![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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."
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.
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)
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
I have added a photo strip for the people who helped form Yugoslav identity. Reisender 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
Yugoslavs means "South Slavs" and those people fall under that category, especially Vuk Karadzic.
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.
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.
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.
Good point, Nikola. I have revised the strip. Reisender 19:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
> To correct you, during Yugoslavia the ethnic group "Yugoslav" was allowed and many people did proclaim themselves as that.
> 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.
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)
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)
The result of Yugoslav nationalism. (I added this as it is very important and it was the result of Yugoslav nationalism)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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. -- Wusten fuchs 18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
-- Wusten fuchs 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Here, we follow estimate from 1996
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? -- Wusten fuchs 19:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, stop reverting without explanation at talk page. -- Wusten fuchs 15:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
How you can speak about nationality wich doens't exist? This article should be erased then. Changing all as it was. -- Wusten fuchs 21:03, 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)
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:
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)
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). -- Wusten fuchs 16:56, 27 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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."
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.
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)
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
I have added a photo strip for the people who helped form Yugoslav identity. Reisender 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
Yugoslavs means "South Slavs" and those people fall under that category, especially Vuk Karadzic.
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.
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.
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.
Good point, Nikola. I have revised the strip. Reisender 19:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
> To correct you, during Yugoslavia the ethnic group "Yugoslav" was allowed and many people did proclaim themselves as that.
> 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.
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)
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)
The result of Yugoslav nationalism. (I added this as it is very important and it was the result of Yugoslav nationalism)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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. -- Wusten fuchs 18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
-- Wusten fuchs 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Here, we follow estimate from 1996
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? -- Wusten fuchs 19:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, stop reverting without explanation at talk page. -- Wusten fuchs 15:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
How you can speak about nationality wich doens't exist? This article should be erased then. Changing all as it was. -- Wusten fuchs 21:03, 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)
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:
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)
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). -- Wusten fuchs 16:56, 27 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)
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)
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)