Jump to content

Talk:Serbia and Montenegro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Loesorion (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 4 December 2015 (→Confusion in article because of merge and not enabling later to split article in two relevant subjects: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.


Other language wikipedias

31 wikipedias:

Aragonés Български Bosanski Català Čeština Español Euskara Français Galego 한국어 Hrvatski Bahasa Indonesia Italiano Lietuvių मराठी Nederlands 日本語 Norsk bokmål Norsk nynorsk Polski Português Română Русский Slovenščina Српски / srpski Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски Svenska தமிழ் Türkçe Українська 中文,

already have a FRY article seperate from Serbia and Montenegro,Wikipedia is neutral,and needs to stay away from politics.If there is no FRY article,then does that mean that Wikipedia does not recognize FRY? In a neutral ground,all opinions UN , USA ,or otherwise are irrelevant.Take a look at this: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom between 1801 and 1927, reflecting the fact that until 1922, all of Ireland was a part of the Union." This is the first sentence of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article. So government structure of UK was not changed in 1927 but its name was? Then why is this article seperate from main UK article? Pre-1927 UK and post-1927 UK are a same state.History of FRY is much longer than history of Serbia and Montenegro. We should make a FRY article seperate from Serbia and Montenegro. If anyone decides to write it,they will have my full support. Please take a look at serbia's FRY article. If you don"t understand,use Google Translator. Belgrade1302, 9:23, 27 March 2012 (CET)

Is Wikipedia a US foreign policy propaganda outlet ?

From 1992 - 2003 There WAS ON THE GROUND a state called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This is a historical FACT
From 2003 - 2006 That state was reconstituted as "Serbia and Montenegro". Another historical FACT
But yet, for an already ridiculous amount of time now, there have been no separate pages for those historical entities under whatever dubious excuse (that has never ever been proven to be neutral).
Putting separate page should be a no brainier since Wikipedia has a separate page for all kind of things like separate page for the entity consisting of England and Scotland before and after 1707 (not to mention and other times). Likewise the reconstitution of the various French republics have separate Wikipedia pages as they should! But guess what? So should FRY be a separate page and "Serbia and Montenegro" be a separate page. The alleged claim that the US federal government had supposedly regarded or named the 1992-2003 entity with the same name as the 2003-2006 entity is not a paramount matter and so should NOT be dictating what Wikipedia does!
And no, this is not an opinion issue but a fact issue. And as such Wikipedia should follow it's own rules that apply to matters of fact and stop fraudulently acting like as if the existence if FRY is a matter of opinion that should be decided by votes. Loginnigol (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

The merging of this two entities in one page is actually a breach of Wikipedia's own neutrality policy Wikipedia's own neutrality policy. It basically gives more weight to the US State Department's opinion above and over established, historical FACT. Needless to say it is preposterous of an encyclopedia claiming to be neutral, to overrule facts with opinions. Loginnigol (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is not directly speaking a U.S. foreign policy outpost but the sources deemed reliable are those that normally favour the global outlook. On this occasion, editors have taken the position of the institutions which had always recognised Serbia and Montenegro right from 1992. So in sport, the country did participate as FRY, as in musical events, and other arts. With diplomatic affairs, politics is the unofficial legislature and here it is more influential. I admit that I favour the return of FRY on the opening line with an indication that this was its constitutional name 1992-2003 and the country was referred to as this most frequently - on news, in travel guides etc.. In the U.N. though, it was SCG and this tends to be the agency that most editors look to when verifying ambiguous matters. As such, I cannot see the return of a separate article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about. In any case I'm NOT talking about sports or any kind of one narrow topic. I'm talking about a historical fact: the FRY existed, period. That's enough. Wikipedia itself is acting like a diplomat or a politician by pretending that it didn't' exist (which is the implication of not giving it a page). My contention is that Wikipedia should not be in "State recognition business" (thereby be a de-facto government foreign policy propaganda outlet) but be in the academic business: the neutral DOCUMENTING of facts. Loginnigol (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Loginnigol. There's no place for such accusations here. The sources treat this state as one and make no distinction between the FRY and SM. Yugoslavia had changed its name three times through constitutional reforms, but its still the same state. The same is true here. It would be a monumental error to create a separate article for the two-year period near the end of this state's history, simply because it happened to change its name through constitutional reforms. Instead of one half-decent article, we'd confuse the subject matter and create two pointless ones. -- Director (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are being dishonest. The "FRY" existed between from 1992 - 2003! That is not two years. It is in fact "Serbia and Montenegro" that existed for three years (2003-2006)!!! And in light of the repetitive scandals in the news involving crooked US government politicians, employees and others who frequently indulge in fraudulent editing of all sorts of Wikipedia pages, I say editors cannot be trusted to have a neutral academic point of view on this State-departmetnt-sensitive issue and therefore Wikipedia HQ/Jimmy Wales & co. should take over this issue away from them. Loginnigol (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This state officially held the name Serbia and Montenegro for precisely 2 years and 4 months, hence its more accurate to say "2 years" than "3 years". But let me be perfectly clear: I will report you should you again characterize other contributors here as "dishonest" or "fraudulent", when it is in fact you who lack understanding of the subject matter (and/or did not read the other user's post). If you don't care, I assure you: I care even less. Please keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. The composition of this article has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with US foreign policy of all things, and had you participated here for more than a day you'd know that. -- Director (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not characterized other contributors here as "fraudulent". That was a reference to US government editors of other Wikipedia articles, so I have no "theory" but "fact". My fundamental point is that since this FRY-issue is seemingly so sensitive to US government opinion, the decision to split and create an FRY page should be made not by editors but by Wikipedia HQ and let they at HQ deal with it (the same way they dealt with another US-govt. sensitive issue earlier this week). Loginnigol (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I'm sure Hillary Clinton looses sleep every night over how we here cover a defunct country. And what "Wikipedia HQ", what are you talking about? There is no such thing (or is there?? *ominous music*) and Jimmy Wales does not dictate Wikipedia content. For the record, you can equally keep your "conspiracy facts" to yourself. -- Director (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you can keep your musical taste and Hillary Clinton bedroom fantasy to yourself. You are obviously not interested in any serious discussion on the core issue of splitting this page so I'm done/finished talking with you. Loginnigol (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Loginnigol that this two entities (FRY and SCG) should not be merged into one page. Both of them are notable and should be covered within separate articles. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating the oh so obvious fact. A serious fact that Wikipedia should deal with (not in a transparent govt.-propagandistic way but) according to academic/scholarly standards. Loginnigol (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, you're just pushing some strange "anti-American/anti-government" POV. "Academic/scholarly standards"? What sources have you listed?? It has already been established that scholars do not cover this historical country as two separate states, in fact the very idea is absurd. This is the same country under a different name. Yugoslavia itself changed its name through constitutional amendments three times:
  • Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (1943-45)
  • Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (1945-63)
  • Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1963-92)
And each name change was accompanied with absolutely fundamental reforms in the structure of the union. And then there were even greater constitutional reforms (such as in 1974) that weren't accompanied with a corresponding name change. Should we have fifteen articles on various Balkans states because the US called the FRY "Serbia and Montenegro" for the first couple of years?
@Antidiskriminator, please cease WP:STALKING me. -- Director (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at archives of this talkpage you will notice that many editors don't agree with you. Including editors of 31 other wikipedias which have separate articles for FR Yugoslavia:
Interwikilinks to the articles about FR Yugoslavia

an:Republica Federal de Yugoslavia bg:Съюзна република Югославия bs:Savezna republika Jugoslavija ca:República Federal de Iugoslàvia cs:Svazová republika Jugoslávie es:República Federal de Yugoslavia eu:Jugoslaviako Errepublika Federala fr:République fédérale de Yougoslavie gl:República Federal de Iugoslavia hr:Savezna Republika Jugoslavija id:Republik Federal Yugoslavia it:Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia ja:ユーゴスラビア連邦共和国 ko:유고슬라비아 연방 공화국 lt:Jugoslavijos Federacinė Respublika mr:युगोस्लाव्हियाचे संघीय प्रजासत्ताक nl:Federale Republiek Joegoslavië no:Den føderale republikken Jugoslavia pl:Federalna Republika Jugosławii pt:República Federal da Jugoslávia ro:Republica Federală Iugoslavia ru:Союзная Республика Югославия sh:Savezna Republika Jugoslavija simple:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sl:Zvezna republika Jugoslavija sr:Савезна Република Југославија sv:Förbundsrepubliken Jugoslavien ta:யூகோசுலாவிய கூட்டாட்சி குடியரசு tr:Yugoslavya Federal Cumhuriyeti uk:Союзна Республіка Югославія zh:南斯拉夫联盟共和国

In order to determine if there is consensus to split this article the best way would be to propose splitting of the article within new section. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agnostic on whether there should be one article or two, but if there is one article, it seems fairly obvious it should be called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, not Serbia and Montenegro. john k (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add, to take some comparable examples, that there's no particular rules for how to deal with name changes of this sort. We have articles on Democratic Kampuchea and Khmer Republic that are separate from Cambodia, although these two names (and state forms) lasted only briefly). We have separate articles on Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, although they were clearly the same state. Given the dramatic name change, and the fact that the state no longer exists, I don't see any particularly strong reason for not having two articles. john k (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, isn't it funny? The FRY existed from 1992-2003 that is 11 or so years, yet the title of this article is named after the one that existed for 2 years! That tells you how blatant the scam is which clearly breaches multiple other rules:
  • It blatantly breaches WP:NAMINGCRITERIA rules on Precision. The name of the country was Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the overwhelming amount of time (1992-2003) whereas "Serbia and Montenegro" was used for a fraction of that amount. So basically an 11 year long name dismissed in favor of a 2 year long name. That tells you how blatant the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA rule has been trashed. It is preposterous.
  • It also breaches WP:NPOV rules by replacing a 10+ years long historical fact with a political/diplomatic/foreign-policy fiction (there was no state called Serbia and Montenegro from 1992-2003 except on pieces of paper and data that were originating and circulating from and inside US government offices - the rest of the world including all Western media was still addressing the country by the name of "Yugoslavia" with or without supplemental prefixes, suffixes, letters and/or words).
  • It breaches WP:RSUW rules by giving US state department opinion undue weight above and over a neutral, academically sound, scholarly standard of maintaining accurate historical record of facts.
These blatant trashing of rules must be addressed before any voting. This is not a simple issue that can be resolved by voting (like for example when there is a debate and vote to split an article because it is getting too long). This is a more serious matter. Wikipedia rules are being blatantly trashed in order to facilitate and promote US government political opinion inside the very title of an article. Loginnigol (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

The topic of this article are two different entities. I think that it is wrong to merge them within one article. I also noticed in the archives of this talkpage that many other editors share my opinion. 31 other major wikipedias have separate articles for each of them. Therefore I propose to split this article into two separate articles:

  1. FR Yugoslavia... for federation which name was FR Yugoslavia and which existed in period 1992—2003
  2. Serbia and Montenegro... for state union which name was Serbia and Montenegro and which existed in period 2003—2006.

Both above mentioned entities are notable (WP:NOTABILITY) enough to have their own articles. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're not two entities, they're one entity. If one wishes to show there is a separate country, one needs sources for that - not the reverse. If you prefer a rename (a far more reasonable course) than don't support this silly "revenge" venture. Antidiskriminator is simply pushing his POV as usual. Anything I advocate must be "anti-Serbian propaganda!" and therefore should be opposed. The fact that this would create two shabby articles where there was at least one decent one, has not crossed his mind. Nor that such a split would necessitate a large number of other articles to be pointlessly split in two. -- Director (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Serbia and Montenegro was the legal successor to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but you seem to be drawing some strange distinctions here that I don't fully understand. The Kingdom of Cambodia, the Khmer Republic, Democratic Kampuchea, and the People's Republic of Kampuchea were all the same country, too, but we still have separate articles about each regime. And I don't see why this split would require other splits. john k (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the point: it is absurd to suggest that was a separate state called Serbia and Montenegro that somehow "succeeded" the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, there was no "succession". All they did was change the name on the little plaque at the UN general assembly. -- Director (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that the name change was accompanied by significant constitutional changes that gave more power to the Serbian and Montenegrin governments at the expense of the central government. john k (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This was essentially another in a long line of constitutional reforms and amendments of that sort in Yugoslav history. Most name changes I've listed below were accompanied with exactly that sort of constitutional reform (more power to the federal units). It really doesn't warrant a split, not to mention a huge number of useless articles we'd have to create by splitting the support articles as well. -- Director (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why the other articles would need to be split. john k (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, those "significant constitutional changes", as well as renaming, were just sanctioning of the existing relationships in the country: the two republics had been functioning almost independently for several years, and that process started in late 1990s. So "Serbia and Montenegro" was just the last phase of the state which was well into disintegration. Nothing substantial changed with that event: the two just continued to function separately, and soon thereafter just split. So it was all a process we should describe in this article, not any sort of revolutionary discontinuity which might warrant in a separate article. No such user (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If true, that's a pretty strong article for naming the article Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, isn't it, given that "Serbia and Montenegro" was just a decaying vestige of what had been a real state? john k (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Joy, I'm not disputing you but I do find one thing you said interesting. You say, "pretty much universally known under its unambiguous name Serbia and Montenegro". Can you just provide me with one or two links of pre-2003 publications from any kind of journal or even blog (I don't mind) that distictly cites SCG with the language of official sanction (eg. The August 1999 solar eclipse has moved southeast over Serbia and Montenegro before covering Bulgaria, etc.). I'm just very curious to read these. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is absolutely untrue that that the FRY was ever called "Serbia and Montenegro" in any kind of official context before 2003. For instance, I can't find any sources which call Milosevic the president of "Serbia and Montenegro," while I can find numerous references to him as "President of Yugoslavia" or "President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." The only person who seems to be commonly referred to as "President of Serbia and Montenegro" is, unsurprisingly Svetozar Marovic. john k (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is no source to support view that two were same country. First was federation and other one was state union. Examples - Rhodesia and Zimbabwe. Nemambrata (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly cannot be bothered, because it would be a confusing search; anyone who really wanted to address the country in an official capacity probably wanted to respect their wishes; anyone who didn't, didn't care for it and might as well have just called it plain "Yugoslavia", which is not actually the same thing as saying "FR Yugoslavia is the primary name of Serbia and Montenegro" today. Today we have the benefit of hindsight and we can make the editorial decision that it was indeed a series of sufficiently indistinguishable states to form a single article, just like we're saying KoSCS was the same as KoY, and how SFR Yugoslavia was the same as the FPR Yugoslavia and DF Yugoslavia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To John K, yes that is correct. When I read Joy's vote I took particular interest and sought references myself. With Milošević having served as state president from 1997 to 2000, a period entirely within the FRY period, it helps greatly for locating usage. So if you take "Milosevic was President of Yugoslavia", you get 1,510 results. If you quote Milosevic was President of Serbia and Montenegro - not even 1 hit. Alternatively, you could try Milosevic led Yugoslavia - 893 results, not a huge figure I admit, but the opposing Milosevic led Serbia and Montenegro - gives ZERO again. To that end, whatever reason behind keeping a single article at SCG, it is unequivocal that "Serbia and Montenegro" was definitely not universal. Also, where one does find "Serbia and Montenegro" in literature pre-2003, it may very well be that the two are merely listed as one by one entities, something that could have just as easily been Montenegro and Serbia and therefore not pertaining to the state. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As per political circumstances, it was not a simple geographical renaming.--Zoupan 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a reform into a looser union... Just like the 1963 reforms that changed the name from Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and devolved further authority to the republics; or the 1945 institution of the republics and the name change from Democratic Federal Yugoslavia to Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia... or like the 1929 renaming of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, accompanied by the institution of 9 constituent Banovinas.. or the 1974 constitution that practically made the republic autonomous in all respects, etc. etc. I think three articles is quite enough. -- Director (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable point. I don't think that the 2003 constitutional changes, on their own, are sufficient to require a split. I would say, though, that the dramatic name change, combined with the constitutional change, is a good reason for a split. The only comparable instance of a name change is the 1929 one, but the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes had been informally called Yugoslavia or Jugoslavia from the very beginning, at least in English. In spite of attempts to claim it was so, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as a state, was never widely known as "Serbia and Montenegro" before 2003. If certain countries which did not recognize the FRY officially called it that, this designation was largely limited to official documents, and "Yugoslavia" remained the most common name of the country in both the media and in general reference works. So we have a dramatic name change, to a new name which was not really used before 2003, combined with significant constitutional changes. I think that's reasonable grounds for a separate article. Since it doesn't look like there's going to be consensus for a split, though, I'd renew the suggestion of a move of the whole article to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Not only was this the name of the subject of this article for most of its existence, it was also its name for the most meaningful part of its existence, since "Serbia and Montenegro" after 2003 was an ephemeral and largely notional entity with no real authority or powers. Before 2006, it made a certain degree of sense to have the whole article at the then current title. But since both names are now defunct, I don't see a reason to privilege the newer one. john k (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the denial of the concept of "Serbia and Montenegro" prior to the renaming... you're forcing me to produce at least something as a retort, so here's a series of book searches:
All the standard disclaimers apply, this may not mean anything, but it may indicate very general trends. It's also impossible to set aside the fact that the disparity in absolute numbers and the general downward trend of the larger number means that people are by and large referring more to the former SFR Yugoslavia as "Yugoslavia". So we can't compare absolute numbers, but the trend in the peaks of the mentions is indicative:
  • Yugoslavia picks up in 1991, 1995 and 1999, the years of the initial breakup, the Dayton Agreement and the NATO bombing, respectively
  • Serbia and Montenegro picks up equally in 1991 when it was founded and in 2003 when it was renamed.
The former data indicates to me e.g. that the article NATO bombing of Yugoslavia cannot be a priori renamed to "NATO bombing of Serbia and Montenegro". The latter data indicates to me that it is completely fair to talk of S&M from the date of founding. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved on a very similar discussion taking place at Talk:Burma whereby I favour a move to Myanmar for reasons not too different from those discussed above. But it seems in both cases that the constitutional name of a country is ignored by outsiders but atleast in the case of Serbia and Montenegro, it had that name in the U.N, unlike "Burma" which is Myanmar there. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Serbia and Montenegro picks up equally in 1991 when it was founded". FR Yugoslavia was founded in April 1992.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
THAT'S the other thing! Evidently in the aftermath of Croatia's, Slovenia's and Macedonia's independence, along with Bosnia's pending declaration, the remaining two republics may often have been listed together but was this always meant in a sovereign capacity? Surely not always. I suppose it could as easily have been Montenegro and Serbia. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reality was that the notion of Serbia and Montenegro forming their own state was already pretty clear even in 1991. With Macedonia's referendum in September 1991 and Bosnia's declaration of sovereignty in October 1991, coupled with the sieges of Vukovar and Dubrovnik, the breakup was looking increasingly clear even for the most die-hard fans of SFR Yugoslavia. Even the Badinter Commission reached the same conclusion on 29 November 1991. Only the Bosnian referendum was formally missing, and after that, the April 1992 proclamation of FRY was a mere confirmation of the fait accompli. And then there's also the benefit of hindsight - in 2012, we already have all the necessary information to avoid these incongruous arguments, but no, let's rehash it once again... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it is the same country. Changing the constitutional name, as well as administrative functions means little. FNR Yugoslavia changed name to SFR Yugoslavia in 1963, and it did not have any effects (although, Yugoslavia`s designation in UN from 1945 until 2003 did not change at all, because full constitutional name was not being included!). FR Yugoslavia was not disbanded in 2003, it was only re-organized. What is more- it was Yugoslavian parliament that voted on those constitutional changes. In the UN, only designation was changed, flag remained, anthem remained, Serbia and Montenegro was not to apply for membership in international organizations (that are, today, held by Serbia, as successor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustBGD89-3 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per comment above by others who have opposed the split.--R-41 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capital city

As I recall, yes it did have official capitals. Belgrade was de jure capital of FRY 1992-2003, and then there were joint capitals Belgrade and Podgorica: Belgrade commercial and administrative, Podgorica judicial. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, it was Belgrade throughout.. D'you have a source? -- Director (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Državna zajednica nema glavni grad... (State union does not have the capital city...) - Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Mission to Serbia and Montenegro (p 15)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right... sure, "no capital", but unless the legislature and government had themselves moved to the International Space Station - its "Belgrade (unofficial)". -- Director (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I.e. the supreme court was in Podgorica.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said, Belgrade AND Podgorica; I didn't say there was no capital. Belgrade was nevertheless a de facto capital for all practical purposes anyhow. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between having two capitals and having no capital. What exactly are you folks saying? -- Director (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right Evlekis, Belgrade was "administrativni centar" of the union, and capital of Serbia. Podgorica was judicial center and capital of Montenegro. It should be clarified in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we all know the supreme court was moved to Podgorica... But again: two capitals, or no capitals? Because you've shown us a source that says "no capitals". So if there were two, you'll need another source. The issue really is whether Podgorica at any time officially had the status of a "capital"? -- Director (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Main political functions were divided between two cities, with none of them being an official capital. They were capitals of their republics. Belgrade was capital of the Republic of Serbia while Podgorica was capital of Montenegro. State union did not have official capital. Belgrade was administrative center because seat of Ministry council and assembly was in Belgrade. Podgorica was judicial center because the seat of supreme court was in Podgorica. It can not be more simplified than that.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, nothing new then - no capital. Belgrade was the capital of the Republic of Serbia (1990–2006), Podgorica was the capital of the Republic of Montenegro (1992–2006). Neither were capitals of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. In that case it matters little where the various institutions were. -- Director (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But of course it does matter. This is article about state. Its institutions are most important elements of the state.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. How about elaborating on said institutions in the article? What's your point? -- Director (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it is absurd to dedicate more space to football than to the topic of this article. The state and its institutions. What about Council of Ministers in SCG? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you asking me for? Add it if you think it should be in. Or (since it isn't arguing with me) would such activities run contrary to the purpose of your first-time involvement here on this article? -- Director (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You asked "How about elaborating on said institutions in the article?" and I replied to your question.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. "What's your point?" is the question you answered. You said nothing on the topic of you expanding the article; indeed, I ask again: if you think something should be in it - how about elaborating on that in the text? But this is getting kinda pointless, so.. -- Director (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that in light of the constitutional wording and the facts, and the discrepancies, this matter is dubious. It seems there could be any of three options: zero, one or two. I don't know where I stand. I will point out that states do not have to have capitals. The Pacific state of Nauru has no official capital though the Yaren district serves the factual purpose. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about
Capital: Belgrade (administrative)/Podgorica (judicial)/(both unofficial)
(Or whatever variation is supported by reliable sources)?--Wikimedes (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was official. I think the "no official" business really means none "specified". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about it beyond what I've read in this section. If it was official, remove the (both unofficial) from my suggestion or change it to "neither officially specified" (and provide a reference to convince Direktor and Antidiskriminator).--Wikimedes (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't know any more than you. I have uncovered only mixed answers to this question. To be honest, Serbia and Montenegro (that is the country that really was called that, 2003-06) was a short lived and somewhat mysterious country that not many people anywhere really knew anything about. People outside of the former SFRY and possibly Bulgaria would be baffled if they saw a vehicle with a 'SCG' country sticker on it and they'd scratch their heads, "what the heck is that?". And even locals of the state didn't seem to know much about this capital city point. Most just assumed Belgrade continued to be all out capital but did it? The subject is poorly sourced. We could resort to the safe "Belgrade (de facto)" but even that is inaccurate, Montenegro's assembly took full command of Montenegro and they operated from Podgorica. This is a hard call. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant-party

