Talk:Yugoslavs in Croatia

Yugoslavs

First, I'd like to thank everybody for his/her interest in Yugoslavs.

I guess some people are getting disarranged with the different terms used in the article, which is understandable, especially if they're not originating from the Balkan region.

The Yugoslavs are an own nation, separate from Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Macedonians, Slovenians and Montenegrins. They are not an ethnic group in the traditional sense, but do constitute an own nation. These people do not identify/declare themselves ethnically as Serbs, Croats or being part of these nations and do not simply favor Yugoslavism or Yugoslav unity. Yugoslavs are not a political movement, but a nation. There are people who are Yugoslavs, which cannot identify neither with Serbdom, Croatdom or any other identity of the former Yugoslav nations. (see article Ašok Murti and sources)

However, there are also people who declare themselves Serbs, Croats or differently but also feel Yugoslav or favor Yugoslav unity. Their Yugoslavism is a political conviction. But of course, these people have the right to call themselves or identify as Yugoslavs, too, but are not part of the Yugoslav nation.

So, I think there shouldn't be any doubt if articles about ethnic Yugoslavs should exist or not. These people exist and have an own special identity and cannot be put to Serbs , Croats, Macedonians although they do not identify as such. And I must say that it would be discriminatory if only this ethnic group does not have such own articles.

