Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:01, 28 February 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yugoslavs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yugoslavs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Yugoslavia B‑class Top‑importance

Yugoslavs is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

SERBS??!?

Ok, i consider myself a Yugoslav, and am technically 1/4 serbian, and i dont understand what being a Serb has to do with being a yugoslav, as you will note someone had added this as a part of being serbian on the right hand side of the Yugoslav page, can we please remove this?

Number of Yugoslavs in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Here, we follow estimate from 1996

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

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

Now, we follow estimates of CIA from 2011:

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

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

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

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

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

Reverts

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

New removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just for the record:

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

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

We know that Yugoslav nationality has existed as an identity, here is evidence of Gavrilo Princip stating that he is a Yugoslav nationalist in 1914 during his trial: "The political union of the Yugoslavs was always before my eyes, and that was my basic idea" "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.--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: . So Wustenfuchs, now that you have looked at the map, never again make that nonsense claim that a Yugoslav nationality "doesn't exist".--R-41 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Ethnicity/nationality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is 1980s map relevant? Why? What's your point with it? We have more recent census, the one from 2001. What are "stateless nations"? Where do they leave? I never met anyone from "stateless nation" it's impossible, it's like headless human, it's not a human, it's corpse. You mixed ethnicity and nationality. --Wustenfuchs 19:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Yugoslavia articles
• Top-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles