Talk:Serbs of Croatia

Clarification of RFC

On my talk page a discussion of an RFC I closed above has taken place.[1] I am going to clarify a few things. During the close, the IP's that had a similar writing style and opinions were counted as one participant. There was a finding of consensus. Even if the IP is removed from the discussion the results are the same.

I am now pinging everyone who posted in the RFC, except IP's. Markewilliams, GregorB, FkpCascais, Joy, Shokatz, Director, and Tuvixer.

I have read the edit requests and another discussion was mentioned. But I don't see it. As the editors of this page perhaps you know where it is. If not here is what I know. A RFC was held, all the editors who wanted to participate did, consensus was reached, it was closed by an uninvolved editor. Until such a time as a new RFC is closed with a different consensus, we have the findings we have now and a direction to go in. I leave it to the editors to make the changes because I am a closer.

I hope this helps. AlbinoFerret 16:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There are the two discussions that took place regarding this issue here on this talk-page, they are: Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Serbs_as_.22constituent_nation.22_in_Croatia and Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Serbs_as_.22constitutive.22_nation_in_Socialist_Republic_of_Croatia. What I guess is making some confusion here is the persistent mentioning of some alleged consensus on behalve of the IP, however that IP has been missusing the word ever since the first discussions he has been part of here on en.wiki. What he has been doing is calling consensus to whatever he agrees with. I think that for time being there is only one consensus and it is the one established by the reliable sources that deal with the matter. The IP has been wanting to drag on the discussion because he is challenging what reliable sources say, however he is challenging them just with wikiloyering, in what could easily be considered disruptive. They done exactly the same at a much more patrolled article, Nikola Tesla, and that inability to accept that they cant endessly challenge reliable sources with personal opinions (and personal attack on other editors) is what got them blocked in first place. They are extremely problematic cause they are unable to accept and disengage. The use of socks has provided him a mechanism to drag every discussion endesly. He definitely shouldnt be compensated for this neither spared or forgiven, a more efficient solution to deal with him should be found. I had several times said to him that he should go to his master account and deal with his block, dont know what more can I do. FkpCascais (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

One of your links it to the RFC and the other to a discussion that pre-dates the RFC. I opened this section clarify a few things. One of them being that wether or not the IP is included in the discussion or not, the result is the same. AlbinoFerret 21:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Because, after all, it is the RS that matter and not the editors themselves. The IP speaks about the consensus from the article Croatian War of Independence, as if backing his edit-requests. That article has one paragraph which deals with the subject, and says the following:

"On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution,[89] which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.[90] The constitutional amendment of 1971 of SR Croatia included a controversial formulation which stated that Croatia was not the national state of Croats but it was a state of Croats and Serbs in Croatia.[91] The new constitution changed the status of Serbs in Croatia from constituent nation to national minority.[92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99] The new constitution defined Croatia as "the national state of the Croatian nation and a state of members of other nations and minorities who are its citizens: Serbs ... who are guaranteed equality with citizens of Croatian nationality ..."[81]

The wording there is in perfect synchronization with what reliable sources say and with what this article here says. So all seems fine. We dont have contradicting sources so all this matter seems undisputed. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I am reading you closure and may I ask you to reconsider temporarily cause I believe there are issues worth clarifiying? FkpCascais (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the RFC is closed, Im not sure that appropriate. But you can ask questions.AlbinoFerret 01:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

First thing, quite important, it is not "constitutional nation" as you wrote, but "constituent nation". It is the constitutional status of Serbs as constituent nation in Croatia in question here.

Second, the definition. Personally I didnt wanted to go into that field because I am not a constitutional law expert. In this case where I am lone facing a group of skilled editors, the slightest error of mine in the definition would immediatelly become used to discredit me and would derail even further what was an already exhaustive discussion. Lets see it from Wikipedia perspective; I brought 15 (can bring more) reliable sources, all of them from Google books, saying clearly Serbs lost the constituent nation status. We have none oposing this view, and this was a very publicised issue, not at all some remote issue lacking atention that would create a situation that posibly there are no sources contradicting it because of the obscurity of the matter. So we have 15 (can bring more) reliable sources clearly saying it, they know its meaning. By making this question about the definition the way you are making it, you are saying the 15 authors of the sources are not knowing what they are talking about?

Third, the section is writen verbatin from the sources, we (Wikipedia, in this case me as the author of the section) are not impliying anything that is not implied in the 15 sources. If you consider something is iimplied there, the 15 authors are doing it in the sources themselves. Who are we to change that? Specially havng in mind there are no sources oposng it.

Fourth, some sources mention specific rights which were lost by the event. Even if they didnt, that wouldnt change the 15 sources sourced fact.

Fifth, the wording which was used at Croatian War of Independence is not supported by the majority of sources, but rather it is a decontextualised citation taken from one separate source (a 16t source). That same source in what matters confirms the events, just puts it in a different narrative as the author of that source has based her work on the Serbian perception of the events during the war, but once she exemplifies, doesnt mean the events are exclusively viewed that way just by Serbs, which is the intention of those editors in wanting to use that sentence. The use of that source in that way will provide an impression which is directly opposed by the other 15 sources.

So, sources are clear, some even exemplify, I cant see how anyone can claim all 15 are wrong without any sources to back it, just providing personal doubt. FkpCascais (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a group of authors, most specialised in the field, making a clear claim, and we have a group of anonimous Wikipedia editors claiming they are wrong based on their personal opinion. Is Wikipedia a project that works by reliable sources or editors opinions? FkpCascais (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Those arguments were presented in the RFC, and were taken into consideration in the close as an argument. AlbinoFerret 05:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Were they? Lets see some more non-Yugoslav English-language sources and the way they mention the events:

• Western Balkans by Marika McAdam, page 175, says: "On 22 December 1990 a new Croatian constitution was promulgated, changing the status of Serbs in Croatia from that of a "constituent nation" to a national minority. The constitutions failure to guarantee minority rights, and mass dismissals of Serbs from the public service, stimulated the 600,000-strong ethnic Serb community within Croatia to demand autonomy."
• Europe and the Recognition of New States in Yugoslavia by Richard Caplan, page 115, says: "Whereas under communism the Serbs enjoyed the status of a constituent nation in Croatia, soon after taking office Tudjman, in June 1990, prepared a draft of a new constitution that now described Croatia as the sovereign state of Croatian nation, without any reference to the Serbs." - the rest of the page and bottom explanations citing sources are also interesting.
• Balkan Holocausts? by David Bruce Macdonald, says: "His 1990 Contitution, for exemple, conspicuously ommited Serbs as a constituent nation within the new country. ... On practical level, it became obvious that jobs, property rights, and even residence status depended on having croatian citizenship, whiich was not an automatic right for non-Croats." - The rest of the page and the next one include usefull information. Also, while some editors so convincingly claim the constitutional change was just simbolic and insignificant without being able to provide any support for such opinion, I am providing sourced material, not a single word of mine.
• The Balkans After the Cold War: From Tyranny to Tragedy by Tom Gallagher, pages 45 and 46, say: "The Serbs who, under the 1974 Constitution, had been a constituent nation of Croatia, were dropped, and they found themselves treated as a minority on par with the Hungarians, who made up less than 1 per cent of the population. (Silber and Little 1996:103). Even more provocative..."
• The Balkans: A Post-Communist History by Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, page 198 says: "In December 1990, the Croatian Sabor adopted a new constitution which was designed (according to its chief author) to create an exclusively Croatian "ethnic state" rather than a civil one. It implicitly downgraded the Serbs (previously recognised as a constituent nation, conferring equal status with Croats) to just one of several ethnic minorities (Cohen 1997:82-3)."

I said there were many more sources, this is an absolutely dominant point of view regarding this issue. So you are sugesting dropping the wording supported by all this sources (20 of them) based on the fact that some editors dont believe in this? This would be unprecedented on en.wiki. FkpCascais (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me say this, this isnt an opportunity to re-argue the RFC and make all the points again. The RFC was long, and already went over all of these points. None of this changes the outcome. AlbinoFerret 12:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice excuse. You have made a mistake. You need sources to back your alleged consensus, and you need to demonstrate my 20 surces are unreliable. Otherwise your closure has zero value and actually goes against the rules and principles. You are right about one thing, your made up closure clearly tendentious towards one side of the dispute changes nothing. You cant make up a consensus without sources and clearly contradicted by 20 reliable sources. You cant implement your alleged consensus and closure rationale, what are you going to say? I am removing a perfectly well sourced material and replacing it with my and other editors opinion? How familiarised are you with en.wikipedia rules and principles? FkpCascais (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You put yourself at disposal here for clarifications, and once I made you questions you are now clearly evading answering to me. You are not being very polite with that evasive atitude. Sorry, but have to say it. FkpCascais (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No, If you have a question about my close, thats fine. If you are going to continue to argue points that were in the RFC trying to convince me your right and to disregard consensus, thats a waste of everyones time. AlbinoFerret 17:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais, you're beating a dead horse, and you don't even see it when you quote it. The MacDonald quote is wonderful, because it tells you literally that the constitutional thing was meaningless - it was the practicalities that mattered. You should put that in the article, and stop pontificating on a right-wing talking point. The unresolved part of the quote is that it implies that there were Serbs of Croatia who were somehow stripped of citizenship in R of Croatia even though they had it in SR of Croatia. This can be elaborated further, but it's secondary because we already know from various sources that people lost various privileges because of ethnicity, regardless of citizenship. That is what matters today in the description of the events of those events. Real-world consequences of a policy that also included fiddling with a Constitution. Not the fiddling itself. Continuing to harp on the talking point just wastes time for everyone. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This follows the consensus of the RFC. AlbinoFerret 17:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

All of you continue using words that are just your own interpretations. Joy, where do you read MacDonald saying "meaningless"? do you have any source saying meaningless? You are all wanting to push that POV, please be serious and bring sources describing events that way. You are insinuating I am pontificating a right-wing talking point just because I am providing reliable sources and citing them verbatin? By the way all neutral ones. I am being pretty much misstreated here only because you getleman dont agree with the content of the sources I brought, you believe the trouth is different, however you are unable to provide reliable sources to back your views on the events. A question for both of you, and please answer honestly: from what you say, you claim all these authors I cited are wrong, the events were not as described by them. Those events were meaningless, and all these authors are pontificating a right-wing talking point. From your posts, it is obvious you are challenging the reliability of all 20 sources I presented. Yes, or no? FkpCascais (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

And a question for you @AlbinoFerret:, your closing rationale and consensus you mention is directly challenged by 20 relable sources I brought. The issue in question here is fairly well represented in English-language reliable sources. Can you please just point out what reliable sources back your rationale and consensus? FkpCascais (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is agreement. The agreement of the parties in the discussion. There was agreement, or consensus that your sources did not define a term, and what you wanted to show should not be included, but alternate wording should. This may help WP:ONUS. AlbinoFerret 19:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONUS refers to disputed content, disputed by sources, not by editors opinions, and refers to content that can be considered irrelevant, which is not at all the case here since the constitutional change is mentioned in such a great number of sources. Some of the ones I presented even mention its relevance. So no, WP:ONUS doesnt support the consensus neither the closing rationale. Then, consensus is archived by the value of arguments, in this case RS, not by numbers of participants, or by WP:VOTE which seems to be what you are appliying here and giving preference over sources. Also, with that answer, are you confirming that you actually dont have any source which backs you, yes or no? If no, can you please, please, point out the source(s). Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No, ONUS applies to any content, there is no language in that section about disputed sources. I am an uninvolved editor, my role is not to provide you with sources, argue sources, facts, or wording. My role is to read the RFC and see what consensus or agreement formed, and close that RFC based on the participation of the commentators. Closing is not a vote count, but there were no comments that were I just like it, or contrary to PAG in the consensus. AlbinoFerret 20:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ever since, "disputed" in Wikipedia meant "disputed with substance" with verfiability, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT obviously. Regarding your clear use of WP:POLL to determine consensus, look at: 7. Discussions about article content cannot override Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view or verifiable sources. Nor can straw polls be used to determine a question of fact; such a poll is ultimately pointless. I have a fact backed by numerous reliable sources totaly in complience with verifiability, and none contradicting sources were presented, NPOV is present. You are overriding a fact with your poll consensus clearly against what is said there. FkpCascais (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for a review. I have tried to explain the closing and answered questions. This is getting to the point where its just a rehash of whats been said before. At this point silence does not imply consensus. AlbinoFerret 20:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly will. You didnt made any consensus and much less an agreement between the parties, all you did was copy/pasting the wish of one side, and now you close yourself conveniently in silence. Fortunatelly Wikipedia has rules and principles and I will point out them when time comes. FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content and replacement by a missleading wording taken out of context from one source (the wording is indicating Serbs were the only ones perceving events that way, and the author is not saying that, besides, that is contrary of 20 reliabe sources presented here) will be reported. Also, you are defending a indef-banned sockpuppet and using him to push your edit, not at all a good situation. FkpCascais (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm really saying we have a depressing case of WP:Competence is required here, at best, and a glaring WP:ARBMAC violation at worst. It really takes an effort to see so many instances of "there were these nominal things, and these practical things. soon afterwards, bad things happened." and yet keep interpreting that as "nominal things! nominal things! we must focus on nominal things! seriously, we really need to focus on the nominal!". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes Joy, this is ARBMAC territory and it is disturbing what is hapening here. I have a fact that is sourced at its best, I didnt even needed, but I provided 20 English-language reliable sources and all verifiable. My case is so straight forward that:

a) there are NO reliable sources opposing my edit.

