but to label an individual with the term is somewhat different. It is possible that one may have been a Croat, Slovene, Bosniak or Serb by ethnicity and advocated Yugoslavism, but that is not the same as declaring yourself Yugoslav and denouncing other ethnicities. Does anyone have positive proof for Strossmayer and others? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely don't see any point in his or her edits - when compared to his or her comments. For example, why would one Yugoslav - one declaring as Yugoslav - have to denounce other ethnicities to be labeled as Yugoslav? As if this label "Yugoslav" libeles such a person and somehow besmirches him, and not just labels him. If one advocates Yugoslavism - even if concurently being Croat, Slovene, Bosniak, or whatever ethnicity for that matter - this at least classifies him as Yugoslavist... and at the same time as Yugoslav. In one way at least. That is: if one equates Yugoslavism with an ideology - and renders Yugoslavs as proponents of this Yugoslavism (or to be precise, also as proponents of Yugoslavism) - then he must also include people, who were starters of this Yugoslavism stuff, as Yugoslavs also. I mean, when we are already considering ideologies, denouncings and besmirchments. You can't have it both ways: to declare Yugoslavs (also) as ideologists i.e. adherers of an ideology, and then to exclude originators of Yugoslavism from Yugoslavs. It's like when in the chicken and egg problem someone dismisses the premise that the egg had to come from somewhere on the grounds that we define the chicken only as the thing that hatches from an egg. That's the whole problem with his/her edits... when compared to his/her comments. Surely the idea behind the comment How you can speak about nationality wich doens't exist? This article should be erased then. is not to be characterized as one plain expression of a deletionist philosophy. Or am I just short of good faith here? Btw, sorry for this tldr post, and please do disregard much of my previous provisions, if the term denounce was used in its first, obsolete sense - "To make known in a formal manner; to proclaim; to announce; to declare.". If this is the case, then some clarifying of "It is possible that one may have been a Croat, Slovene, Bosniak or Serb by ethnicity and advocated Yugoslavism, but that is not the same as declaring yourself Yugoslav and denouncing other ethnicities" might help. Cheers, --biblbroks (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "denounce" was completely the wrong word. I meant to refer to yourself only as Yugoslav and not by any other demonym. I wasn't aiming to get too technical and I certainly never suggested delete the page! I have made a fair few contributions to the article including tidying and introduction of the occasional source. Wustenfuchs, I feel on this occasion, did make one fair point when he requested that editors wishing to call certain people Yugoslav by ethnicity provide sources. That can't be unfair, that's all I was saying. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wustenfuchs didn't make a point. At least a point I could comprehend. If I take into account this edit to the current talk page which excluded this article from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, and that with an edit summary of "R41 insists they aren't ethnic group, but rather a nationality without a nation, something like Gypsies.", I most honestly can't say even that this could be fair to the whole point of this discussion. What are we discussing in the end: Yugoslavs as an ethnicity, or what? --biblbroks (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about nationality here. I never said that Yugoslavs are now a "nationality without a nation" - currently they are a stateless nation And nationality is self-determined and self-identity is decided by an individual's psychology of course, Gavrilo Princip declared himself to be a Yugoslav and denounced Austria-Hungary - but according to Wustenfuchs very imperialist interpretation of nationality - Princip must be recognized as an Austro-Hungarian - directly against his own will as he clearly indicated at his trial that he opposed Austria-Hungary and was a Yugoslav. Also here is a 1980s map that proves that Yugoslavs have existed as a nationality on a large scale: [12]--R-41 (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll he honest and say that it's funny. Yugoslavs are nationality, according to R-41, wich would be fine to me if it was truth. What is nationality, that is what makes nationality? People living in ceratin country. That would be very simple explanation. What is ethnicity? People who have same culture, language, history and some include religion (I don't). Fine, we got it. After very "logical" comparation of Yugoslavs (who don't have a state) with Iraqis (who have a state) I concluded, this might be right, so I kicked Yugoslavs out of the WP:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. Now to be serious, I think certain user only insisted they are nationality to include comrade Tito, not sure. But if they aren't then Tito isn't a Yugoslav, what shall we do then? You made a very complex situation out of nothing. Scientist really don't know how to make something out of nothing, but you made it. Also, if you insist on nationality Princip is also out. I can state my nationality if Chinese, but factualy it's not, so I lie or imagine unless if I ment ethnicity. This could happen to Princip, not sure, but logical explanation states he ment ethnicity. --Wustenfuchs 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, if you went to Quebec and face-to-face naively told a Quebec nationalist - "you are not part of a Quebecois nationality because you are living in a certain country called Canada, thus you are a Canadian", you would get punched in the face. Now look at the map of Yugoslavs in Yugoslavia: [13] and the statistics of people identifying as Yugoslavs in the infobox in the article.