Habel (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"The Yugoslavs are an own nation, separate from Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Macedonians, Slovenians and Montenegrins." - this reeks of WP:OR. I would like the author of this statement to provide a source for this claim as it contradicts pretty much the entire body of knowledge regarding ethnic groups in this part of the world. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources are on each country's census where individuals have identified as Yugoslav and not the primary demonyms of the republics that once formed the country. That said, there is no other source to claim that any nation on this world exists (least of all the six listed) if not for the fact that people identify as such. The problem with this article is the mixing of those identifying as Yugoslav (about 100 for the whole country) and those who value Pan-Slavism, particularly among the south Slavic nations. They in turn are totally different entities. I think the figure, unless I've forgotten, for those claiming Yugoslav ethnicity at the last census in Croatia was 176. No article can represent such a small figure for anything anywhere, it needs only be mentioned on the pages covering demographics and that is all. As for those identifying as Croats, Bosniaks, etc. and approving Pan-Slavic values, references to these people probably betters fits Yugoslavia or Yugoslavism. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"The sources are on each country's census where individuals have identified as Yugoslav and not the primary demonyms of the republics that once formed the country. That said, there is no other source to claim that any nation on this world exists (least of all the six listed) if not for the fact that people identify as such." - A nation (nacija) is defined by social scientists as a "politically organized people (narod)". In other words, each country automatically has its own nation simply by virtue of it being a political organisation (and since Yugoslavia ceased to exist some 20 years ago the "Yugoslavs" cannot be considered a nation, just like the Soviet or Czechoslovak or East German nations do not exist any longer). On the other hand an ethnic group is defined as a group of humans sharing the same language, culture, history, customs, etc distinct from other ethnic groups - none of which applies to "Yugoslavs". Can you find any evidence that "Yugoslavs" speak a different language, eat different foods, have different customs or symbols which would set them apart from Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, etc? In addition, there are scholarly works such as various ethnographic atlases (I don't see any one of these used in the article) which go into great detail describing ethnic groups in the Balkans - can you find a single ethnographer who described "Yugoslavs" as a group distinct from all the others? Because I could find copious amount of texts written on Bosniaks, Croats, Slovenians, and the like - and I have yet to see a single scholarly description of "Yugoslavs". Also, since when is appearance of a group in a census proof enough that we are talking about a veritable group? Censuses do not offer a finite number of options so people interviewed are free to put down whatever they want. I know for a fact that a number of people in the last two Croatian censuses described themselves as Martian - does that mean we need an article on Martians of Croatia? (See also Jedi census phenomenon). Just like the article on Yugoslavs say in its opening paragraph - this is merely a designation that some people choose, just like other people opt for regional designations like Istrian, Dalmatian and the like - and it being a designation, there is nothing to expand this article with. How are you supposed to describe Yugoslavs in terms of an ethnic group without relying heavily on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR? The list of "notable Yugoslavs" is a textbook example of SYNTH and the symbols section is pure OR (any notable person from Croatia between 1945 and 1991 was a national of Yugoslavia and hence a "Yugoslav" - this makes as much sense as listing "notable british people from England"). I have been living in Croatia for 30 years and since 1991 I have yet to see anyone "expressing his identity" by waving a Yugoslav flag. That's total nonsense and the same could be said for the perceived Yugoslavs in Serbia and other ex-Yu countries. Timbouctou (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I was referring strictly to ethnicity and not citizenship, so there will be no more talk of "nationals" in that context. Every individual has the right to declare himself how he chooses and nobody may class him differently. If you could not be something different to both your parents, the whole world would be one and the same race. Food/customs is 101% irrelevant. The ex-Yugoslav territory is small and as you venture into other countries in Europe (Italy, Germany, etc.) you find even greater diversity from one side to the next until you go out of Europe and find that Chinese Han and Arabs form majorities or significant populations in multiple countries and there is NOTHING in the whole world beyond their demonym that unites every single person culturally, linguistically, ideologically, or even (and I hate to bring this into it) genetically. Nations are imagined communities. In the Balkans, we are famous for floating persons, a Croat on one census, a Bosniak on the next. When you are told that a town in Bosnia is 48% Croat, 33% Muslim, 18% Serb, 1% other, this means that is how the people delcared themselves. It does not mean that those people are prewired differently and have an unblemished past stretching to their progenitors. And what about the so-called progenitor? Was he not related to someone else living that time? It is correct that a Yugoslav will be no different from the majority in his surroundings, but if you cannot accept that two brothers choose to identify by different ethnic designations, you can just as easily say that it is the Serbs and Croats who don't truly exist as nations. After all, if everyone did call themselves Yugoslav the same way most people from Mauritania to Kuwait choose Arab, who would know where one possible ethnic group ended and another began? Or rather, who could go into a multi-ethnic Bosnian town and declare three friends in a coffee house different simply because they had different faiths? Does having a different faith mean you have to declare accordingly? You have more Bosniaks in BiH than there are Muslims by faith whilst there are absolutely NO non-Muslim Bosniaks outside of BiH (save for some athiests born to traditional Muslim families). If you wish to stretch this, consider this. History seems to record a group of early nations occupying today's south-eastern Europe. Among them, Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are recorded along with some other nations who today no longer exist as ethnicities. You will NOT find a book telling you of Montenegrins, Macedonians or Bulgarians (among the Slavic groups) because the three listed ALL obtained their names AFTER settling and either dissimilating another nation or adopting the toponym. By the same token, you will not find evidence of any such MUSLIM nation. Right-wing Croats and Serbs both look upon ALL Muslims as being their own people who converted to Islam; radical Bosniaks look upon Serbs and Croats within BiH as infidels who belong to a true ancestor that was neither Croat nor Serb and one that only Muslims are still faithful to. Me?? No comment. We allow people to choose their ethnicity or we declare war on other human beings. There is no inbetween. As for the pathetic "root nation" theory "only Serbs, Croats and the like are real, the others are fake". I'll tell you this much: Slovenes, Croats and Serbs are only the WEST South-Slavs, those who crossed the Carpathians. Those on the east who came down the Black Sea and turned westwards from East Thrace and northern Greece are recorded as Slavs themselves, sometimes Sclaveni. This "root-group" encompasses all Bulgaria, Macedonia, Slavic peoples in southern Albania and Greece (plus Turkey) PLUS it digs into southern Serbia, espcially where Torlakian is spoken, that also means the scattered Slavophonic people of Kosovo (such as Gorani) but not North Kosovo. You call yourself Serb until you reach the border with Macedonia and then you're Macedonian. If you head into Bulgaria, they are Bulgarian. Go the other way, you don't need to go as far as Albania to have ethnic Albanians, they begin in Kosovo and western Macedonia. But when you get into Albania, you still find isolated Slavophonic people identifying however they like to. If Serbs/Macedonians/Bulgarians were so real, you'd know who was who and they wouldn't necessarily be divided by borders. Once again, there are people in Macedonia who choose Bulgarian or Serbian ethnicity and who is anyone to tell them they can't because of where they live? Next thing, that person will go to Montenegro and tell 30% or so that they are not really Serb, they cannot be because it is Montenegro. Well, there is nothing "culturally different" between an ethnic Serb or Montenegrin from Pljevlja, they could even be brothers. This brings me to my final point. Bosniaks is synonymous with Muslim by nationality. Yugoslavs are indeed found across the field from Slovenia to Macedonia - in other words, they are found among historical east- and west-south Slavs. Look at the statistics, so are Muslims by nationality. They have them in Bosnia, and they have them in Macedonia - locals that is, no different to the Torbesh who are ALSO considered different. So what makes a declared Muslim in a Macedonian village the same as one living in Bosanski Brod? How are they "bonded", or "united as a nation"? Where do you draw the line? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a "root nation" theory and a liberal outlook which allows anyone to identify anyhow and be accepted. The so-called six of the the SFRY but no more is incompatible with the "root nation" belief. Today's people by their own admission claim to be descended from either west Slavs (of which only Croat, Serbs and Slovene remain), or east Slav (Sclaveni) with the border as I told you digging into Central Serbia and Kosovo. One century ago (1911), the Brittanica article on Skopje referred to a Slavic majority mainly comprising Bulgarians and Serbs. Then it was Ottoman Empire and Macedonian identity was in its infancy. That does not mean today's inhabitants of Skopje are not descended from the 1911 people, and that those living in 1911 originated from Bulgaria or Serbia. It meant that ethnicity was fluid, the ethnic renaissance was in play and people could not decide quite how to be but most of all, there were no marked borders for future times as this was Ottoman Empire, and a very delicate region too as so many fought for it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Timbouctou's statements

"I would like the author of this statement to provide a source for this claim as it contradicts pretty much the entire body of knowledge regarding ethnic groups in this part of the world. Cheers."

1. What source do you need? These people identify as belonging to a nation. And they identify as belonging to a nation, which is different from the Croat, Serb or other South Slav nations. They want to be officially recognised and do not want to be seen, nor identify as ethnic Croats, ethnic Serbs, ... That means they have an own identity.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/heather-mcrobie-anes-makul/yugoslavs-in-twenty-first-century-%E2%80%98erased%E2%80%99-people

"(and since Yugoslavia ceased to exist some 20 years ago the "Yugoslavs" cannot be considered a nation, just like the Soviet or Czechoslovak or East German nations do not exist any longer)"

1. A nation does not disappear with the dissolution of a country.

2. A nation does not need an own state to exist. There are enough nations which do not have an "own" country. Yugoslav identity (the feeling of being one and the same people) existed even prior to the creation of Yugoslavia.