b) some of the sources explain what the loss of status meeant providing exemples - there goes the excuse of lack of definition or that they dont exemplify.

c) some of the sources provide context regarding the importance of the event. Some of the sources include the event in a concise history of Croatia, that much importance is provided to it, and almost all agree that it was an important factor that started animosities that lead to war.

d) all 20 of my sources say exactly the same, some just expand the issue more than others.

e) in my edit, I only added content strictly refered in the sources, not a single word or interpretation of mine was added. In what matters I added content the 20 of them agree on, I was extremely carefull regarding neutrality. I

e) you are opposing them just with your personal opinion saying they are irrelevant, a fact contradicted by my sources and that you cant find a single one to back your position.

f) you have one source, which says Serbs perceved events that way, which you want to use clearly to give a missguiding sense that ONLY Serbs perceved events that way, totally ignoring the fact that she doent say that in the sentence but only refers that way because she is focused in her book on Serb perception of the war, and ignoring the fact that absolutelly an overwelming majority of non-Serbian sources refer to the event as a fact, thus making clearly your pretended statement false!

So lets see, the 20 reliable sources of mine provide relevance to the event, they all agree on the description of the events and we have an indication that this is clearly the mainstream view ammong scholars over the issue (much more accentuated this conclusion becomes once we confirmed there are no English-language sources opoosing this vew, but all say exactly the same). Your arguments are totally contradicted by the sources, I told you, if you are so conviced you are right, how come there is absolutely no source agreing with you? You question the definition? Are you saying all authors dont know what they are talking about? Really? Sorry, but I trust more the reliable sources than your opinions, and not only you dont have an ammount of sources which could indicate two different views on the matter, but you dont have even one source question mine. So everyone is welcome to provide sourced content, but not replacing excellently sourced content with personal opinions. FkpCascais (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And to return to your comment, you claim my edit is wrong cause it doesnt provide at all the idea that the loss of constitutional status by Serbs was an irrelevant event, something you firmly believe. That is the focus you want, but that focus is not provided in any source, and I cited almost verbatin the sources exactly in the way and context they do. So you claiming my edit being a case of WP:Competence is required is actually you claiming that to the authors themselves. Can I ask you please then to sugest how you believe it could be improved? FkpCascais (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

One last thing. I think you are all fogeting the article where we are all discussing this. I would understand you complaining about relevance at some article with a much wider scope. But complaning about relevance of the change of the constitutional status of Serbs in Crotia at the article "Serbs of Croatia"? FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: "change word to one of the same meaning" - Sorry but I really need to ask this, are you saying "constitutive" and constitutional" have the same meaning? You dont even know the difference for God sake... now I understand why you couldnt even answer my questions... You just decided by WP:POLL and copyy/pasted their arguments and you dont even know what is in stake here, just great... FkpCascais (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resume for the reviewer

This is what is in question here: some editors initially claimed that the loss of contituent nation status of Serbs in Croatia in 1990 was not truth (that is why I highlighted that sentence in my sorces presented here on discussions). Then after gathering numerous sources, I wrote the entire section of Serbs_of_Croatia#Socialist_Yugoslavia which was empty before. I provided 20 reliable sources all backing the content there. Unfortunatelly a group of editors wants to see everything in that section removed and replaced with one sentence saying Serbs perceved events in 1990 as them loosing the constituent nation status. Their arguments are found in AlbinoFerret close rationale. Hope this resume helped so one doesnt need to go trought the entire discussions. I am here for any clarifications. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Copied from the review section. I will briefly point out the problem that was brought out in the RFC. The sources FkpCascais wants to use dont define the terms that he wants to use, and the one source that does, he doesnt want to use. That is the core of the problem I saw in the RFC. Can an editor gather a bunch of sources and define the terms they use, but dont define, as he wants them to be defined. The consensus said no, we need a definition of the terms from a source. Then they said (paraphrasing) Hey this other article on a similar subject has a claim and its sourced and explained, lets use that. AlbinoFerret 23:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I said several times that I oppose the missuse you want to do with the source, which is to give a clear impression that only Serbs perceved events that way but the reality is different. She desnt say that in the source. Then, the terms are explained at my sources and even exemples of how the removal of the status reflected on Serbs are provided. FkpCascais (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Without getting into whether your sources are acceptable (which I am kind of discussing on the RfC review itself), to be honest, I don't see how saying something "... was perceived by the Serbs as being" would imply that it was only their perception but not the reality. It's pretty standard practice to phrase things like that, and it would be claiming no more and no less than it literally says. The Serbs perceived it as X. Maybe it actually was X, maybe it wasn't - the article simply says nothing about that. LjL (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, they want to remove everything and say just that. I saw the result cause that was the wording found earlier at Croatian War of Independence and believe me that the way it was it clearly gave that perception. Ends up being quite different, puts the events in question, and that is the reason why they want that wording used. It is just a words game that clearly favors the denialists that Serbs losts constitutional status, which is how the discussion started. To explain, I dont mind at all using that phrase, but not that way leaving that impresion having in mind that we have worldwide authors seing events same way as well. Why Albino doesnt accept using a wording from the other sources which will not make that doubt? It is not the same saying "Italians were winning" or "Italians thought they were winning", it is clearly different. I provided 20 sources saying Serbs lost contitutive status, why woudnt we use that sentence so strongly sourced, undisputed, and clear, and have to replace it by a sentence with dubious wording?

Here are sources that explain quite well what the loss of contituent nation meant:

1. Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution
2. Minorities in Europe:Croatia, Estonia and Slovakia
3. Historical Dictionary of Croatia
4. Balkan Holocausts?. FkpCascais (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So let's see. The claim here is that not only did Serbs perceive a loss of rights, but there actually was such a loss. I'll go through your sources (I've edited your post slightly to give them numbers so I can refer to them, hope this doesn't bother you):

1. states "By denying the Serbian people the right to self -determination [...]", so it definitely seems to claim a right was denied when the "constituent nation" status was removed from them. This source, however, makes some claims and uses some language that makes me doubt it can be considered an unbiased reliable source, such as stating that "the incumbent authorities in the Republic of Croatia are resorting to genocide of the Serbs". I really suspect you'd have trouble getting this into the article.
2. explicitly states that "Constitution did not really change the position of Serbs in Croatia", but that "However, in the view of Serbs this was exactly what had happened" (and then proceeds to quote the Association of Serbs from Croatia, which I'd say has to be considered a biased source by default here). So it doesn't seem to validate your claim and in fact looks equivalent to the one source the "other" guys want included.
3. plainly says "Though granting equal rights to the Serbs and other nationalities, the 1990 constitution did not grant the Serbs the status of constituent nation of the republic". This is claiming that the change of status did not have any impact on their rights, which appears to directly contradict your claim.
4. claims that Serbs suffered rights deprivations "on a practical level", but at the same time quotes (I presume the Constitution) saying "the members of other nations and national minorities, who are her citizens, will be guaranteed equal status with citizens of Croatian nationality". It points out that many rights depended on "having Croatian citizenship", so one could infer (far from me to infer on Wikipedia, but!) that the loss of rights stemmed from lack of citizenship - regardless of being a nation vs a national minority.

In conclusion, I'd say two of these sources weakly support your position, while two actually contradict it. LjL (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You read incorectly #3, it refers that they did not enjoyed the status they had earlier, and is now changed. What other you say contradicts me? FkpCascais (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The status but not the rights. It says the rights remain equal. The other one is #2, contradicts you by saying that there was no "change" in "the position of Serbs in Croatia", but that there was in their "view" (similar to the "perceived" thing). LjL (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Very strange how you rushed to the report claiming my sources are bad. But OK, I am reading you. Go on. FkpCascais (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(Is it "strange" that I replied to the user involved with the "report" - which is actually a request to review, not a report - by linking to my stance in this discussion since it's going on in two places? You sure have a strange concept of "strange". LjL (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC))

Where it says that, can you point the sentence please? The #2 also says that what you say but if you cntiinue reading the page you will see that she doesnt claim anywhere there was no change in the status or rights, quite the opposite. But she is dodgy rght? What about the good one? FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You also making a wrong reading of the #2. You made omission that what she says is "Some would certainly argue that the... (position of Serbs didnt change) ... but ... Read again the page please. FkpCascais (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have directly quoted sentences, I don't know what more I am supposed to point at. Of course, not claiming anywhere that there was no change in the status or right is... obviously not a statement that there was? (is this even serious?) - In other words: a source must say something for us to be able to quote it about it, if it merely doesn't claim anything about it, it can't be used as a source for it (but of course, it does say something: it says the position didn't change, as per my direct quote) LjL (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No you didnt. You missquaoted the #2 clearly omiting she started the sentence with "Some will argue...", you claim #3 says something it doesnt say anywhere, you allegedly missunderstood it. #4 you admit it supports me, but then you quote the Constitution giving your own interpretatiion of it. Please bring a reviewer, if you are not, please dont make more intentional missquitations. FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you're assuming my bad faith, I'll disengage from this discussion with you. I must say, though, that I've formed an opinion. LjL (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am, since you missquoted the sources and when faced with the fact you dont want to admit it. Also, a reminder, I am not claiming anything, all sources agree Serbs status in the Constitution was changed and they lost the contituent nation status, and some provide exemples of what that meant. I just added verbatin what sorces say, I dont claim nothing. FkpCascais (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for a review of the RFC

Any editors who are interested and look here. AlbinoFerret

Sources

I highlighted the parts confirming Serbs lost constituent status because that was initially what was disputed, but more recently seems they agree on that but challenge the definition and importance of the event. Thus, I will ask the reviewer to see as well the rest of the page of each source to get an even clearer picture. In my view ammong them they explain it all quite well and my text is a fair resume of all of them. But obviously I accept and will appreciate sugestions, as long as they dont oppose what the majority of sources say. Also, if some of my sources are challenged for reliability, I would appreciate if they say it as soon as they can, thanks.