--R-41 (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that people have declared themselves Yugoslav now and in the past is unequivocal. How is it everyone is still arguing when we have sources? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason why there is still argument by one user - Wustenfuchs - even though there is clear evidence that people identifying specifically as a Yugoslav nationality exists, is because Wustenfuchs is violating Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Wikipedia:I didn't hear that. Wustenfuchs needs to acknowledge the SFRY population statistics map here [14] that shows that there have been large numbers of self-described Yugoslavs, as well as recognizing the statistics of people recently identifying as Yugoslavs in the infobox in the article that were taken in the 2000s.--R-41 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why we care about number of Yugoslavs 100 yrs ago? As a matter of fact being nationalist and being national of some country is different. French people in Canada can say they are Qubecois nationalists, wich means they support the independence of Qubec, am I right, they want to be Qubecs by nationality, it's why they are nationalists, but at the time they are Canadians by their nationality. Nationalism is political ideology, you understand that? And I have nothing against Princip or Tito in the infobox, but I don't agree to include Strossmayer and Rački who weren't Yugoslavs in any way. --Wustenfuchs 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Why we care about number of Yugoslavs 100 yrs ago?" That's from the 1981 census. "Strossmayer and Rački who weren't Yugoslavs in any way." They were the "principal proponents of Yugoslavism". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really mean they declared Yugoslav you know. They supported Yugoslav state. "Josip Juraj Strossmayer was the fervently pro-Croat bishop of Dakovo" - Quote from another source. --Wustenfuchs 17:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

1. That's from a travel guide. 2. They aren't mutually exclusive. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The quote isn't really the point. The point is political ideology is one thing, nationality or ethnicity other. --Wustenfuchs 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The quote from Banac establishes their national identity and nationality. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And you make the conclusion based on what? Their political idology? You had thousends of pro-Yugoslavs declaring Croats or Serbs of Macedonians after the creation of SFR Yugoslavia in 1945. --Wustenfuchs 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Wustenfuchs, the 1980s map shows that the people declared themselves Yugoslavs - rather than Croats, Serbs, etc. You are continuing to push a WP:FRINGE view that if a nationality does not have a nation state that it cannot be a nationality even after being told of the existence of stateless nations. You are refusing to adhere to Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Wikipedia:I didn't hear that. Please look at these policies and immediately adhere to the Wikipedia policies by accepting that the consensus is not in your favour of your claim that a nationality of Yugoslavs does not exist, cease the tendentious editing and cooperate, and stop your refusal to accept the evidence that Yugoslavs still exist as a nationality, as demonstrated by census statistics in various countries. If you continue to ignore these policies, refuse to take seriously the premises of other users' arguments, and do not take immediate action to end your violations of Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Wikipedia:I didn't hear that, you will be reported to the AfN for WP:DISRUPT. Now how about we resolve this by starting off fresh by you acknowledging the evidence of the existence of a Yugoslav nationality and then we will discuss the issues you have addressed of the credibility of the nationality by examining what a nationality is?--R-41 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is 1980s map relevant? Why? What's your point with it? We have more recent census, the one from 2001. What are "stateless nations"? Where do they leave? I never met anyone from "stateless nation" it's impossible, it's like headless human, it's not a human, it's corpse. You mixed ethnicity and nationality. Ant what is the point of your discussion? You still need sources to include people in the infobox, but you don't have them. --Wustenfuchs 19:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading these last posts I really find no other reason to have this discussion any further... apart from perhaps having some consideration for the idea that Yugoslavs should be considered merely as ideologists and nothing else. Because: if we don't decide whether to regard the term "Yugoslav" only as a member of a group sharing the same nationality, or only as a member of a group sharing the same ethnicity, or only as a member of a group sharing the same ideology - or some combination of those three (which I believe makes most sense judging from discussion and edits to the