3. I don't know if the nations you mentioned exist or ever existed, but you cannot compare the Yugoslavs with that. There was/is a respectable number of Yugoslavs worldwide and they are organised, want their rig:hts and want to be recognised.

4. Yugoslavism has deep roots among the South Slav people. The people from the places you mentioned (USSR, East Germany) did not even know that such states will ever exist. Not even 1 year prior to their creation.

"Can you find any evidence that "Yugoslavs" speak a different language, eat different foods, have different customs or symbols which would set them apart from Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, etc?"

1. I can not see any argument in this sentence.

2. Yugoslavs have own symbols. But even if they hadn't: nations do not need symbols to be recognised as nations. One example from the region: The Macedonians did not have an ethnic symbol until 1995, when the World Macedonian Congress adopted one. In the Yugoslav era there was only the flag of the SR Macedonia, which was a state flag and not a symbol of the Macedonian people.

3. You're right when you say that Yugoslavs do not speak a different language than Serbs, Croats, .. but do Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins speak a different language? Language can be a criteria, and in the most cases it is, but as you see, not in this case. Because if it was so, then Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, ... would not be nations, too.

"(any notable person from Croatia between 1945 and 1991 was a national of Yugoslavia and hence a "Yugoslav" - this makes as much sense as listing "notable british people from England")."

It is not a list of notable Yugoslavs. It is a sourced section about notable people which identify/identified as Yugoslavs by ethnicity or simply as Yugoslavs. Nobody will list here for example Dražen Žerić, just because he was a Yugoslav citizen. Come on, I cannot believe that you thought that this will be a list of former Yugoslav citizens...

"regional designations like Istrian, Dalmatian and the like"

Dalmatians or Istrians freely identify with that regional identification. Yugoslav is not a regional identification.

Conclusion

Yugoslavs have an own identity. The identity is that of a nation (not some regional identification).

That is the most crucial part.

Also:

Yugoslavs have a language (just like Croats and Serbs have). Yugoslavs have symbols. Yugoslavs are not a new invention. Yugoslavism has deep roots in history, which means that Yugoslavs have a great, centuries-old background.

A nation does not necessarily need an own language, symbols, food, ... If it was for that, Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins and Bosniaks do not have "own" languages, too. They just call their languages the same way they identify in an ethnic sense.

You see, language, symbols, are not a necessary criteria. And food indeed not. (But the idea that, according to you, the food is a criteria for common identity is very funny :) )

Cheers

Habel (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Habel, I was meaning to enter into discussion with you over these articles. In the first place, Timbuctou is a good faith editor and however much we argue, the ultimate goal needs to be a consensus. I believe we can reach this. Regarding the ethnicity, this is something unequivocal and anyone wishing to challenge it really needs to do so on the Yugoslavs page. To that end, I don't really want to engage in further discussion as to its rights and wrongs or why some people choose one ethnicity. Yes, Yugoslavs and Muslim by nationality are not a nation in the same category as Croat and Serb, but on the other hand, the world is full of examples such as this one. Africa has more nations than anywhere and it is questionable to what degree some of these should identify as such. What none of us must do is get bogged down with this stereotype ethnicity, because this world is full of contradictions. When the subject has been visited by experts over the last two centuries, the phenomena holding a "nation" together are rump, all things ceremonial and most of all, imaginary.

Yes I know that there are many Croats who value South Slavic ongoing relations and who liked the old country. However, the primary function of a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia was precisely to serve the already existing ethnic designations and bring them side by side. To this end, there is nothing odd about one continuing to call himself Slovene whilst appreciating Yugoslav values: much like a German or Dane who promotes a united Europe with as much centralisation as possible. This leaves those who identify as Yugoslav only and the number in Croatia is extremely small. There is no information that can be produced about them, as Timbouctou says, they are integrated among others most of whom declare Croatian (regarding Croatia in particular). What this article has done is acknowledged the ethnicity and then stretched to outsiders who have demonstrated a desire for Yugoslavism. This means, if you call yourself Croat, you have to be an active Titoist but if you've delcared yourself Yugoslav, you can sit around smoking with your friends in the coffee house. What about inactive Croats who may like Yugoslavia but don't spread the word? How do we know anything about them? You see, these articles may be in good faith but they are inconsistent. Can I suggest that any new information introduced here be merged with existing articles and placed into perspective. The Yugoslavs article can be expanded to incorporate details of the people in each republic, but this article is made to look like this nation is wholly separate from the majority no different to Hungarians in Romania. They are different by name only. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole argument creates a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. I thought there was more to it, but apparently not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Was that comment aimed at me? If so, I'll remind you that I am not the author. I do not believe in this article; the page should at best be redirected to Yugoslavs (for issues with people declaring the name) or Yugoslavism (for persons identifying otherwise but favour the ideas). Any sourced information can be merged with the existing articles, anything that is in line with SYNTH/OR just needs to be wiped. I am not an advocate of the article. We are all waiting for Habel's reply to this. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't, it's just that we had SNAFU indentation that probably confused you. Fixed now :)

You're being gracious towards Habel, but they do not own the article. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

SNAFU - love it! FUBAR is better though! :) ----Thanks Joy, you had me worried for a split second. About being sympathetic towards Habel, well, we are proposing a fundemental shake-up to this article. Although not mentioned yet, the consensus looks to favour deletion. I would scoop any valid points on here not mentioned elsewhere and then blend them into the relevant articles. Now it is normally the case that when such proposals emerge, it is courteous to notify the author of the article. I've had it when some of mine have been deleted but normally I am alerted by the proposer. I'm trying to keep with code of practice, that's all. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello everybody, nice greetings from Habel and thanks for the fair and interesting discussion.

Evlekis, as you can see there are two groups of Yugoslavs. In the era of Socialist Yugoslavia (until 1991) maybe it would have been easier to write this article. Since the dissolution of Yugoslavia we have two main groups. The Yugoslavs by ethnicity (the declared Yugoslavs) and Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, Slovenes, Albanians, Macedonians... which maybe don't support the idea of a separate Yugoslav nation and declare themselves by their traditional ethnicity, but do however identify as Yugoslavs. However, not in an ethnic way or not as a nation. The line between these two "groups of Yugoslavs" is very thin and if a singer for example says "I am a Yugoslav" we still do not know if he indeed declares himself a Yugoslav or he declares in the traditional way, but also identifies as a Yugoslav. That in no way means that these people favour some new union or a new Yugoslavia, but simply have a dual identity. While they declare themselves in the traditional way they at the same time have an equally strong Yugoslav identity. That's why I think that such an article has to deal with both (related) groups, because as I said, when someone says he is a Yugoslav, he confirms he identifies as a Yugoslav (in whatever way). People who are Serbs for example , but have said that Yugoslavism is a good idea or that they want a new Yugoslavia will never be added to this article, because they do not identify as Yugoslavs, but simply have the opinion that these people should live in a common state or whatever.

At the end, in much cases, we cannot know if someone declared this or that way on the last population census, especially not if he identifies in both ways (as a Yugoslav and in the traditional way). We do not know if Stjepan Bobek declared himself a Croat or Yugoslav, but we know he was both. That's why he can be included in both articles, just like others like Aleksa Djilas, who says he is a Yugoslav, but also identifies as a Montenegrin and Serb.

The reason why the number in Croatia is very small is because the last population census was of 'closed type' and not of international standards, which means that it suggested 5 or six answers like: Croat, Serb, Hungarian, Italian, Slovene. The 2011 census which was held recently will be a modern population census. That means that there will not be any suggested answers and that the people will freely choose their ethnicity. So, very soon we will, hopefully, know the exact number not only of Yugoslavs but also other of all other ethnic groups.

And since there exists (rightfully) a Yugoslavs article I do not see any reason why there should not be articles like this one, which give information about the Yugoslavs in the newly-established countries or the diaspora. The argument that they do not constitute a traditional ethnic group and for that reason should not have articles with information for the Yugoslavs living in their respective countries is a bad one.

And believe me, there is enough information and enough to write for this and the articles about the Yugoslavs in the other states. It would look terrible to include them all in the Yugoslavs article. To collect information about these articles is not a problem.

Regards, friends

Habel (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

When we write about people identifying as Yugoslavs on a national level and those that do on some secondary level, we are spinning plates and resorting to original research. Furthermore, many people identified as Yugoslav proudly pre-1991 and this included some who took up arms and went to war. In 1989, I was all over Dalmatia and despite what everyone knew to be happening behind closed doors among the officials, you could still see many houses with the Yugoslav flag flying outside it, other patriotic phenomena and most of all, music from other republics played everywhere. I don't just mean Croatia but I refer to it because this is the topic of the article. By mid-1991, I doubt any of the houses I saw in 1989 will have had the old red star flag. How a person identifies nationally has some form of permanent marking even if it later amends; to call yourself Yugoslav otherwise is somewhere between hearsay and OR. If you know of establishments that are in place on Croatian territory which were set up for South Slavic common interests then that information can be moved to Yugoslavs. It is a fine line, I admit, Yugoslavs and locals identifying by the republic demonym being wholly integrated and from the same families. Anything else that can be sourced should also go to that article. There you can present the full works but by adding Yugoslavs in... articles, it is just delegating minor pieces to each region for the sake of it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Habel

1."What source do you need?" - A source which would confirm the idea you insist upon that Yugoslavs are a nation. The article you quoted is merely an essay and it itself looks rather confused as to what it wants to talk about. It talks about the "erased" people in Slovenia (which has nothing to do with this issue), it talks about Yugonostalgia (which is about a shared cultural heritage which is debated about a lot these days). It even says that "It may be questioned whether a group of persons who identify themselves with a dead state can be called nationals of that state." - thus tearing down your idea of Yugoslavs as a nation - but it also describes them as a national minority (without offering any illustration as to how they compare to other national minorities). So yeah - I'd like a source for a claim that there's a nation without a country, just like I would want sources for the claim that members of what you would call "Czechoslovak nation" are still living in Slovakia. Furthermore, you added this article to Template:Ethnic groups in Croatia - even though you admit yourself that thy are not an ethnic minority. You yourself are pretty inconsistent in your claims.

2."A nation does not disappear with the dissolution of a country. There are enough nations which do not have an "own" country. Yugoslav identity (the feeling of being one and the same people) existed even prior to the creation of Yugoslavia." - Really? What's the difference between a nation and a people then? Is there a Confederate nation in the USA? Are Kurds a nation or a people? And btw the idea of Yugoslav identity only began in the early 20th century, it evolved into many things and then ceased to exist in the 1990s.

3."Yugoslavs have own symbols." - No. Yugoslavia had symbols. Yugoslavs have nostalgia. And anyway, do you have a source saying that there are Yugoslavs in Zagreb or Belgrade waving a Yugoslav flag or did you just assume that is so?

4."There was/is a respectable number of Yugoslavs worldwide and they are organised, want their rights and want to be recognised." - Are they recognized anywhere in the world? Forget the ex-Yugoslav countries - are Yugoslavs a recognized minority in Sweden, France or anywhere else for that matter?