1. Historical Dictionary of Croatia by Robert Stallaerts, page 53, regarding the 1971 constitutional amendments says: "It stated that Croatia was the state of Croats and Serbs." rest of the page containst also usefull information.
2. Western Balkans by Marika McAdam, page 175, says: "On 22 December 1990 a new Croatian constitution was promulgated, changing the status of Serbs in Croatia from that of a "constituent nation" to a national minority. The constitutions failure to guarantee minority rights, and mass dismissals of Serbs from the public service, stimulated the 600,000-strong ethnic Serb community within Croatia to demand autonomy."
3. Europe and the Recognition of New States in Yugoslavia by Richard Caplan, page 115, says: "Whereas under communism the Serbs enjoyed the status of a constituent nation in Croatia, soon after taking office Tudjman, in June 1990, prepared a draft of a new constitution that now described Croatia as the sovereign state of Croatian nation, without any reference to the Serbs." - the rest of the page and bottom explanations citing sources are also interesting.
4. Balkan Holocausts? by David Bruce Macdonald, says: "His 1990 Contitution, for exemple, conspicuously ommited Serbs as a constituent nation within the new country. ... On practical level, it became obvious that jobs, property rights, and even residence status depended on having croatian citizenship, which was not an automatic right for non-Croats." - The rest of the page and the next one include usefull information.
5. The Balkans After the Cold War: From Tyranny to Tragedy by Tom Gallagher, pages 45 and 46, say: "The Serbs who, under the 1974 Constitution, had been a constituent nation of Croatia, were dropped, and they found themselves treated as a minority on par with the Hungarians, who made up less than 1 per cent of the population. (Silber and Little 1996:103). Even more provocative..."
6. The Balkans: A Post-Communist History by Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, page 198 says: "In December 1990, the Croatian Sabor adopted a new constitution which was designed (according to its chief author) to create an exclusively Croatian "ethnic state" rather than a civil one. It implicitly downgraded the Serbs (previously recognised as a constituent nation, conferring equal status with Croats) to just one of several ethnic minorities (Cohen 1997:82-3)."
7. Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution edited by Snežana Trifunovska, page 477, it says: "at the Second and Third sessions of the National Anti-Fascist Council of the Peoples Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH),...,the equality of the Serbian and the Croatian nations, as constituent nations of the federal unit of Croatia, were recognized in every respect." And then at bottom of the page goes in detail.
8. Integration and Stabilization: A Monetary View by George Macesich, page 24, it says: "The secessionist Zagreb regime first removed from the Croatian Constitution the constituent nation status of Serbs living in Croatia."
9. The Quality of Government by Bo Rothstein, page 89, it says: "Since the constitution of the Yugoslavian Federation regarded the Serbs in Croatia as constituent nation of the Republic of Croatia, this important change..."
10. Soft Borders by Julie Mostov, page 67, it says: "Serbs living in Croatia had been members of a constituent nation while Croatia was part f Yugoslavia."
11. Minorities in Europe: Croatia, Estonia and Slovakia by Snezana Trifunovska, Katholieke Universiteit, on page 23 says: "The international recognition of Croatia, as well as documents adopted by the Croatian Administration prior to the recognition, stripped the Serbs from Croatia from their status of constituent nation and active subject in decisions concerning the Constitution of Croatian State, and specially the status of Serbs in it. What does this mean? It means primarily that the Serbs in Croatia have been down-graded from nation to national minority, or to use a new European euphemism - an ethnic community."
12. Ethnic Violence and the Societal Security Dilemma by Paul Roe, page 94, says: "...previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities."
13. Serbia by Lawrence Mitchell, page 28, says: "...Croatian nationalist Franjo Tuđman in 1990 brought a new constitution that proclaimed that ethnic Serbs would become a national minority rather than a constituent nation within an independent Croatia."
14. Genocide at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century by Dale C. Tatum, page 72, it says: "The original draft of the Croatian costitution did not recognize the Serbian minority as a constituent nation - a right they had during the days of communism."
15. Secessionism and Separatism in Europe and Asia: To Have a State of One’s Own by Jean-Pierre Cabestan and Aleksandar Pavković, page 71 speaking about the events in 1990 says: "It also changed the status of Serbs from a constituent nation in Croatia into a minority."
16. Living Together After Ethnic Killing: Exploring the Chaim Kaufman Argument by Roy Licklider and Mia Bloom, page 158, it says: "Previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia and enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities." At this page is further explained about the changes in the Constitution.
17. Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict by Melanie Greenberg, John H. Barton and Margaret E. McGuinness, at page 83, says: "The new Croatian constitution ... renounced the hitherto protected status of ethnic Serbs as a separate constituent nation embedded in the old constitution and defined Croatia as the sovereign state of Croatian nation."
18. Croatia by Piers Letcher, page 20, it says: "The HDZ also put Crotias 600,000 Serbs on the defensive by changing their status from "constituent nation" in Croatia, to "national minority" and many Serbs in government lost their jobs."
19. Living Together After Ethnic Killing: Exploring the Chaim Kaufman Argument by Roy Licklider and Mia Bloom, page 158, says: "Indeed, the Draft Constitution referred to the Croatian nation (Hrvatski narod) but it n longer referred to Serbs in the same respect. Previously, a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia, ..."
20. Mediterranean Europe by Duncan Garwood, page 119, says: "On 22 December 1990 a new Croatian constitution was promulgated, changing the status of Serbs in Croatia from that of a constituent nation to a national minority."

I want to make one thing clear. I am not claiming anything. I came into this discussion because one user, Shokatz, was claiming that Serbs did not lost any status in the constitutional changes made in 1990. I started gathering the sources and saw how they contradict him and the other denialists. Once I gathered many, I made the text found in the article. I cited sources verbatin. I dont claim nothing, I added just what sources say regardiing this subject. I havent seen any sources challenging this ones, and I saw at Google books that there are many more sources saying exactly the same as the ones I brought, I was just tired of writting them here (since its impossible copy/pastng from Google books) and I brought these thinking 20 were enough. I was also carefull to bring only the English-language ones and to use as much as possible authors outside Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It has been explained to you a dozen times, by several people, that you don't actually have ANY sources for what you want. Cut out the sad WP:HORSE BEATING and move on, please... (and no, I'm not going to engage with you again, refer to the above discussion.. also do not move this post). -- Director (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Status and rights are not the same thing. A source can claim status changed, but rights didn't, and in fact, some of the sources given claim exactly that. LjL (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What both of you say would be correct if I claimed that or added that in the edit. But I didnt, I just added what sources say. The reviewer can see exactly what I added (Serbs_of_Croatia#Socialist_Yugoslavia) and see all sources there and some more listed here. I also need to say that ammong my sources the one I less like is university professor Trifunovska, but I used her in the edit because she refers to the events in WWII and explains how all started. But as everyone can see I use other authors, not her, for the rest. FkpCascais (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

While I don't have very much of a problem with the use of the term "status", that paragraph also contains the following: "the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS), which rejected the new constitution,[37] began building its own national governmental entity in order to preserve the right [sic] that have been stripped away and to enhance the sovereignty of the Croatian Serbs." (emphasis mine). That presents that the Serbs' rights as being objectively stripped away. It is also claimed that "at the Constitutional amendments of 1971 this was now explicitly done in order to guarantee the right [sic] of the Serbs in Croatia", but there appears to be no reference corroborating that interpretation and that is confirmed by the reference after the following statement, my bad. Do you have any objection to removing or rewording these the former statement? LjL (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That is what the source says. Why would you want to change that wording if that is a precise quotation of the author? FkpCascais (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We're running in circles. I say status is not the same as rights, and some sources claim the rights did not change. You agree. I point out that changing rights are mentioned in the article, and ask if you agree to remove that. You disagree. That doesn't seem consistent. As to whether we should believe that specific source claiming the rights were "stripped away", there is this whole lengthy RfC about that sort of thing ("why would" someone want that? Well, WP:RS, WP:BIASED and WP:Conflicting sources may apply, as discussed); let's concentrate to the specific matter at hand here, please? LjL (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please wait for the reviewer before making edits. Earlier you missquoted sources in order to change their meaning so you would have an argument how there are conflicting sources. FkpCascais (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I addeed numbers to the list of sources. Can I ask you please LjL to point to the source(s) that you believe is/are conflicting, and the part of the text in the article they enter in conflict with? FkpCascais (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Restore the tag I had added to the article indicating exactly one point where I found a problem first, as I requested you do in the section below this one, if you seriously want to engage with me in this debate. --LjL (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please present or point the sources first, so we can all see if they say what you claim, or not. Cause by now, you are placing the tag to verbatin wording taken from source, with no indication that is justifiable. Say here the source(s) you say justify the tag, and if we confirm they say what you claim they say and challenge the sentence, I will restore it myself. FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have presented objections to your source, and the tag asserts that there is a discussion in progress, not that the wording is not "verbatin [sic] wording taken from source". Now it really is your turn. LjL (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Will you point the sources or will not? You are adding a tag just based on your speculation, I have the sentence cited verbatin so it is sourced. Please now back up your opposition with sources, not speculation. If you dont want to, or dont have sources, you dont need to, than the case is clear. FkpCascais (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I am adding a tag based on the fact there is a very, very long debate on this page and elsewhere. This is what it means for something to be "disputed". That's more than enough for the tags to stay. You have already assumed by bad faith and are still on the attack and until you relent I am not getting into the merit of the matter with you, but simply pointing out that there is a debate in progress, which is undeniable. There is even an RfC which ended against your position, and it's presently being reviewed, and so far everyone is against reviewing it, so it's you who need to make a compelling argument at this point. LjL (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Will please present the sources or not? You said there are sources contradicting what is said there, why are you not pointing them out? FkpCascais (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no need to present my own sources because your sources show what needs to be shown, and I've covered that before. If you have a problem with my quoting of source #2, then maybe look at source #3's "though granting equal rights to the Serbs and other nationalities". This plainly states the rights were equal, and it's your source. Let's move on please? I've made a new section clearly separating the "status" from the "rights" issue. --LjL (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You still refuse to openly admit you missquoted #2 totaly altering the meaning of what is said there, and now you pretend you dont understand that source #3 is saying that Serbs were degraded from a "constituent nation status" equal with Croats to a "national minority status" with equal rights as the rest of other national minorities? Being "contituent nation" is one thing and being "national minority" is clarly another. We have nowhere to move this way, you should be reported cause you are lying with all your teeth. FkpCascais (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. LjL (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, you certainly know very well the difference between "constitutive nation" and "national minority". You missquoted again the source, you seem to have a clear agenda, everything goes. Please report me for me saying you are lying with all your teeth and someone will ten confirm it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Do NOT remove "dubious" or "debated" tags while discussion is clearly in progress

@FkpCascais: you reverted twice my attempt to reflect the pretty obvious fact that there is discussion here and at the administrators' noticeboard about the RfC that was closed against your stance inside the article with a Template:Discuss tag. You should not remove such tags while the discussion is clearly in progress and you should not engage in edit wars. Please, undo your revert so that the tag shows back in the article as it should.

Lastly, I note that while in the edit summary to justify your latest revert you asked to "be patient and wait for the reviewer", I must note that there is no single and elusive "reviewer", and I'm as entitled to point out that a dispute is in progress as anybody else. You need to relent and accept that your position is not shared by everyone (or, as it would appear, anyone).

LjL (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no single reviewer. In fact LjL is one of the people who responded to your request for review. HighInBC 16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please assist then HighInBC? Although they will cry out loud how you are biased in my favor as the IP several times did recently, so you end up having an unhelpfull pressure not to agree with me, so I understand whatever your call is. FkpCascais (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect I am probably not going to think that HighInBC is biased in your favor. --LjL (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, dont warry, it was not you at all I was refering about. FkpCascais (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC, why is them edit-warring and inserting a tag without backing it first? FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved in this content dispute. This area needs uninvolved admins so I intend to act only as an admin in this area so I don't have to recuse myself from admin action. I will comment on policy and the expectations of the community, but not the validity of any position in the content dispute.

Regarding policy, generally the burden of verifiability is on the person seeking to include information and not on the person seeking to remove it. There is no requirement that LjL prove that a claim is wrong to find it dubious. Adding a tag to indicate that the claim is dubious and that it is under discussion is appropriate and in no way negatively effects your position. It only indicates there is a discussion. It is not as though LjL removed the claim, I don't see what the fuss is about. HighInBC 21:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The fuzz is that insert the tag and then openly lie about the content of the source and hope then to "move on". I understand perfectly well your position. Will see what will happend, I am considering totally dropping the case cause what I am facing is beyond anything inocent. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I see you did it again. Don't. You'll ruin my sleep. And I assure you that I will pursue gratuitous removal of tags that simply claim that something is "disputed" when there is an extremely long talk page demonstrating it, where you are basically the only one on the side that would want to remove the "disputed" tags (unless by rewriting the entire section without your claims). LjL (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You were reverted in that same tag by anpther editor, User:Tuvixer. You are engaging in WP:OR and challenging an entire list f secundary sources just by your own nterpretation of a primary source. I dont know what is wrong with you, you are ignoring rules, you condone and talk even receve counceling from and indef-blocked editor, etc. Get a grip on your atitude here, you are not being neutral in a case of 20 vs 0 sources. Please leave it to someone new non-involved. FkpCascais (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You get a grip. User:Tuvixer removed my tag (quite gratuitously) because of the "technical" reason that I had used an English translation of a bit of the Constution in my "reason" entry for the tag. That has now been fixed (if that was ever a valid reason for removing a "disputed" tag). LjL (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Two points about the RfC

That RfC was long. But I think there are two slightly separate questions in can be divided into. This can't formally be another RfC since the current one is pending review, but maybe it will be helpful to get the questions separated to be able to comment on them separately. --LjL (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

1) Should the article mention that the status of Serbs in Croatia changed from that of a "constituent nation" into a "national minority"?