article) - we can go on forever. And reach neither consensus nor conclusion. Previously there was one user who suggested that opposing to inclusion of Franjo Rački and Josip Juraj Strossmayer in the infobox had some point. Is there any input on this matter of this opposing and user Wustenfuchs having some point, or can we close this issue on the fact that the stick is to be dropped? Plain repeating that sources for the inclusion of principal proponents of Yugoslavism are necessary, but on the other hand claiming that Yugoslavs are also adherers to an ideology is not only paradoxical but perhaps even worse. Thoughts anyone? Please, because I am having a bad case of lacking good faith here. --biblbroks (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We do have sources, the census statistics. Stateless nations do exist, here is a map of the nations of Europe showing what Europe would look like with the territories with majority population of stateless nations taken into account [15]. A famous definition of what a nation is was made by Benedict Anderson who described a nation as "an imagined community" that emphasizes a limited criteria of affiliation and emphasizes sovereignty.(Source: Motyl, Alexander J. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. Academic Press, 2001. P. 258.) Anderson went on to say that a nation is based upon the mental representation of an identification with such a community based upon claims of criteria for what composes that nationality. (Source: Motyl, Alexander J. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. Academic Press, 2001. P. 258.) That being said you cannot just become part of an existing nationality if you are outside of that nation's criteria just by saying you are, you have to meet the criteria that the national community is defined by. There have been Iraqi nationalists like former Iraqi President Qassim of Arabo-Kurdish descent who identified Arabs, Kurds, Arabo-Kurds, Assyrians and others as the two ethnicities bound to the heritage of an Iraqi civilization that he claimed has consistently existed for centuries, and claimed that Arabs, Kurds, Arabo-Kurds, Assyrians and others were part of an Iraqi nation. There were Irish people who even after ethnic mixing between English and Irish occurred in parts of Ireland still considered themselves Irish, and there is still Irish nationalism in Northern Ireland by those Irish who identify as Irish alone and who want to unite Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland.--R-41 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... Discussion is pointless. The point are Strossmayer and Rački. They are ethnic group, definetly not nationality. What 1980 ethnic map has to do with anything? --Wustenfuchs 13:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"They are ethnic group, definetly not nationality." - who are? And what's the point of claiming who are "ethnic group, definetly not nationality"? Supposing there is one point. --biblbroks (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslavs. But this is not topic. How important this is anyway? I just stated Strossmayer and Rački aren't Yugoslavs. That's it. --Wustenfuchs 17:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If the term nationality vs. nation is confusing - if Wikipedia was accurate about nationality - which it is currently not - it would redirect to nation. It currently confuses nationality with citizenship, the article itself is confused, with some parts leaning towards claiming that nationality means citizenship and other parts that say that it is based upon collective identity of a nation - the article is confused and of poor quality. But we are not talking about citizenship here, we are talking about ations. Yugoslavs are a nation, there are one of many stateless nations, Wustenfuchs, I showed you the map from the 1980s to disprove you claim when you said "How you can speak about nationality wich doens't exist? This article should be erased then"but forget the map - look at the statistics from the 2000s from census studies in the infobox. It doesn't matter whether you call them an ethnicity or nor - because if they are - they identify as a Yugoslav nation based on ethnicity - they use national symbols and claim a common culture, if they are not an ethnicity they still have chosen to identify as a collective identity based on cultural criteria and national symbols - thus they are a nation. There are nations based on ethnicity and there are nations based on culture. In either case, Yugoslavs exist as a nation - there are statistics in this article that prove it, case closed.--R-41 (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR. Case closed indeed. --Wustenfuchs 20:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Multiple users have informed you about the available statistics about Yugoslavs that are sources in this article.--R-41 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that's it then, Wustenfuchs, I advised you to cooperate with other users and work together to come to a consensus, but you have decided to refuse to cooperate with other users and you are not seeking consensus. We all here gave you sources to look at, you have ignored them. You have ignored disagreements made with sourced that rebuked your claims by multiple users. You have repeatedly violated Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Wikipedia:I didn't hear that. Now I am reporting you to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for these examples of WP:DISRUPT.--R-41 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)