5."Yugoslavism has deep roots among the South Slav people. The people from the places you mentioned (USSR, East Germany) did not even know that such states will ever exist. Not even 1 year prior to their creation." - See no.2. As far as USSSR is concerned, the idea of a Soviet nation was just a continuation of the idea of the Russian Empire (FYI "empire" differs from "kingdom" by the number of different peoples governed by a monarch so the word itself tells you that it was a multi-ethnic nation literally for centuries).

6. "Yugoslavs have own symbols. But even if they hadn't: nations do not need symbols to be recognised as nations. One example from the region: The Macedonians did not have an ethnic symbol until 1995, when the World Macedonian Congress adopted one. In the Yugoslav era there was only the flag of the SR Macedonia, which was a state flag and not a symbol of the Macedonian people." - So? But the Macedonians had a country since 1992. The country is what made them a nation, not the fact that they have a flag. For comparison, Kurds can fly whatever banner they want but they don't have a country and are therefore not a nation, but merely a people. And peoples are described through common language, customs, etc. What I'm saying is it is impossible to describe Yugoslavs as an ethnic group, AND it is impossible to describe them as a nation. What you end up with is just Yugonostalgia - which may or may not be a relevant movement or political thought - but either way does not deserve six separate articles when one can suffice.

7."It is not a list of notable Yugoslavs. It is a sourced section about notable people which identify/identified as Yugoslavs by ethnicity or simply as Yugoslavs." Literally millions identified as Yugoslavs ad in fact there were periods in history when one had to identify as one. I still don't see how this is different from compiling a list of English people who said on record that they were British. This is pointless. Maybe it would make sense to list people who still define themselves as Yugoslav even after the country ceased to exist. But then again who would you put in that list?

Timbouctou (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello and sorry for my late answer, dear wikipedians.

Evlekis, what does a contemporary Yugoslav need to do or to say to be a Yugoslav? Does he always have to say "I declare myself a Yugoslav."? We do not know how the most people define their ethnicity or identity privately, so if someone is identifying or is reported to identify as a Yugoslav that should be enough, without any other preconditions.

The actor Rade Serbedzija for example is of Serbian decent, but the only ethnic identity he has

he always identified as a Yugoslav prior and after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, without ever stating that he is a Serb or Croat for example.

I think an additional problem here is the meaning of the words nationality, nation, ethnicity and so on, because the similar Serbo-Croatian word 'nacionalnost' for example is not the same as nationality in English. I did not want to offend any user's knowledge of the English language by this, my English is not perfect, too. :)

The Yugoslavs, as I said, are not a typical ethnic group, but constitute a separate "nacija and nacionalnost". However, the closest designation for Jugoslaveni po nacionalnosti in English is "Yugoslavs by ethnicity" or "ethnic Yugoslavs", since Yugoslavs by nationality means that these people are only Yugoslavs by citizenship. Maybe this is one of the reasons why there are some misunderstandings.

So, yes, Timbouctou, this article is meant to cover only people which still, after the dissolution of Yugoslavia identify as Yugoslavs or, of course those people like Ivo Andric, which spent (most) of their lifetime in a Yugoslav state, but also declared themselves as Yugoslavs in an ethnic sense. It is not about people who just advocate South Slavic cooperation or some kind of a Yugoslav union.

And the whole thing about the Yugoslav nation is not Yugonostalgia, since there are also young people which were born in '87, '90 or even '93 (after the vreakup of Yugoslavia) and do not have any memories of Yugoslavia, but identify as ethnic Yugoslavs (!). So Yugonotalgia and Yugoslav identity are two different pair of shoes.

And the thing that these people are not a traditional "old fashioned" ethnic group does not mean that they do not deserve an article(s).

best wishes, Habel Habel (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You reverted the merge saying "the debate is not over", and then added Branimir Štulić to the list of Yugoslavs in Croatia. Well, that really concludes the debate in a bizarre manner - Branimir Štulić is a glaring example of a person who has literally decided to not live in Croatia at all, many, many years ago. His purported status as a Yugoslav today has practically nothing to do with Croatia, so saying we absolutely need to list him here rather than simply listing him at Yugoslavs makes no apparent sense whatsoever.

In short - you have repetitively failed to demonstrate how this kind of an article does not fail WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:N, and frustrated all of two (with me, three) other editors who approached you in good faith to try to discuss this. Please, edit the Yugoslavs article instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Branimir Štulić is a Yugoslav with origins in Croatia and lived there the most part of his life, no matter if Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia back then or not.

I gave you a lot of arguments why this article has to exist. The thing is that I did not here a serious argument why it should not. So please give me one and let us debate.

Considering the users, as I remember only Evlekis was a serious one, with the others writing with nationalist undertones and questioning the Yugoslav nation from the start. So they were probably frustrated at the very first moment when they saw this article. So there was only a serious debate by me and Evlekis, which was not finished. Moving the article when the discussion is not yet finished is what you call good faith? I hope you are not serious.

Well, I am waiting for your answer and your arguments why the articles Yugoslavs in Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, ... should not have an own article (???)and according to you, are not notable (there are more than enough third-party sources in this article here).

Habel (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policies and guidelines have been linked several times now, please read them. You can also invoke a request for comment to try to get attention of more editors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. What about the article? shouldn't it be restored until we find a solution to the debate? Habel (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (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.--Rovoobo oboovoR 13:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is questionable. It mixes those people who declare Yugoslav with the likes of Bobek who is clearly friendly towards other Slavic nations though is himself Croat. This is why I wish to see the information merged onto the relevant articles. I am waiting for a response from the author of the article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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.[1]--Rovoobo oboovoR 13:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

merge

For a related discussion, please see Talk:Yugoslavs#per-republic articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC-Yugoslavs in Croatia

Should this article (and similar articles like "Yugoslavs in Serbia", "Yugoslavs in Slovenia", etc.) exist? Do they meet the criteria for that (like "Serbs of Croatia" or "Macedonians in Bosnia and Herzegovina")?

As it was asked for some sources, here are some sources I found about the topic of Yugoslavs an Yugoslav identity today. I can look for more if needed.

• English: http://www.opendemocracy.net/people-debate_36/article_325.jsp

article by Dejan Djokic, historian and Director of the Centre for the Study of the Balkans at Goldsmiths University London

• English: http://www.opendemocracy.net/heather-mcrobie-anes-makul/yugoslavs-in-twenty-first-century-%E2%80%98erased%E2%80%99-people
• Serbian: http://www.danas.rs/dodaci/vikend/plave_strane/jugosloveni_narod_bez_zemlje.45.html?news_id=204601
• Serbian: http://pescanik.net/2011/09/jugosloveni-izmedu-asimilacije-i-otpora/

Habel (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• No (soft): This is not really my area of expertise, but as I understand it 'Yugoslav' is not an identity in the same sense as 'Serb' or 'Croat' or … It's pretty much the 'esperanto' of identities - a constructed entity that never much caught on and is only used by a small number of dedicated enthusiasts. It might be acceptable if there is sufficient sourcing to suggest that there is a determined movement trying to reestablish the identity, but even then it wouldn't be 'Yugoslavs in …', but rather 'Pro-Yugoslav movements in …'. I don't see anything on the page which looks like sufficient sourcing to indicate that 'Yugoslav' is a well-defined identity in the real world, and if it isn't Wikipedia shouldn't report it as though it is. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • maybe it would be a good idea to list a few sources above (right after the RfC statement) so we can see how strong the case is. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. On the contrary, Yugoslav is an ethnic identity in exactly the same sense as Serb and Croat. To refer to it as an "esperanto" is an insult and wholly inaccurate because unlike Esperanto which incorporates multiple languages, those identifying as Yugoslav do so on the precise principle that they are Slavic - and drawn from those to occupy the area in question as opposed to the Slavic nations in the north. Where it is felt that "Croat" and "Serb" are something more concrete, a contrasting argument exists which can question the "true identity" of these ethnicities: are they different for real or do a group of people simply declare themselves differently to the others? Furthermore, there is no "movement re-establishing an identity" as one's decision to call himself "Yugoslav" is no different to one calling himself "Macedonian". There are those that do but the figure is low - if more do so there the ethnicity will gain more currency by course of nature. The policy of ethnicity is to declare yourself as you choose and for others to accept it. As for the ethnicity not being widely known - this can be down to rife ignorance resulting from overkill in the opposite direction from media, "Croats this, Bosniaks that, Slovenes the other, etc." but none of this means that these are the only Slavic ethnic identities; it is also controversial to what degree the others honestly exist side by side if taking every factor into account. The only grounds for declaring a town 50% Muslim, 30% Croat and 19% Serb and 1% Yugoslav is the basis on which the people chose to identify. So whether or not a page of this nature exists, it cannot and must not be subjected to the erroneous doctrine that "one nation is real, the other isn't". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• No: In case of Croatia, I'd advise caution. Specifically, the 2001 Croatian census data contains record of just 176 persons declaring themselves as Yugoslavs. Therefore I fail to see how would article on Yugoslavs in Croatia be of any substance. I'm not acquainted with census data in other countries which were once constituents of Yugoslavia, but if the situation is similar at all to Croatia, perhaps the general article on Yugoslavs serves best to describe the topic. Declaration of Yugoslav nationality in Croatia (at least before 1991) most likely had less to do with nationality but more with expression of unity, citizenship etc, so the topic might well be best covered from that aspect rather than by articles dealing with individual countries with such small groups identifying themselves as Yugoslavs. I'm not a priori against such an article despite the no vote, but I think there's a better way to deal with the subject.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• No. Yugoslavs are neither a nation in the political sense of the word nor an ethnic group. It is a supra-national designation which aimed to replace much older ethnic identities (the former came into existence in the 19th century whereas the latter have been around since the middle ages). It is comparable to the British or the Soviets - there has never been a Yugoslav language, just like there never was a British or a Soviet language - not even during the period when the Yugoslav brand of pan-Slavism was officially promoted. In essence it is just an ideological point of view and as all ideological points of views its notability is determined by its impact in the world. We normally wouldn't pay much attention to a political party with 176 registered members, so what makes "Yugoslavs in X" different? What if there were 250 people in Croatia who chose to self-identify as "Europeans"? Would that merit a separate article on "Europeans in Croatia"? Timbouctou (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The figure of 176 is correct and too low to warrant an article, that is where any arguing against such a page begins and ends. The idea that it is "not a real nation" is nothing more than ultra-Croatian/Serbian jingoism contrived to deny fellow citizens the right to choose identity and is furthermore ignorant of real world development and how people arrive at a conscience. Of course you can identify as "Soviet" or "British" but these two can churn peoples of different backgrounds (eg. a Lithuanian speaking Soviet and a Georgian speaking Soviet) - they cannot possibly share a common background unless it were to include hundreds of other nations to pinpoint a time when Lithuanians (Indo-European) and Georgians (Caucasic) had a shared ancestor and this goes back millennia. No Yugoslav language? Or simply no "standard" language? Difference? Yes, a big one. The fact that there are six former republics each to have their own standard means nothing politically nor scientifically. The fact is that there is a dialect continuum from the Slovene lands right down to East Thrace in Turkey and the number of Slavic speakers is around 30 million (my estimate) which is only HALF of Italy. Italy also lies along a dialect continuum encompassing other countries but the linguistic variation within Italy itself is far greater than the vast South Slavic stretch. Since when did a nation need a common language? Can they not if they wished adopt one of the existing? Is there no such thing as a pluricentric language? Do we have the right to bestow labels upon them such as "supra-national" just because they don't? It "aimed to replace older ethnicities"? What does this have to do with the article? Since when was it an editor's job to evaluate principles on why a German calls himself German and a Kurd a Kurd? It did no such thing - anybody to have declared himself Yugoslav will have done so in the knowledge that others similar to himself may be calling themselves Serb or Macedonian. There is no "government in exile" inducing people to identify as they do. If a man born to Montenegrin parents calls himself Yugoslav, the ultra-jinguoist will say "no you're not, you're parents are Montenegrin - YOU are Montenegrin". Is that so? I may argue that my parents being Montenegrin only suggests that it is how THEY declare themselves - their own parents may have been Bosniaks, the great-grandparent Slovene, and so on. Nobody called himself Yugoslav 300 years ago. By the same token, nobody called himself Mulsim before the Ottoman conquest. Do we go back to a Day One principle? If so, we disclude all Montenegrins and Macedonians too - and we also dismantle the term "Bulgaian" when referring to Slavophonic people in the area and that means the whole Bulgarian nation. We just say that the only true nations are Slovenes, Croats and Serbs who constituted the western south-Slavs, and the Sclaveni who were the eastern branch. We also include southern Serbs/Torlakian speakers in the eastern branch. That said, we resurrect the nations that were Slavic but neither Slovene, Croat nor Serb but were absorbed by them and then we can all agree that Yugioslavs are not real because the people of Požarevac are Braničevs, not Serbs. We go one way or the other, anything else is a half-measure. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@Evlekis: You are blowing this thing out of proportion and I don't really appreciate your labels of nationalist jingoism. There never was anything called a "Yugoslav language" or a "South Slavic language". Ever. Even during Yugoslavia (Kingdom or SFRY) the language was called Serbo-Croatian, with two slightly differing standards - neither of which were ever called "Yugoslav". It's absurd to claim that Yugoslavs do not need a country to be a nation, or that they do not need their set of customs, a language, etc to be an ethnicity. So basically what would one put in the article about them really? They are a group of people who share no features required for anything to be called a group? Speculating that even though only 176 said they were Yugoslavs, there must be many more of them around? All you can end up with is ranting about politics - which is exactly what you are doing here. Timbouctou (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@Timbouctou. Again you and other "no" editors bark up the wrong tree. Nations are imagined communities, no exceptions. Ideally, they'd opt for a united country as it once was, but the grounds behind their decision to declare Yugoslav need not be derived on conventional principles. The world is full of nations each to exist for its own purpose. The problem is people focus too much on "what everyone else is doing" and don't concentrating on the key matter: take a town where 6,000 call themselves Serb and one calls himself Yugoslav. So? If he is everything they are, what makes them right and him wrong? Concerning language. Two things: a) If this makes a nation then the same argument can deny Jews a real identity, b) Yugoslavs do have a language, it is whatever they speak in their region. It is as much one's language as it is the other's: every individual forms a part of the matrix. The language called Slovene is that of all Slavophonic people in the region, and a Yugoslav can speak Slovene in Slovenia and Macedonian in Macedonia the same way two Germans can speak Bavarian or Low German and still both be German - they are German because they identify as such and not because of supernatural policy. If the rest of Germany wanted to call itself something else, it would make no difference. Nations have an inception which only goes back so far - before that is another story. Nations have a present, but from Day One to now, millions of things have occurred with people leaving it, people coming in, the eponymous name forking into two groups and people arguing over the true successor, etc. I agree that 176 is low - and that all else is speculation. I agree also that Yugoslavs are fully integrated in their communities with the wider groups. But the bottom line is this: a nation has no criteria other than its members refering to themselves such. For people to use shallow arguments, "what about flag?", "what about anthem?", "what about motto?" - this just reinforces the artificial concept of a "nation". I know there is nothing special about Yugoslavs from Croatia, Bosnia, etc. worth saying and I don't support such articles. If we're not to have them, it cannot be on the grounds that we as editors dictate what makes nations. People identify as they choose and if you get people calling themselves "Plutonian" then it's a headache you have to accept. I'm sorry if the term "nationalist" offended you - I'm not throwing accusations but if a man from Macedonia calls himself "Yugoslav" then I say to him, "sorry but you're Macedonian" then I am merely engaging in human irredentism. What else is it? Two thirds of Macedonia call themselves Macedonian but a good quarter are Albanian - different language? Fair enough. What about those identifying as Serb or Bulgarian, those who are Bosniak but not from Bosnia? And other Slavic Muslims such as those calling themselves Torbesh in one place and Gorani in others? They haven't all got flags or mottos. All I say is we cannot make decisions based on our own evaluations of what constitutes ethnicity. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I want to add that this discussion/debate is not aimed at the article "Yugoslavs in Croatia" only, but at all (possible) articles like "Yugoslavs in Serbia" and similar ones about the ethnic Yugoslavs in the other Yugoslav countries.

As for the case of the Yugoslavs in Croatia: Snežana Ilić, an expert on human rights issues and an activist from the Center for Development of Civil Society from Zrenjanin, Serbia, estimates the number of ethnic Yugoslavs in Croatia at several tens of thousands, just as in Serbia, where it its 80.721.

http://www.rue89.com/2010/12/12/balkans-ces-nostalgiques-de-la-yougoslavie-de-tito-180105 (in French)

The number of 176 does not reveal the exact number of Yugoslavs (and some other ethnic groups, but especially Yugoslavs) in Croatia, because that population census from 2001 was not according to present time standards.

In that census the option for declaring ones identity was restricted in the way that people were not simply asked about their ethnicity, but the answers were suggested from the start, like: Croat, Hungarian, Italian etc. (of course Yugoslav was not an option). That is a highly psychologically manipulative way of carrying out a census. That made it especially difficult for the ethnic Yugoslavs to freely express their identity. Habel (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to User:Habel - please do some research before posting here, this is simply not true. For instance, in Croatian 2001 census, question number 21 pertains to nationality, and it is arranged as Yes/No question to being a Croat (likely to expedite answering for most of the respondents) with a write-in in case the answer is "No". There are absolutely no limitations to what could be entered there. The form in question is available online, so there was no excuse to speculate on a "highly psychologically manipulative way of carrying out a census". Do your research, mere 176 people declared themselves as Yugoslav and that's that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Censa vary in their arrangements state by state. Whilst the only thing you have is an estimate, it doesn't constitute the solid documentation required to openly display such information - if sourced, it can be added to Yugoslavs but there needs to be more coverage before there can be Yugoslavs in XXX pages. 176 may be out of date but it is never the less a verifiable statistic and is all you have to work on for the time being. I have to say though, if 176 managed to break the chains, why did the others not? The census is the same for everybody is it not? Also - the numbers everywhere are low, Bosnia, Serbia, everywhere. That's why there is nothing special to write about this one group of people. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 06:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the thing about the number is not such a big problem. The first results of this year's population census in Croatia were published some time ago. However, only the number of residents of Croatia was published so far. The results about the ethnic composition may arrive in every moment. Then we will have a clearer picture about the number of Yugoslavs in that country.

I want to add that there are also articles about ethnic Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria, although their official number according to the censuses in these countries is only several hundreds or thousands (1,600 in Bulgaria I think). Due to the political reality, I personally think it is almost equally difficult for someone in Greece to declare himself an ethnic Macedonian as it is the case with a Yugoslav in Croatia. However, these articles exist just because of the principle of estimations. Habel (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• No for reasons I've already explained at length. This isn't even a contentious issue but a basic failure to follow Wikipedia standards - if WP:verifiability and WP:notability are not demonstrated by sufficient WP:reliable sources, the topic is redirected, merged or deleted into another article, which is the Yugoslavs article. It's even similar to the Pokemon characters discussion - should we have a separate article for each of them or group them into common articles? That precedent said clearly that for small entities, grouping is a legitimate and appropriate solution. There is nothing stopping the subject from evolving within the general article - Habel can try to assemble more material over there. So far, little of that has materialized. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• No per Tomobe's argument, (i.e. presumed lack of standalone notability which is evident from the census results). Arguing whether Yugoslavs are a "real" ethnic group or not only muddles the issue IMO. Moreover, in terms of quality of encyclopedic coverage, fragmenting the content into six or more separate articles is a disservice to the subject. GregorB (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument about Yugoslavs not being a "real" ethnic group is used by the (most probably) nationalist users here, which ignore the facts. I would like the neutral users to pay attention and not to fall for the arguments of the biased users, which fight this article in every way, just because of their political stance. Habel (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC) 17:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. per every argument and everything I wrote about this topic in this and the previous debate. As long as there are separate articles about ethnic groups of the type of "... in Germany", "... in Hungary" and so on, there should be such articles on ethnic Yugoslavs, too. Believe me, dear users, there is enough material to write in such articles! But this voting thing is a little bit funny to me in some way, because it is easy for the partisan people supporting the "majority" to organize collectively and to overvote the "majority" just because of their egoist views and not because of neutral points of views.Habel (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC is a request for comment - and the comments are quite clear: You are welcome to write any article as long as notability can be established and verified by reliable sources and as long as there is no SYNTH, OR and COPYVIOs in the article. No vote this way or the other, or presence/absence of any other similar articles changes that for any article topic whatsoever. The census question was quite clear and it allowed any nationality, evidently including Yugoslav to be entered as an answer (see question 21), so that is not a "highly psychologically manipulative way of carrying out a census" as you put it. If you feel you can achieve all of the above - notability, sourcing, no synth and no OR, while writing about 176 people living dispersed through Croatia, nobody can possibly object to that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

Sorry Habel, it looks like this topic is finished. Nobody approves the ideas for all practical reasons. I admit the input has come from few but I know for a fact that wider views will match those expressed so far. Figure too low, all else speculation and the people in question are not a notable race in the conventional sense - they are wholly integrated in their societies, accepted by locals as "one of them" and in all fairness, you can never know that someone declares Yugoslav unless you ask him - it's not written on him! You might say it's the same for everyone but Yugoslav remains an ethnic designation - yes you can say it is founded and has credibility but it definitely is too trivial to warrant greater merit. Sorry, I have to be truthful with you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)