• My own understanding is that, yes, the Constitution did change in this way, and multiple sources report on that. There was a status change reflected in wording. Even if the Constitution never specifically defined what "constituent nation" meant, it's not our place to suppress valid information based on that (we aren't jurists). --LjL (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC) no, if one actually reads the primary sources (the 1974 vs 1990 final Constitution), as opposed to various secondary sources that just seem to perpetuate one another without citing the primary ones, this simply doesn't appear to take place (and it doesn't take much interpretation to find out). LjL (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That was what started the entire debate. We have 20 sources presented backing this fact and not even one saying Serbs didnt had the status or that their status didnt changed. If there are no further observations regarding the status, we can have the status chapter closed and agreed. FkpCascais (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There is still the matter of an RfC closed with apparent consensus against including this, so we shouldn't brush it off too easily. Consensus can change, but a quick discussion between two editors shouldn't easily trump a lengthy RfC. LjL (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You are being revengfull now. 20 sources clearly say Serbs lost constitutive nation status. Anyone can confirm it, I highlghted that point in each one of them. It is probably the best sourced fact in this and other related articles, cause often even one source is enough, but I brought 20 just in case. And what makes this case even stronger is that there are no sources contradicting this. That was the first mistake of AlbinoFerret close, cause he didnt checked the sources at all, but he just relied for his close to the other side arguments. The problem of what Albino and you are doing is that neither one of you has expressed a valid reason for the removal of that fact besides citing the opinion one of the other (Albino cited the opinion of the users opposing me; and you are now citing his close s reason). The reasons exressed by the editors are extremely weak: irrelevance (what more relevant at this article that their constitutional status) and "what might suggest" which is also an invalid reason for removing sourced content. Please LjL bear in mind that what we are working here is the quality of this article, dont let yourself be affected in the decitions because of the personal disagreements you have with me. PS: Should I list the sources backing this fact? FkpCascais (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't. You already repeatedly did list your sources, and if you continue with this "tactic" of just making the talk page unwieldingly longer and longer, I will hat the redundant/offtopic additions with extreme prejudice. This cannot continue. (And of course, we all disagree with you that "there are no sources contradicting this", but I am not going over this again.) -LjL (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So which sources contradict the claim "Serbs lost constitutive nation status"? FkpCascais (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Constitution(s), for a start. Which, like it or not, is a source. Any source that reports the contents of the Constitution incorrectly is not a reliable source about the Constitution, by definition. And this is the last time I answer questions I have already answered before. From now on, I will simply point out they were previously answered and to refer to my previous answers. LjL (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So you dont have a reliable secundary source, but you plan to contradict the statement backed by all my sources with your own interpretation of the Constitution. You can interpret the Constitution better that the 20 authors of mine, which basically, by your logic, are wrong in claiming that, right? FkpCascais (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I can read it, I don't need to interpret it. Your authors, as mentioned countless times, don't even cite the relevant sections of it. There are other authors that do, and they have been mentioned from the start, but you keep (at this point, dare I say maliciously?) ignoring their existence. I also note how you have flooded my "What does the Constitution actually say?" section with unrelated things and avoided addressing it directly. LjL (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

We, Wikipedia editors, should not read or interpret primary sources when we have plenty of secundary sources dealing with the issue. You are not a legal expert and, even if you were, you are not here to exercise that profession. You are challenging them with your personal interpretation, you cant do that, you dont even know everything they had in consideration when they came to that conclusion, it is not just reading one sentence as you are doing and claiming you understand it all just by that. And even by reading the 1990 Constitution, we can see that Serbs are no longer mentioned along Croats as they were in the previous constitution, but were droped to the group of the others. Please, read the last paragraph of the page 188 of Nationalism in a Global Era: The Persistence of Nations where the authors, by combining the wording of diferent articles, say their conclusions. Please disengage from making your own interpretations and readings of the constitution. FkpCascais (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are making your own elaborate interpretations of these secondary sources. Stop doing that as well. LjL (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A number of sources say before 1990 Croats and Serbs had equal status and rights (exemple The Balkans: A Post-Communist History, page 198, says: "It implicitly downgraded the Serbs (previously recognised as a constituent nation, conferring equal status with Croats) to just one of several ethnic minorities.") and the source I asked you to read in my previous comment saying "Articles 12, 14 and 15 taken together imply that Croatian is central to the state. Linguistic minorities, whiile guaranteed rights as individuals and as group members, are periheral in the republic." how is that you dont see the difference? You are being a tendentious reviewer, ignoring facts just to get your POV. FkpCascais (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Which part of "implicitly" means an explicit change in status, and which parts of "while guaranteed rights [...], are peripheral" means rights are taken away? LjL (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So you claim status didnt changed despite what is said in the bolded part of the sources I presented here: Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Sources? And you claim there was no change in rights despite what we are seing at sources here: Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Sources_that_sugest_rights_were_changed_or_that_mention_exemples_of_changes_the_removal_of_.22contitutive_nation.22_status_implied? And you are allegedly a neutral reviewer? FkpCascais (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you address my questions just above instead of my person? LjL (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Serbs were downgraded in the constitutional status (do you even read the sources?), and their rights were downgraded from the ones of dominant nation equal with Croats to the just basic ones guaranteed to the national minorities. We can see what exact rights are those that changed, and that is what I started doing at this section (language, imposition of Croat religion...). I am sorry but it is impossible to continue this with you pretending to be neutral reviewer when all you have been doing was trying to oppose me. If you question that source because of saying "implicitly" dont pretend you dont know the existance of other 19 sources saying "Serbs lost constitutive status". I cant go repeating all time everything just because you deny the existance of A when its writen A. You are playing blind in order to make me wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

2) Should the article mention that the rights of Serbs in Croatia changed due to the aforementioned status change?

• Associations of Serbs certainly seem to believe so, but various sources (including some presented by the editor championing inclusion of this aspect) suggest that the change in status was not reflected by a change in rights. So, no, in my opinion the article should not state this as fact. --LjL (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Which source you believe says that the change in status did not reflected a change in rights? Can you please point them out? FkpCascais (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going over this again, and I thought you had announced being done with this. LjL (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please just mention the sources by number? Please. Lets try to see the sources here at your thread and confirm so we can work out the wording to add in the article. It would certainly also be helpfull for someone uninvolved not to have to go back but see the source(s) here. FkpCascais (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Cause till now, the sources you said suggest no change in the rights were the following ones: #11 Minorities in Europe and #1 Historical Dictonary of Croatia. I read both saying quite the oposite. Is there any other? FkpCascais (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going over this again; their saying "quite the opposite" is your opinion, which is different from mine. Other people can read them for themselves; let them do that. LjL (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You said that source #11 says "Constitution did not really change the position of Serbs in Croatia", but you just picked one part of one sentence, because the entire sentence is "Some would certainly argue that the provision contained in the 1990 Croatian Constitution did not really changed the position of the Serbs in Croatia as in the part entitled Historical Foundations it defined Croatia as the national State of the Croatian nation and state of members of other nations and minorities who are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs... However, in the view of the Serbs, this was exactly what had happend, taking into consideration that the previous 1974 Constitution of the Republic of Croatia explicitly only emphasized the Serbs as haviing the status of a people in Croatia. The international recognition of Croatia, as well as documents adopted by the Croatian Administration prior to the recognition, stripped the Serbs in Croatia from their status of a constituent nation and active subject in decitions concerning the Constitution of the Croatian State and especially the status of the Serbs in it. What does this mean? It means primarely that the Serbs in Croatia have been down-graded from nation to national minority, ot to use a new European euphemism - an ethnic community." So the text is quiite different than saying Serbs didnt lost any rights, wouldnt you agree?

Regarding the source #1, you said - "though granting equal rights to the Serbs and other nationalities". This plainly states the rights were equal, and it's your source." - the source says: "Through granting equal rights to Serbs and other nationalities, the 1990 constitution did not grant to Serbs the status of constituent nation of the republic. Croatia is defined in this last constitution as the historical state of the Croats." This one can be used as refering to the rights. FkpCascais (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to see the sources so we can work out the wording. Please lets forget everything and work contructively from now on. FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I neglected to quote the beginning source #11's statement, it's true (I admitted it more than once even though you deny it); however, you should note that "some would certainly argue that" is grounds to not present something as fact (if the very source puts it in doubt), and then the same source says that it was what had happened "in the view of the Serbs" (suggesting it may not be established).

As to #1, I'm not sure what you're saying now, but it seems to me that it plainly states that while the rights are still equal (not "and", not "as", so it isn't comparing to other minorities), the status changed, which is exactly what I'm arguing for, you see?

LjL (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, that one, the #1, deals with the issue of the rights and says Serbs and other nationalities had them equal. My question is if the source is refering by nationalities to all (including the Croats which from then on are the only constitutive nation) or saying they have equal rights same as the other national minorities (which some other sources say). I am not sure, but this source is valid for your question cause refers to the rights. What other sources you saw dealing with the rights? I will start bringing the ones I know deal with the rights, so we can put them together and make a fair edit. PS: I agree we drop Trifunovska for the challenged matters. She is professsor at Belgrade University, I read somewhere she is Macedonian, but I allways agreed to avoid local Yugoslav authors. If you notece despite everything she says, I only used her for the WWII part. FkpCascais (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

My reading of the source's English indicates that they are given equal rights as the Croats, not just as the other minorities, otherwise the source would have used "as", not "and". I need to point out, since you mentioned this before, that simply "being a professor" doesn't automatically qualify someone as being a reliable source, and even then, you can be a generally-reliable source, but biased on certain matters. WP:RS is very multifaceted. LjL (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, regarding the source #17. The source says: "The new Croatian constitution promulgated by an overwelming majority of the new parliament, renounced the hitherto protected status of ethnic Serbs as separate constituent nation embedded in the old constitution and defined Croatia as the sovereign state of the Croatian nation. In response, the SDS in Krajina begun building its own national governmental entity in order to preserve the rights that had been stripped away and to enhance the sovereignity of Croatian Serbs." I do think they are saying it all, not saying Serbs perceved it as such. FkpCascais (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That source definitely claims the rights changed, and other sources you gave also claim that; I am not saying none do. What I am saying is that some source also suggest they may not have changed (see above), and a number of sources simply don't claim anything in that regard. That's why I do not think we can present it as fact, but only as some sources' (and, namely, the Serbs') view on the matter. LjL (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Digression about compromising and using consensus versus relying on sources

