Jump to content

Talk:Yugoslavia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Mia229 (talk | contribs)
Mia229 (talk | contribs)
Line 43: Line 43:


: What are other people's opinions about this? Could anyone who thinks it sounds biased please try to (1) explain why, and (2) suggest how we might change it while preserving the aspect of "Yugo-nostalgia" that (I think) it's meant to express? Thanks! [[User:Mia229|Mia229]] ([[User talk:Mia229|talk]]) 09:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
: What are other people's opinions about this? Could anyone who thinks it sounds biased please try to (1) explain why, and (2) suggest how we might change it while preserving the aspect of "Yugo-nostalgia" that (I think) it's meant to express? Thanks! [[User:Mia229|Mia229]] ([[User talk:Mia229|talk]]) 09:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

== "Yugoslav" as ethnic identity (re article section: "Yugosphere") ==

The last sentence (so far, anyhow) of this section,

: "There are still people from the former-Yugoslavia who self-identify as Yugoslavs, and commonly seen in demographics relating to ethnicity in today's independent states."

is unclear and, I think, ungrammatical (not 100% sure about this part, but it really ought to be fixed anyway). Specifically, the clause following the comma, "...and commonly seen in demographics relating to ethnicity in today's independent states," should specify ''what'' is "commonly seen in demographics...." I'm assuming that the intended meaning is something to the effect of:

: "...and the term 'Yugoslav' is commonly seen in demographics relating to ethnicity in today's independent states."

I'm going to go ahead and change it to this (or something close), since it really is pretty screwy as it stands. I still get a sense that the phrasing is kind of awkward, although I'm not sure how to express just why. What it's trying to say, as I understand it, is that a list of statistics derived from one or more surveys on ethnic identity in one of the former Yugoslav republics might read something like this: "Croat, 91%; Serb, 5%; Bosniak, 1%; Yugoslav, 1%; Other, 2%." I think it might be nice to be able to offer an example in the form a result that, like the above list, includes the ethnic self-identifier "Yugoslav" — only with genuine statistics (as opposed to my made-up ones). [[User:Mia229|Mia229]] ([[User talk:Mia229|talk]]) 10:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:13, 13 May 2013

Edit request on 17 January 2013

Please amend the NEW STATES section Remove Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Add Serbia, capital Belgrade Add Montenegro, capital Podgorica Nemesys83 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section refers only to the states formed just after dissolution. Serbia and Montenegro only broke in 2006. CMD (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perceived positive attributes

saying 'perceived' in the sentence 'Remembrance of the time of the joint state and its perceived positive attributes is referred to as Yugo-nostalgia'has the connotations that there were no positive attributes. Please change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.3.234 (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get a sense that there was any bias. My interpretation is that "perceived positive attributes" is a key aspect of the definition of the neologism "Yugo-nostalgia," which I've heard used in this way before: the Yugo-nostalgic person is one who perceives the old Yugoslavia in a positive light. That is, suppose that Marko is a hypothetical citizen of one of the former Yugoslav republics who is described as being "Yugo-nostalgic." My impression is that, according to the definition given for "Yugo-nostalgia," this is meant to convey that Marko tends to perceive the old combined state in a favourable light (and perhaps supports reunification). "Yugo-nostalgia" can be used in a derisive manner (i.e., whoever referred to Marko as "Yugo-nostalgic" may have been using it in the context of expressing the opinion that Marko's attitude is foolish; I'm not sure whether "Yugo-nostalgic" generally has particularly negative connotations, but I don't think it's a term people usually use to describe themselves), but I didn't read the definition given as suggesting anything either way about the author's opinion regarding the unified Yugoslavia and whether it could reasonably be viewed in a positive light. Rather, I thought it just made it clear that a positive opinion of the Yugoslavia era is part of the definition of "Yugo-nostalgia." ("Nostalgia" is defined in my dictionary (the New Oxford American) as "a sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations," and it makes sense that the positive perception implicit in the word "nostalgia" would be passed on to the portmanteau "Yugo-nostalgia.")
What are other people's opinions about this? Could anyone who thinks it sounds biased please try to (1) explain why, and (2) suggest how we might change it while preserving the aspect of "Yugo-nostalgia" that (I think) it's meant to express? Thanks! Mia229 (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Yugoslav" as ethnic identity (re article section: "Yugosphere")

The last sentence (so far, anyhow) of this section,

"There are still people from the former-Yugoslavia who self-identify as Yugoslavs, and commonly seen in demographics relating to ethnicity in today's independent states."

is unclear and, I think, ungrammatical (not 100% sure about this part, but it really ought to be fixed anyway). Specifically, the clause following the comma, "...and commonly seen in demographics relating to ethnicity in today's independent states," should specify what is "commonly seen in demographics...." I'm assuming that the intended meaning is something to the effect of:

"...and the term 'Yugoslav' is commonly seen in demographics relating to ethnicity in today's independent states."

I'm going to go ahead and change it to this (or something close), since it really is pretty screwy as it stands. I still get a sense that the phrasing is kind of awkward, although I'm not sure how to express just why. What it's trying to say, as I understand it, is that a list of statistics derived from one or more surveys on ethnic identity in one of the former Yugoslav republics might read something like this: "Croat, 91%; Serb, 5%; Bosniak, 1%; Yugoslav, 1%; Other, 2%." I think it might be nice to be able to offer an example in the form a result that, like the above list, includes the ethnic self-identifier "Yugoslav" — only with genuine statistics (as opposed to my made-up ones). Mia229 (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]