This is continally being added to the political status with IJA even suggesting "want sources". If so then yes. One source will do - if anyone can cite the section of the FR Yugoslavia constitution which declared dominant-party political status. Without it, this is just another sneaky way of misusing designated infobox sections to draw attention to the authoritarian nature of a country during a period. Another thing about this "observation" is that it is Serbia-centric while FRY was two republics. Regarding Montenegro, once Momir Bulatović and Milo Đukanović split with the latter looking westward, Montenegro continued to be dominated by a new one-party system which from 1996 had totally divorced itself from Serbia in as many ways as practical. But the events of 2000 made no difference in Montenegro as political life continued to be dominated by Đukanović and his associates not only right up to 2006 when it broke away but even into 2015. Regardless, these facts still don't belong to any politial status section of an infobox as that part should be kept for what is constitutional. --Vrhunski (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A breakdown would be like this:

  • 1992-1997: President without major power, affairs dominated by Socialist Party of Serbia and Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro in each republic - they worked together.
  • 1997: Bulatović-Đukanović split in DPSM / Milošević becomes President of FR Yugoslavia
  • 1998: Đukanović proves powerful enough to manage Montenegro independently (less institutions such as army which were central) so Bulatović is made Yugoslav Prime Minister but this office, and that of president, hs no de facto power over Montenego.
  • 2000: Democractic Opposition of Serbia ousts SPS and by end of year, Vojislav Koštunica is President, and Zoran Đinđić is PM. However, these central positions only exercise power over Serbia (minus Kosovo of course). No change in Montenegro.
  • 2000-2006: Power in Montenegro remains the same. Save for some amendments to posts (Filip Vujanović and Milo Đukanović in 2002), Montenegro was then and is today dominated by a handful of individuals.

That is the shortest possible but clearly complicated status summary for FRY/SCG. --Vrhunski (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion in article because of merge and not enabling later to split article in two relevant subjects

Article starts with sentence: "Serbia and Montenegro was a country in Southeast Europe, created from the two remaining republics of Yugoslavia after its breakup in 1991."

Article is based on very confusing sentences that it is laughable to anyone who knows facts about this two states. Because such thing Wikipedia is not to be taken always a reliable source and encyclopedia for readers. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was created in 1992. There is no such a thing as state of Serbia and Montenegro after break up of Yugoslavia in 1991. Serbia and Montenegro as state was created after agreement to change constitution of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 2003.

And in many places in this article reader could get easily confused by order of sentences and dates given to what state content is refereed. This article is ridiculous from historical stand point. History facts get distorted in such a way by timeline and way it is presented in this article that make it bad in many ways. Readers who know nothing about this twoi states could get totally wrong impression.

Table on the right serves for what? To state that Zoran Lilić was president of Serbia and Montenegro or Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. How could reader make right conclusion to which country he was a president. And he is on the same raw with Svetozar Marovic president of Serbia and Montenegro who was not elected by voters but MP's like Zoran Lilic was.

"The new state also abandoned the collective presidency of the former SFRY and replaced it with the system consisting of a single president, who was initially appointed with the consent of the republics of Serbia and Montenegro until 1997 after which the president was democratically elected."

This makes confusion even oblivious more because it mentioned Serbia and Montenegro without explaining that they were part of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Were is disambiguation in this article when you need it?

In many parts of article timeline about Serbia and Montenegro precedes timeline of Federal republic of Yugoslavia and reader could not tell for sure about which state is reading. When is talked about flag in "Proposed flag and anthem" section it is more about Serbia and Montenegro when it comes to "Sports" it is more about FR Yugoslavia. When we read about transport article is talking about Serbia and Montenegro not a single word about Federal republic of Yugoslavia. Not to mention military and many differences between Armed Forces of Yugoslavia and Armed Forces of Serbia and Montenegro that cannot coexist in one single article without clear disambiguation.

For sake of few kilobytes of Wikipedia servers we have one article to describe two states and make confusion.

This article need clear disambiguation or to be split in two or more for each existing entity and some events in their respective timeline to prevent confusion for readers. Loesorion (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro&oldid=693796497"