Lastly, I think you should keep in mind that building WP:Consensus also means seeking compromise, and perhaps you should consider whether you could be content with having it your way about the "status" part, and conceding on the "rights" part. LjL (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC) But Ljl, I dont think that is very correct for an encyclopedic project to build consensus having in mind editors wishes or opinions. I firmly believe consensus should be archieved trough consensus of reliable sources. Also, I dont see this as "my vs theirs" way. I am not Serb of Croatia, I came to this discussion by following the IP who was evading block. I noteced editors firmly making claims, everyone was talking but there was no sign of sources, so I went to see what sources say. I started bringing sources here and, by combining them, I made the edit. At top of this talk-page we have the reminder to follow the article policies of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:VER. I believe you are driven by an idea that they all opposing me by saying there was no change in rights must make them somehow right. The only way to confirm it and solve this objectively is to see what sources say and make at the end an edit that would be agreed by sources and WP:UNDUE. If we see enough sources saying 2 different views, then I support the inclusion of both of them. I am not at all opposed to change the wording of my edit, I even asked for sugestions, I just think that I am not asking much when I say that the changes need to be backed by sources. If we create a solution that is not in accordance with the sources we always face the possibility of tomorrow having a bunch of new editors coming here and reopening the issue again. I allways perceve content disputes that way, never looking to the numbers of user at sides, cause one day one side can be more numerous and another day the other. That is why WP:POLL exists and disputes have to be considered by confronting the RS brought. Sorry for the lenght of my post, but to conclude, I would really favor a more solid solution based on reliable sources, then a solution based on one for you, one for me. Would you opose us at least looking what sources say since we got till here? FkpCascais (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC) You're right, consensus shouldn't trump the fact that WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But even reliable sources always need to be read and interpreted by humans, so there has to be consensus about what sources can be considered reliable and what they are and aren't actually saying. We can't escape from that. The "other side" isn't really making claims except that you can't claim that rights were changed and/or constitutional status was changed. My suggestion as to the wording is to go ahead and talk about a change in constitutional status (since, apparently, the constitution did change its wording about Serbs in Croatia), but refrain from getting into the complicated realm of rights, which sources don't back so clearly. LjL (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC) We can see of course if there are some unreliable sources ammong the listed, and if there are, we will disregard them. Also, I think we have two different issues on this point about the rights; one is about finding out the correct wording regarding the rights considering what sources say; and second, we have sources which instead of refering to the rights, they give exemples of what the constitutional status change meant and how affected Serbs. Later tonight I will cite here the sources refering to the right, so once we see them, along with the two already mentioned above, wwe would have a clearer picture. FkpCascais (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC) I know there are sources referring to rights; the problem is that we have sources (your own, I don't know what I would find if I searched further!) saying that the rights were, per se, not affected. So, if anything, we need to state there is a conflict of sources, and maybe it's best just not to get into the issue. LjL (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC) LjL, I am saying, lets see the sources and find out what they say about it, and see between us the best possible wording, and all I see you doing in consecutive posts now is you looking how to avoid seing the sources and how to convince me to "have their way". This project is about sources. I made an effort to provide 20. No one is wanting to see them but people want rather to write what they want and what they think. You insinuate then that my 20 sources may not provide the correct picture cause who knows what you will find in other sources not brought here. Well, you actually found one source contradicting loss of rights ammong mine cause I was not cherry-picking sources to back any specific point but I was bringing them regardless of what they say, for me it just mattered they refered to the contituent status. Some of my 20 may even back you as well, lets see. Can I please ask you to give a chance to the sources? FkpCascais (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just one point: @Associations of Serbs certainly seem to believe so, but various sources (including some presented by the editor championing inclusion of this aspect) suggest that the change in status was not reflected by a change in rights. So, no, in my opinion the article should not state this as fact.

"..or tacitly imply it".. is my addition. Cuz that's what Fkp is obviously (and perfidiously) going for. I tried to get him to budge on this.. not an inch. -- Director (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Implication is a subtle thing. It's very difficult to prove that an article is only "tacitly implying" something, and I think we should stick to what we're going to explicitly state. We certainly shouldn't remove properly sourced and valid material because some editors think it may "tacitly imply" something else. LjL (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Director's suggestion is the same as your opinion that an explicit statement about no right's change is needed to avoid any misinterpretations. I don't think the other user will accept that because he is going exactly after that. That there was no change in rights is very evident from the constitution which guarantees equal rights to everyone. The change in "status" had not occurred. Firstly Serbs were not called a national minority and secondly the whole presumption that they were a constitutive nation is wrong as explained by the only source that deals with it more elaborately than just stating a "fact". 141.136.228.115 (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ljl: Of course. What I mean is, if we simply state without qualification that the Serbs' "status" had been changed, we may imply a loss of rights or a disenfranchisement of some sort. After our long discussion I believe that is precisely what Fkp is aiming for here. We simply must point out that the latter was not the case (per the sources you list below, among others mentioned previously..).

What Fkp points to, with respect to anyone losing rights, is the "purging" of Serbs from government jobs and positions which occurred under the new Tudjman government. While this certainly took place, no source in their right mind would claim it was a result of any legal or constitutional requirement (the cause of the discrimination, and the election of Tudjman's nationalists in the first place, is of course the general rising of ethnic tensions in Yugoslavia.. in turn caused by Milosevich's power grab in the Yugoslav presidency, etc., etc..) -- Director (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The "purging" is another can of worms, and one I'd probably like not to get into... but you're right, it is not automatically related to juridical "rights" at all. However, I do not think we should actively state the rights did not change, because like it or not, we have WP:Conflicting sources about that. There are definitely a number of sources that state the rights did change, and just like I've told FkpCascais that we cannot simply report them as stating fact, because other sources contradict them, so I must tell the same to you in the mirror situation. LjL (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: The massive ethnic discrimination by the Croatian Tudjman government of the period is precisely the root of the myth of legal disenfranchisement/loss of rights. These two events, the changing of the constitutional "status" and the discrimination, when put alongside one-another, form the misleading narrative of Croatia introducing some kind of Nazi-style "Aryan race laws" (which is what Serb propaganda of the period basically claimed, playing on the WWII Ustase, and which in turn played a massive part in inciting the Serbian revolt). However, the two events are absolutely not causatively connected: the idea that the Republic of Croatia has some kind of ethnic discrimination enshrined in its constitution is just manifestly preposterous. The relevant part of the constitution remains exactly the same up to this day - and the country is a fully-fledged member of the European Union.

My point being: when reading the sources that appear to claim a loss of rights, be careful to check whether they actually, directly state that the Croatian constitution entailed a loss of legal rights and privileges on the basis of ethnicity (as opposed to merely mentioning the constitutional change alongside the discrmination). Because, quite frankly, no reputable source should be saying something so patently ridiculous. The point isn't debatable at all: even if it wanted to, no country in Croatia's position, at that time in history, could afford to introduce any kind of ethnic discrimination laws, nor, even more laughably, take them with her to the European Union. The discrimination could be (and was) very effectively accomplished informally. -- Director (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

But Direktor, what you are saying would be correct if the case was me picking loose statements and using them to build up a story, however that is not the case because most of the sources talk about the loss of contituent nation status and the loss of mentioned rights side by side and in the same context, exemple, Source #2 "Western Balkans". Some, such as source #4, "Balkan Holocausts?" or source #11, "Minorities in Europe" even directl link them two by using expressions such as "On practical level it became obvious..." or "What does this mean? It means priimarily that." That is why I made the edit that way, not because of the reasons you claim. FkpCascais (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Direktor, can I also make you one question? Can you look at Soft Borders page 67, see the sentence saying "More to the point, constituent peoples enjoyed the right of secession". Would you agree that removing from Serbs the status of constitutive nation also removed them the right to secession? That by itself already makes a huge difference. FkpCascais (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:OR. Please read the lead. Carefully.

NO. That's Seseljite nonsense finding its way into the print of uninformed authors. The Republics had the right to secede, obviously - not "nations" from Republics, that's just manifest nonsense. Excel above the mob of Serbian nationalists - and think about it for a second! How would that even work??? If you're a Serb and you have a flat in Zagreb (as did probably tens of thousands) - is that then legally, constitutionally part of the Republic of Serbian Krajina?? Or does the Constitution mandate your eviction to the (godforsaken dump that is the) Krajina?? UGGH... Look, this is a moot point - if you believe "constituent nations" had the "right to secede" from the Socialist Republic of Croatia according to the 1974 SR Croatian Constitution - just point to the provision. It shouldn't be hard to find... (or rather, I'm sure it will be..).

Because, at most, that's a provision in the Federal constitution. And I'd stake my stethoscope that its not the case even there. If it is - point to the provision in the 1974 Federal Constitution. But even if it is, that's not what the Tudjmanites changed, and it didn't apply to Croatia post-secession (and of course the world-class colossal dumbbell Babic declared the RSK AFTER the Croatian secession). -- Director (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not what the source is saying, and it woudnt certainly apply for a flat being owned by a Serb in Zagreb, but possibly for the territories where Serbs are overwelming majority. And no, the source is not at all refering to constitutive natons at federal level, it clearly refers to republics level cause, before concluding that for Serbs of Crotia, it gives the exemple of Albanians in Serbia. So I really have to point WP:OR to you, cause you continusly make claims, you accuse sources of being Serbian propaganda, etc. but the problem is that you so firmly believe in something which is opposed by many surces. If you notece, I am not engaging in any OR but rather pointing you out statements from sources that are contrary to your claims. For instance, during the entire discussion you claim all this is irrelevant, but my sources even describe the change in constitution as "this important change", while you cntinue claiming that witout a single source describing it the way you do. FkpCascais (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So your little theory is that municipalities(?) with a Serbian minority had a constitutional right to secede? Is that what your (one, silly) source is claiming? Is it the municipalities 50%? 60% Serbs? Wow, that's an interesting legal theory there, Fkp - sadly its your own invention, or rather its a verbatim parroting of the babble of Vojislav Seselj. No Yugoslav constitution, on any level, made any provision for any secession of any "nation". It just didn't.

Bravo then, your fanatical quest to justify your own minority's war has resulted in your finding some random WP:FRINGE loon with no idea what she's talking about. Not going to fly with me personally, I'm afraid. Point to the provision. Because I know that NONE of that is present in any constitution, federal or republic, 1974 or otherwise. -- Director (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Direktor, I found a source saying "constitutive nations had the right of secession" (Soft Borders p. 67) and talks why that status was not provided to Albanians in Serbia, and why was removed to Serbs in Croatia. I never say anywhere how would exactly anyone secede if that was to happend, I will not speculate and certainly not add in the article nothing beyong what the sources say. I just answered to your speculation about the flat in Zagreb, and you know very well what I meant, that such rights dont apply for individual properties but would most likely be applied by a referendum on some administrative level (such as municipalities, but I dont know, the source doesnt say it, I just gave you an exemple). Then, you claiming my source is silly says more about you that me or my source. FkpCascais (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources suggesting "rights" may have been retained

Aside from the two sources that FkpCascais already gave several times, which, in my opinion, put into doubt that the rights (as opposed to just the constitutional status) of Serbs of Croatia changed with the 1990 constitution, at least as an indisputable fact, I'm making a search for any further sources to that effect. Here is what I've found so far (not making any claims of reliability at this point):

1. Robert Stallaerts (22 December 2009). Historical Dictionary of Croatia. Scarecrow Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-8108-7363-6. Though granting equal rights to the Serbs and other nationalities, the 1990 constitution did not grant the Serbs the status of constituent nation of the republic.
2. Snezana Trifunovska; Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. Centre for Migration Law; T.M.C. Asser Instituut (19 October 1999). Minorities in Europe:Croatia, Estonia and Slovakia. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-90-6704-117-1. [...] the doctrine that the constitution of a nation-State may acknowledge the domination of one ethnic group instead of treating all ethnic groups as equals - so long as it protects the rights of minorities - was reflected in the Croatian constitution [...] Some would certainly argue that the provision contained in the 1990 Croatian Constitution did not really change the position of the Serbs in Croatia [...] However, in the view of the Serbs this was exactly what had happened
3. Mitchell Young; Eric Zuelow; Andreas Sturm (7 March 2007). Nationalism in a Global Era: The Persistence of Nations. Routledge. p. 188. ISBN 978-1-134-12310-0. [...] the constitution of 1990 and successive revisions have contained provisions guaranteeing rights to non-Croatian speakers. [...] The constitution sets up a situation where both the Croatian people and the Croatian language are central to the state, while guaranteeing peripheral groups (and their languages) certain rights.
4. Reneo Lukic; Allen Lynch (1996). Europe from the Balkans to the Urals: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. SIPRI. p. 277. ISBN 978-0-19-829200-5. The Badinter Commission did not call into question Croatia's right to treat Croatian Serbs as a national minority, so long as basic individual and group rights were respected.
5. United States. Congress. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1993). Human rights and democratization in Croatia. The Commission. the new constitution adopted in December 1990 read that Croats would grant equal rights to minority groups only after a proposal that would have given all peoples of the republic equal status was rejected. This move angered Serbs concerned about becoming, by their own definitions, a national minority with fewer rights [...]

LjL, for claiming there was no change in rights, you cant add just any source mentioning any right. We need to establish weather Serbs rights were changed, or remained equal, at the point when Serbs of Croatia lost the highest constitutional level of contituent nation, they had along Croats earlier) in 1990. A source like #3 saying just that non-Croats had rights is not telling us nothing about the question here. Also, source #2 by saying "Some would certainly argue..." is putting that view as a minoritarian one, and she later on the page actually criticizes that view, which would make he much easily belong to the oposite group, not this one. And #4 also desnt refer if there was any change or not in the rights of Serbs, just sayng that Bedinter Commission doesnt oppose the fact that Serbs were now a national minority, not oppose as long as their basic and individual group rights were respected. Not saying if Serbs had more or same rights before. The #1 we agree we can use as saying rights were mantained as same,(Later when I get home tonight I will bring here the sources). FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am aware these sources aren't airtight. It's what I have found so far. In fact, I think your two are more convincing. #2 doesn't claim it's a minoritarian view, and doesn't claim the opposite later - it claims that Serbs disagreed with that (minority or majority, whatever it be) opinion: everything is said "in the view of Serbs" and later "According to the Association of Serbs from Croatia". LjL (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

But, everybody obviously has rights, otherwise the country would not be able to be member of the UN. The point is that Croatia in its constitution makes distinction between constituent nation and the others. Seems that being a constitutive nation would provide you more rights, or maybe not, that is what we need to establish. Before 1990 both Croats and Croatian Serbs were constitutive nations defined in the constitution, in 1990 a change was done, and Serbs were removed from being constitutive nation and only Croats were left as such. FkpCascais (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've understood this by now (although I beg to differ on needing rights to be allowed in the UN)... what's your point though? I'm referring specifically to rights, not just to the change in status. Let me note that #2 here also reports that "the doctrine that the constitution of a nation-State may acknowledge the domination of one ethnic group instead of treating all ethnic groups as equals - so long as it protects the rights of minorities - was reflected in the Croatian constitution". Again, this is not definitive, but it is another hint that the constitution itself didn't impinge on rights. LjL (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the lost of status of constitutive nation made Serbs of Croatia loose some rights acording to some sources (I will list them all) and we need to confirm if that is correct or not. FkpCascais (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Some sources do say that. They really do! But in my opinion, some other sources (most importantly #1 and #2 here, although you disagree about #1) kinda say the opposite. So how can we decide which sources to believe? Well, unless we determine that some of them are unreliable, we can't - we must report both view, or neither view (and I lean on only reporting the change in status).

I thought we agreed to avoid Trifunovska for the challenged matters. We have plenty of sources, she does seem to favor the Serb side, so I dont oppose droping her if you agree. Regarding source #4 I dont think it is usefull for this quetion here, but what it says should certainly be included in the article cause brings the findings of the Bedinter Comission. FkpCascais (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We didn't agree to anything. If Trifunovska actually "favors the Serb side" and yet some things she states do not necessarily corroborate the Serb stance as fact, that's very significant. You introduced your biased source, now you get to keep it even when it works against you, that's how intellectual honesty works. LjL (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry LjL for the edit-conflicts, I just saw your summary, I will be much more carefull. Regarding Trifunovska, I only use her in the article for an unchallenged part dealing with WWII. I didnt had any bad faith neither I consider her biased, or not. It was you (diff) and another editor that said she was biased and unreliable, I trusted the two of you this time. Cause being a professor at Belgrade University (in Serbia) makes me want to rely more on other scholars that not related to Serbia or Croatia over a matter involving precisely this two. To conclude about her, we seem to disagree about the interpretation of her. I read her "Some will argue... However... " and the rest what she says there as precisely criticism to that view, you dont. Talking about honesty, I find unfair that for claims you dont support you criticize her but when you make a reading of something from her source as supporting you, you defend her. I sense a slight teaching me a lesson in your last comment, I am so affraid this dispute neutrality will be a victim of personal conflicts. I will like to ask you just one thing: if you could totally forget what everbody said, forget the discusions, the close, forget what they said, forget what I said, forget also the fact that I can be a rude idiot quite deficient at times in social skills and creating sympathy (I am sorry LjL) and just wear no lents at all and just see what all sources say. FkpCascais (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not "teaching you a lesson"... it's that, to put it simply, if someone is biased in favor of A, then if they say something in favor of B, then it must really mean there's something to be said in favor of B. Although I know you don't read the source this way.

Let me ask you one thing: do you realize that the RfC "decided" that not even the status change should be mentioned, and yet here I am, insisting that at least that should be mentioned? Are you so sure I'm terribly biased against your opinion? LjL (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

II never actually considered you to be so terribly biased against me, I just think that from a certain point you eliminated the possibility of me being right at most points. Also, many, not just you, often think that if a group points to something against someone alone, the group must be right. The problem here is that I am being deeply missunderstood. But here is how it happend: at hot-spots such as former Yugoslavia, nationality indeed plays a significant role. Most editors back their "tribe", and even if not fully agreing they end up finding a way at least not to favor the other tribe or to be considered a traidor. So once a conflct arises, most will stay on their own side, the most objective and neutral will leave the discussion in early stages, while the war will be carried on by the partisan ones. I noteced this discussion, initialy it was between a partisan and an objective user both from Croatia, a partisan one was saying that Serbs were not constitutive nation while the objective one was opposing him. Then the IP you know came, and he is very partisan, while the objective one, as I said it usually happends, removed himself. The situation became disproportional, specially because there are no Serbian editors here. I took the role of defending the side which was left unprotected. Obviously, first I gave a look at the sources and I noteced there was a clear point Serbs had here. Once I gathered sources that would confirm the denial that Serbs lost the constitutive status in the constitution of 1990 was wrong, I thought about adding content regarding this. forgot to mention that once you confront the partisan ones, you are immediatelly attacked, you suffer a number of acusations, and they end up making you became more involved that you pretended. So that is what happend. After confrming the status part I just wanted to further gather sources and see what they say, but I was pushed to defend the side they were attacking. ... So we ended here. I am now adding a few sources down that back the fact Serbs lost some rights. While searching, I found a source that backs "your side", I will give it to you, it is actually a source that I find very usable for an edit: its the page 72 of "Genocide at the Dawn". I hope by this I can really make you understand that I am not at all any sort of partisan editor, I was more really pushed to it, but now once I face (I hope, dont disapoint me) objective editors, we can really see all sources whatever they say and make a neutral edit, without the mine/your side. FkpCascais (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the group is right just because it's a group (it's often the other way around). But from a certain point you got quite aggressive and then I started to think there was a reason why the group was tired with you. I don't know if I am objective (that's hard), but I am not Serbian, nor Croatian, and I don't have a preference for either people. I haven't been able to access the source you now mentioned, so far... let me know your take about the section I've added below, since now I'm confused about the Constitution's exact words (the 1990 Constitution's, I know the current ones). LjL (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources that sugest rights were changed or that mention exemples of changes the removal of "contitutive nation" status implied

We need to find out what sources say about the 1990 Croatian Constitution removal of "constitutive nation" status of Serbs of Croatia, a status in the constitution they had till then, and after 1990 became exclusive of Croats. I will add the sources in a way they can be immediatelly verifiable and by going to the link, will be guided to the pretended page at Google books and will have the key words highlighted.

1. Melanie Greenberg; John H. Barton; Margaret E. McGuiness (2000). Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict. Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 83. The new Croatian constitution promulgated by an overwelming majority of the new parliament, renounced the hitherto protected status of ethnic Serbs as separate constituent nation embedded in the old constitution and defined Croatia as the sovereign state of the Croatian nation. In response, the SDS in Krajina begun building its own national governmental entity in order to preserve the rights that had been stripped away and to enhance the sovereignity of Croatian Serbs. - This source speaks abaut a staus as a right Serbs losr
2. Dale C. Tatum (2010). Genocide at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Darfur. Palgrave MacMillan. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-230-62189-3. The rebellion had taken place, because the Croatian Serbs were not convinced that their individual rights and cultural identity would be protected in Croatia. The original draft of the Croatian constitution did not recognize the Serb minority as constituent nation - a right they had during the days of communism. The final draft of the Croatian constitution FkpCascais (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

#1 is definitely talking about removed rights, although it's strongly linked to the SDS, and if it came quoted one would immediately think that's just the SDS's opinion. #2 nominally mentions a "right" but it's really just the "right" to be a constituent nation, which is a misnomer, since (as we know very well by now, and as countless other sources state) that's status, not rights. Rights must be something aside from the mere change in constitutional status. LjL (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The #2 is the one I was refering up there. Just that seems that iin a rush I left it badly formated. I think that source ends up somewhere in between, refers as a loss of a right of being contitutive nation, and also mentions how Serbs had the perception of loosing rights. I want you to know that at this time I dont oppose anymore adding a sentence saying Serbs perceved events that way (we have 2-3 sources using that wording), but if we add content in a way Tatum is doing it there, not just saying that. PS: I had a minor Wiki-break yesterday, I really needed it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Being a constitutive nation is a status, not a right. It may imply rights. But aside from that... let me understand the timeline of events: the 1st draft of the 1990 constitution said "national minorities", then the final version said "nations and minorities", and then only later in 2001 it was changed to "national minorities" again? 'cause at this point I'm a bit confused about the actual text(s). LjL (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, that is why I said this source is in between. The Croatian constitutions refered all to "constituent nation(s)". It has to do with history. Croatia was not independent before becoming part of Yugoslavia, they lost their full sovereignity still in the 1100s and since then they had been part of the several Austrian and Hungarian incarnations. The consequence is that their territory was also not fully defined. Besides, what became Yugoslav SR Croatia, included territories of several administrative units prior joining Yugoslavia, such sa Croatia proper, Dalmatia, Slavonia, Military Frontier, etc. During the first Yugoslavia, between 1918 to WWII, Serbia, for instance, didnt had its territory defined; the kingdom itself with the Serbian dinasty at its head was somehow enough, and the kingdom was internally devided not along ethnic lines, but the banovinas were based on rivers. At that time, several Croatian poltical parties demanded that the Croatian territory should be defined. That ended being done with the creation of the Banovina of Croatia in 1939, but by then WWII was already starting and will devastate Yugoslavia two years later. The WWII in Yugoslavia was very complicated, but the Yugoslav Partisans won, and will abolish the monarchy. In Yugoslavia Through Documents is explained how still before the end of the war, the definition of SR Croatia was being made. The territory of what became SR Croatia was composed between 1/4 to 1/3 of Serbs, most of them descendents of the Serbs that lived in the Westernmost parts of the Military Frontier. Serbs of Croatia also played a major role in the Partisans in Croatia, and were large majority in the first half of the war (see: Yugoslav_Partisans#Croatia). These factors contributed that Serbs of Croatia would become considered "contitutive nation" along Croats in SR Croatia. I will speculate now, but I see quite possible that it was done by the new communist government because they thought Yugoslavia, after liberatng itself from Germans, was strong, and the wordng regarding ethnicities in the republics would never become an issue cause Yugoslavia will live forever. But it didnt, and as soon as democratic elections were held (not nationally, but on republics level), the new pro-nationalist governament of HDZ changed the Constitution in order to leave just Croats as constituent nation. So after that was done in 1990, Croatia was not longer a land of Croats and Serbs (Stallaerts p. 53). We are discussing here what that change iin 1990 meant. The editors opposing me were saying it didnt made any difference, we need to see source what say. FkpCascais (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A wall of text, but what's the point. This is totally unrelated to the discussion and to the point that Croatian constitution of 1990 is not calling Serbs to be a national minority. 89.164.181.92 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

For a correct interpretation it is helpfull to understand its contextualization. Also, please read Nationalism in a Global Era, page 188 how explains how Serbs were demoted from the status of constitutive nation to the one of national minority, and how the "nations and nationalities" (which Serbs were included) was changed in a revision to "national minorities". FkpCascais (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Living Together After Ethnic Killing: Exploring the Chaim Kaufman Argument by Roy Licklider and Mia Bloom, at page 158 says how beside the removal of Serbs from the constitutive nation status, the new Constitution also defined now the official language and alphabet as the "Croatian language and alphabet" and saying next that dual-language road signs were removed and also how a number of Serbs were removed from the bureaucracies and police and replaced by Croats. Here is an exemple of changes that the new constitution made. Seems that removing Serbs from the constitutive nation status was fundamental for the implementation of strictly Croatian as official national language. Haviing in mnd that Stallaerts sugests that once Serbs removed from the constitutive nation status and by leaving only Croats with that status, the country was no longer a state of Croats and Serbs, makes sence that such a change as the implementation of just Croatian as official language on national level, ends up related. Would you agree? (I am making the links to the sources in a way that drive you directly to the page, I will formate them later). FkpCascais (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The constitution says that "Croatian is a state of the Croatian people AND a state of other NATIONS and minorities.", so again you are stating a wrong claim that Croatia was no longer a state of Serbs. This sentence also does not bring any constitutive status. You are constantly repeating that this is the sentence that speaks of your definition of "constitutive status", while the secondary sources point to another sentence as the one which defines who "constituted SRC". 89.164.181.92 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont remember I ever said that sentence defines constitutive status. When a reliable sources makes a claim, they usually know why they are making it. That is why, even in content discussions, I make statements clearly having in mind that they are sourced. Usually I dont add sources in my comments, although I am carefull to know the source or article I can point out to if challenged. BUT, this time when I wrote "Croatia was no longer a land of Croats and Serbs" I was actually more carefull than usual and, if you notece, I added at my comment, the source that is claiming that just next to the sentence, in this case was Stallaerts page 53. So once I do that, you really shouldnt ask why am I saying that, but you can see the source I cited and ask yourself why the source is saying it. FkpCascais (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Soft Borders page 67, explains the concept of constitutive nation, and says: "More to the point, the constituent peoples enjoyed the right of secession." Then at the end of the next paragraph it explains the reason why mantaining the status was important for Serbs, and the arguments used to remove them the status. FkpCascais (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Bo Rothstein in The Quality of Government, pages 89 and 90, talks about the events, and lists five actions taken by the new Tudjman Croatian governament that, citing, "ignited the conflict and led to the outburst of violence in Krajina, and later in other parts of the former Yugoslavia." Immedately as first he mentions the constitutional status change of Serbs in Croatia. Citing: "First, the constitution of the new state ensured that Serbs would be treted as second-class citizens in Croatia. The moderate Serb leaders demand that Serbs be defined as constituent nation on an equal footing with the Croats was denied (Goe 2003, 44). Instead, the new constitution held that Croatia was tobe a state for Croatians and that all other nations were to be considered national minorites. Since the constitution of the Yugoslavian Federation regarded the Serbs in Croatia as a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia, this important change was a "hammer-blow" to Rašković". The second action Rothstein refers to were the massive layouts of Serbs. Hpwever, the third one is the most interesting, says that, citing him "Non-Croats were differentiated from Croats in yet another way:" Everyone can read at the link I provided what he says regarding the Domovnica on page 90, and I would really appreciate if I could have feedbacks on this. FkpCascais (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• David Bruce MacDonald Balkan Holocausts? on the section "Contextualizing the war in Croatia" makes a very interesting observation that, while Cratians claim the 1990 Constitution was giving equal rights to Croats and others, now citing, "On practical level, it became obvious that jobs, property rights, and even residence status depended on having Croatian citizenship, which was not an automatic right for non-Croats. A series of exams was required to obrain citizenship, requiring knolledge, but also approval, of a highly nationalistic interpretation of Croatian culture and history." This seems quite discriminatory towards non-Croats. Interesting is the fact that MacDonald also refers to this aspect Rothstein refered about "Domovnica". Lets not forgt that Croatia was in process of becoming independent and that everyones Yugoslav passports were to become obsolete and replaced by new Croatian ones, and seems HDZ made way for making a discriminatory mechanism in order to provide it to some and deny it to others. FkpCascais (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

One thing is rights changing on a juridical level (which is what needs to be demonstrated), another is discrimination on a practical level. Note that even User:Director agrees there was discrimination. But there can be discrimination without a technical change in rights. LjL (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They are related. Because it was certainly the changes in the Constitution that made them possible. Leaving just Croats as the only constitutive nation is already established by several sources that means Croatia was no longer a land of Croats and Serbs, but just Croats, and that difference is the one that made possible that a highly nationalistic interpretation of Croatian culture and history become implemented in the citizenship requirement exame. FkpCascais (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"Certainly"? That's not certain at all, it's half the thing that's under discussion. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASerbs_of_Croatia&type=revision&diff=687342122&oldid=687340961 just addressed9 the "constitutive nation" thing, I don't think it's valid. It's not very surprising that Croats started discriminating Serbs, and I'm pretty sure that would have happened with or without any juridical change. LjL (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Balkans: A Post-Communist History by Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffrie, on page 198 says: "However, Tudjamns government handled the Serb minority insensitively and provocatively: by lounching cncerted media campaigns against it, by indiscriminately purging Serbs from key occupations, by belittling the terrible atrocities that many Croats had committed against large numbers of Serbs and Montenegrins between 1941 and 1945, by ordering imposition of Catholic instruction in all of Croatias state schools (even in predomiinantly Serb-inhabited areas), and by blowing up some of the houses of Serbs in communes that wished to secede from Croatia." This source mentions a very important aspect, the imposition by HDZ of Catholic instruction in all public schools, and, just Croats are Catholics, Serbs are not, Serbs are Orthodox. Such an implementation can only be established in the Constitution, see what I mean LjL? FkpCascais (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Here User:LjL, can you agree on this at least? Or is it also propaganda and blabla whatever Direktor is saying? FkpCascais (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Nationalism in a Global Era: The Persistence of Nations by Mitchell Young, Eric Zuelow and Andreas Sturm, is a source brought by LjL and is not listed up there ammong the sources I brought. But this source, at bottom of the page 188, says: "Articles 12, 14 and 15 taken together imply that Croatian is central to the state. Linguistic minorities, whiile guaranteed rights as individuals and as group members, are periheral in the republic. This parallels the statement in the preable to the constitution that "The Republic of Croatia is constituted as the national state of the Croatian people and the state of members of autochthous national minorities" (Sabor 1990; Preamble). The constitution sets up a situation where both, the Croatian people and Croatian language are central to the state, while guaranteeing peripheral groups (and their languages) certain rights." Clearly explains how non-Croats had only "certain rights" and not at all comparable to the dominance Croatian has for whatever related to the state. The previous constitution made Croats and Serbs side-a-side, while the new one clearly favors just Croatian. FkpCascais (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you directly make everything you say bold? This is your interpretation. What it says is that they had individual and group rights, plus that they had specific rights about their language and peripheral situation. It doesn't say they had fewer rights than Serbs, and it doesn't say that they had fewer right than with the previous Constitution. This is what you need to show in this section. That Croatian is "central to" Croatia is not really under question (and seems pretty obvious). LjL (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Croatian being central to Croatia seems pretty obvious" is an overly simplistic perspective of the situation given the fact that beforehand there was Serbo-Croatian language (not simply and only Croatian) that was literally by its name mentioned in the constitution. So this favors the view of the change of rights for Serbs: they were somewhat denied a right to use their language. --biblbroks (talk | contribs) 17:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So, what does the 1990 Constitution say?

It has been brought to my attention that what appears to be the actual 1990 Constitution does, in fact, state "[...] naroda i manjina, koji su njezini državljani: Srba [...]", where "naroda i manjina" translates to "nations and minorities", not "national minorities". Can this be confirmed? Is this the final Constitution text from 1990? LjL (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A more careful reading of a previously-mentioned source:

• Mitchell Young; Eric Zuelow; Andreas Sturm (7 March 2007). Nationalism in a Global Era: The Persistence of Nations. Routledge. p. 188. ISBN 978-1-134-12310-0.

shows that the wording in 1990 was "nations and minorities", and it was changed to "national minorities" in 2001. This changes my understanding a fair bit. Explanations? LjL (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Haven't the source explained it? There's also another secondary source which says the same thing and references the constitution. And here's the constitution itself from "Narodne Novine". 141.136.228.115 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said, he's not going to answer it, as he refused to go into it earlier in the RfC212.15.178.72 (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, here's what SRC's constitution says about who had constituted it. The above sentence is not speaking of constitutive status in any way. Yet we are discussing it like it does. Here's the sentence which the secondary source points as the one which defines a constitutive status: ""Croatian nation along with Serbian nation and nationalities in Croatia...constituted SRC". Note the bold parts. First it is along with to separate and make the Croatian nation the main subject. The second one is and which puts Serbian nation and all other's in equal position. As for comparison we can see who established Yugoslavia:"Yugoslav nations ... along with ... nationalities... constituted Yugoslavia". We can see the same usage of the along with which is the standard way to separate the main actor and to mention other's as well. Yugoslavia's constitution is separating all nations as the one who established it from nationalities while SRC's constitution is separating Croatians from Serbs and others. Serbs are specially mentioned but in equal position with the others. Explicit mentioning does not bring an equal status with the Croats since we have along with that explicitly separates them and marks Croats as the main actor. To illustrate is Serbs had constitutive status then all other nationalities had it as well, since they are in equal position, separated with and. 89.164.181.92 (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion that isn't about what the Constitution says, per heading of this section

LjL, I am very affraid that doing this exercise of examining the wording of the constitution will drive editors to make their own interpretations (danger of WP:OR). From what I concluded from the many sources, the main difference was that the 1990 Constitution only mentioned Croats as constitutive nation while the previos mentioned Croats and Serbs as constitutve nations. Both constitutions, the earlier and the 1990 one, made a distinction between the constitutive nations and the others. Serbs were moved from being constitutive nation to the others (called "nations and nationalities in the first draft, and later definitely changed to "national minorities" in one of the revisions). Other imprtant change was that the official language and alphabet became to be Croatian, while earlier it was Serbo-Croatian. Serbian language was granted offcial use, but not on national level anymore, but now only in the specfic municipalities where they were majority. It seems safer to use secundary sources. The one you brought, Nationalism in Global Era, page 188 is excellent. I just wanted to point you out that what explains regarding "nations and nationalities" is that the new constitution, in one of the following revisions, was not using that phrasing anymore, but had replaed it with "national minorities". That is why some sources say that Serbs were downgraded from contitutive nation to national minority. FkpCascais (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC) You are here making some claims about what the constitution says. Would you please reference the primary source? Where do the constitution mention constitutive nations? It was in 2001 when "nations and minorities" were changed to "minorities" this irrelevant to this discussion.212.15.176.120 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC) But, apparently, that's in the 2001 revision only, so, very far removed from 1990. I'd really like to know the true timeline of changes, then we can look at secondary sources. LjL (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC) OK, I will try to help to get that checked. FkpCascais (talk) Neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina has defined as constitutive nations Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs (Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Ethnic_groups). All 3 are represented at national level with equal rights and guaranteed representation. Seems that constitutive nation provides dominant rights at national level (shared in case there is more than one), while being a national minority provides rights just on municipal level, meaning, only in the municipalities defined by the constitution (seems in Croatia are the municipalities with more than 1/3 of the population being declared part of that national minority). FkpCascais (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC) The Balkans: A Post-Communist History at pages 198 and 199 explains the change in context. In page 198 cites Cohen and confirms "It implicitle downgraded the Serbs (previously recognised as constituent nation; conferring equal status with Croats) to just one of several ethnic minorities." and then page 199 is very interesting, ammong other things, it says how "These Serbian anxieties regarding the nature of Tuđman regime cannot simply be deimissed as fantasies and anxieties scurriously stirred up by Serbian demagogues and the Serbian media." (sounds familiar as some arguments I faced here). And then the last big paragraph from that page that goes on to the next one, page 200, which ammong other things, mentions how "Croatian president Tudjman and his successors rejected any notion of Croatia as a bi-national or multinational state which would leaving the constitution saying Croatia had two constituent nations, Croats and Serbs, imply. FkpCascais (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC) I want to note that I was repeating what the secondary source from the RfC says. I was not making original research. Fkp's problem is that none of his sources reference the primary constitution. I also note that we are discussing 1990 Constitution. I won't waste time to unrelated discussion about 2001 constitution.212.15.178.244 (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC) This is frustrating, FkpCascais, because in this section I asked a very specific question, but instead now you've overwhelmed it with more information that is not necessarily directly related and has a number of possible objections... This way we are never going to reach an understanding. --LjL (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Now you understand why is this lasting for a few months. You also seem unaware that I already put those arguments to the table a long time ago.194.152.253.42 (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC) I see LjL, however, it all goes back to the issue that the change was that Serbs got removed to the constitutive nation status. I am searching for the specific question you asked here. However in the meantime I found a source that explains what constitutve nation meant, here Soft Borders pages 67 and 68. Please feel free to move my comments to other sections if you find it convenient. FkpCascais (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I still havent found it (I am quite sure I saw somewhere the exact wording of the previous and the 1990 Constitution). Can I ask you one thing? Wouldnt you agree that what made most differernce was the fact that the 1974 Constitution said Croats and Serbs were contitutive nations of Croatia, and the 1990 removed Serbs and left just Croats mentioned as constitutive nation? What exactly Serbs became in 1990 ends up not beiing that iimportant, nation/nationality/minority, were just euphemisms that say they are part of the "rest", which got to be named as "national minority" in 2001 Whatever they were named in the 1990 Constitution was just a provsional name to what they would become in 2001, a national minority, and the important aspect was that they were no longer constitutive nation. FkpCascais (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No, because the 1990 Constitution does not "mention just Croats as constitutive nation". In fact, it doesn't mention "constitutive nations" at all. What it says is:

The Republic of Croatia is established as the national state of the Croatian people and the state of members of other nations and minorities who are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Hungarians, Jews and others, who are guaranteed equality with citizens of Croatian nationality and the realization of national rights in accordance with the democratic norms of the United Nations and countries of the free world.

(emphasis mine)

To me, this seems pretty crystalline. The only difference is that, for Croats, it is the "national" state - which seems pretty obvious since it is called, you know, "Croatia". LjL (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

But previously it was also a state of Serb nation/people. Afterwards it wasn't simply that. --biblbroks (talk | contribs) 17:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I somehow misreading "state of members of other nations [...]: Serbs" then? LjL (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably not misreading, but surely not reading it completely: "of other nations and minorities [...]: Serbs". Nowhere does it say that it was the Serbs that were a nation - but it can be that they were a minority. That's one thing. The other thing is that it was a state of "members of other nations". Not a state "of nation(s)", and then list Serbs as one of them. That's two differences at least. Now, one can say that's the same thing, but why then change it if it is one and the same? --biblbroks (talk | contribs) 17:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Why change it" is speculation. What's for sure is that the previous 1974 Constitution already made a difference between Croats and Serbs, saying:

Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities who live within it.

which stated that for the Croats, Croatia was a national state, while it was just a state for everyone else including the Croats. I don't really see a change here, and since you also admit one can say it's the same thing, I don't know why we have to include a section full of fanfare about it in the article, which goes as far as positively saying the rights were "stripped away"... or, for that matter, such a painfully protracted discussion here. LjL (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The previous 1974 Constitution stated that it was a 'state' for everyone else, but it mentioned Serb nation/people, not listing them with the nations and minorities. If one "[doesn't] really see a change here" while the other does (as is the case with some of the presented sources) than it is subject to perspective i.e. interpretation not just plain reading, right? Also, being able to say i's the same thing is already a reality (we have a source stating that), but this ability to say it's the same thing doesn't magically make it the same thing. Yes? Some presented sources disapprove of such "magic". Final thing, the speculation thing in the form of a question is laid in front of an editor that states no interpretation is needed when one can read. --biblbroks (talk | contribs) 18:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I trust that you are familiar with how Wikipedia handles WP:Conflicting sources, which is certainly not by going as far as removing "disputed" tags about something that is being disputed (which is something that happened on this article in the very recent past, twice). As to the final thing, you're misrepresenting what I actually said. LjL (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the recent removals of the "disputed" tags - I checked the history of the article - but I don't know how this relates to me. Are you implying something? Sorry for misrepresenting you if that's what I did. Anyway, what about other things I clearly laid in front of you? You really not seeing a change suggests you state there was no change. I don't want to misinterpret you again, so I'll ask three questions plainly: Were there any changes in the constitutions? If there was at least one, would you say that it was insubstantial? If you would say it was an insubstantial change, why would you say that in the light of several sources claiming otherwise? --biblbroks (talk | contribs) 19:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm only implying that there may be space in the article for a description of conflicting sources, but that can't happen while suppression of the whole dispute is being attempted. As to the "read" vs "interpret" thing, I didn't mean that one "only needs to be able to read", but just that some things take interpretation, but other things can be read pretty directly from WP:PRIMARY sources (whose use, consistent with policy, isn't ruled out).

Were there any changes in the constitutions? Yes, the wording did change.

Would I say that it was insubstantial? Pretty much, as the mentioning of Serbs together with other nations instead of on their own is, perhaps, symbolic, but, by itself, can have no juridical effect.

Why would I say that in the light of several sources claiming otherwise? Because some of the sources make no precise reference to the Constitution parts that changed; some mix up the 1990 Constitution with the 2001 amendment by talking about "national minorities" in the context of the 1990 Constitution; some, even though they were presented as such, simply make no such claim, but instead claim things like that there were "practical" changes (discrimination, which can happen regardless of constitutions) but no obvious juridical change in rights. These are things that put the reliability of the sources into question. LjL (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You say that the change was perhaps symbolic but then state that it can have no juridical effect. Well maybe it was symbolic, but maybe it wasn't. So how then that one can be sure that it could not have a juridical effect, when the change could be more than just symbolic? In the end, Serbs were deprived of their language, Serbo-Croatian, in the official use, along with Cyrillic script (in official use), apart from use as a minority language/script. This is what I was already talking to you (and to others) about but you hadn't answered it, yet. --biblbroks (talk | contribs) 20:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I said that by itself it could have no juridical effect: maybe there were other things that changed and had juridical effect, but that's what sources need to properly show. The mere fact that Serbs were changed from being mentioned separately to being in a list with other peoples - given no other changes - may be felt as annoying by some people (namely, quite possibly, Serbs), but not effect legal changes. I'm not even getting into the language-related can of worms, but there is no need to, until it's shown that the changes were due to changes in constitutional status and rights. LjL (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Sources_that_sugest_rights_were_changed_or_that_mention_exemples_of_changes_the_removal_of_.22contitutive_nation.22_status_implied one of the sources I presented there talks how one of the things Tuđman government did among others was the, citing, "ordering imposition of Catholic instruction in all of Croatias state schools (even in predominantly Serb-inhabited areas)." I tryied to explain to LjL that such action can only be implemented by constitution, but that is being totaly ignored by now by LjL. Even if not, all this sources talk about the constitutional changes and discriminatory actions side-by-side, so I dont understand the reason of such an opposition from them towards the mention of either one of the aspects, the constitutional and the efective. I even finded all those discriminatory exemples not because I was looking for them, but because when looking for the constitutional aspect the authors mentioned them right next to it. So this all really is a challenge of how to find excuses to remove it from the article, they never even considered that it is all well sourced and doesnt really matter that certain opposing editors doesnt like it what it says. The real point of excellence by LjL was now today claiming there was no change even in the constitutional status (absurd since it is clearly backed by around 20 sources). FkpCascais (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The idea that this sort of discrimination can "only be implemented by constitution" is not only your own original thought, but simply ridiculous and discredits you. A lot of discrimination has happened all over the world and all over the ages without any constitutional changes involved. LjL (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that, I am saying both are parallel. Actually, I am saying that the sources seem to sugest that besides ordnary discrimination there was also discrimination in the constitutional changes done in 1990. (PS: I will leave you adressing the points Biblbroks adressed to you without interfering, so he can judge by himself if someone is ridiculous and discredited, and who.). FkpCascais (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Biblbroks: *sigh..* Look... PLEASE bear with me:

What does FkpCascais have? He has sources that say the "constitutional status" of the Serbs was changed. That they lost the "status" of "constituent nation". Was there such a thing? No. It was at best an informal designation on the level of Yugoslavia as a whole (if that!), which carried no special rights or status. As one might expect, no person in Yugoslavia enjoyed any special legal privileges on account of their ethnicity. But he's googled "Serbs constituent nation" in GB and now has a bunch of quotes that say "Serbs were no longer a constituent nation", which is a line that originates in Serbian wartime propaganda. But, of course - nobody was a "constituent nation". Croats weren't either. There is no such formal category in Croatian or Yugoslav law - and there never was. There are several sources that explicitly contradict him. The constitution itself plainly contradicts him. Most importantly: many sources, the vast majority of Yugoslav histories, simply do not mention this hogwash - because it is hogwash. Fkp is trying to basically push a fringe concept by gathering every source that ever mentioned it (including those by Serbian authors e.g. Trifunovic), and then piling them all together in an impressive-looking pile. Everyone sees through this, everyone rejects his proposition - yet here he is, months later just repeating "I have sources I have sources", hammering away to the point of WP:DISRUPTION.

But as I said above, that's one kettle of fish. Old Fkp goes one further. He says that not only did Serbs lose this ethereal "status" - but they also lost rights on account of that change in the Constitution. I've not seen a source, even among his scrounged-up collection, that actually says that outright. But which rights could those possibly be?? Well, I was actually stumped for a while puzzling over the absurdity of the idea that an EU member might have a constitution that discriminates on the basis of ethnicity in some way. Until Fkp made himself clear by reciting verbatim (and of course without support in any source) the propaganda of the ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party and its leader Vojislav Seselj (a current fugitive from the ICTY). That is, he made it clear that the "right" lost - was the right of Serbs to take over those "regions" of the country where they form "the majority". Yes. His words. That was the "constitutional right" that was supposedly voided by the change in the wording of the preamble of the Constitution. And make no mistake - that's what this is about for him: establishing the supposed Serbian constitutional right to take over a third of Croatia.

Frankly I think this horrendous, farcical mess is grounds for a topic ban. From what I gathered in our interactions over the years (and I apologize if this is incorrect), the guy is a Croatian Serb refugee living in Portugal after the collapse of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. This article, in my personal estimation, isn't likely to benefit from from the input of an editor so obviously biased and so painfully close to the subject matter.

P.s. As regards language, I'm struggling to comprehend your post. Nobody "lost" any language - its all the same damn language. Croatian is a variant of Serbo-Croatian. Did Milosevich's government in Serbia also "deprive Serbs of their language" them by establishing "Serbian" as the official language?

More to the point, even if Croatian were somehow separate from Serbian (which is pretty silly, Fkp and I would have to talk for a while before we even notice anything) - none of that relates to any loss of "status" or legal rights. -- Director (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Uggh... told myself I wouldn't waste my time on this. In short: Fkp can include the statement that Serbs lost their "status as a constituent nation", as long as he explicitly points out that this carries no loss of legal rights or privileges. THAT he has not sourced. Its an informal Yugoslav-era term that carried great symbolic meaning but no practical benefits whatsoever, i.e. it didn't legally exist as a category. As such its removal is a matter of vague interpretation, but the stupid Croatian Tudjman government (perhaps even deliberately?) put out a text that sufficiently "suggested" such a removal, to allow for its massive-scale exploitation by Milosevich's propaganda. That perceived loss of this ethereal "status" was an immensely important step towards open Serb rebellion, hence you'll find it in a lot of publications. And before Fkp yet again screams "I have sources you have no sources you have..", I'll just stress again that the burden is squarely on him. -- Director (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, colleague LjL suggests that there was no constitutional change regarding the mentioning of the Serbs that effected in juridical changes ("by itself [] could have [] juridical effect") and that the mere wording - such as Serbs being in a list instead of mentioned separately - could only have emotional effects ("may be felt as annoying by some people (namely, quite possibly, Serbs), but not effect legal changes"). And, according to my own interpretation of the colleague's words the language issue (since called a "can of worms") is outside of their expertise, yet their own words suggests that their expertise treats it as irrelevant ("I'm not even getting into the language-related can of worms, but there is no need to, until ..."). And another thing, the text regarding the first mention of constitutional changes that was in the article ("[] promulgated a new Croatian constitution which changed the status of Serbs in Croatia from that of a constituent nation, enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, to a national minority.), and which was used AFAICT verbatim from a source referencing it, the text which after the colleague's changes to the article ("[] promulgated a new Croatian constitution that changed the wording with regard to Serbs of Croatia.") is followed by a sentence about language: "In the first paragraph of the Article 12, Croatian was specified as the official language and alphabet, and dual-language road signs were torn down even in Serb majority areas.". I find this quite peculiar. I mean colleague's expertise doesn't include Serbo-Croatian/Croatian/Serbian/Croatian language issues given their "can of worms" designation of those issues, yet they take it as irrelevant to the constitutional status issues. Additionally, after their editing of the aforementioned portion of text what's left in the article directly following the text they edited is exactly the language related sentence. Moreover, this exact sentence suggests that the language issue isn't to be put aside at all. Not just that, the importance of the wording about now "official" attribution to the Croatian language and alphabet might shed a different light on the (new) status of the Serbs in the 1990 Croatia. Would it be so impossible to imagine that the sentence could support the view that the constitutional changes introduced had direct juridical effects? Why, because as official language was no longer "Serbo-Croatian"/"Croatian variety of Serbo-Croatian"/"Croatian literary language" but instead just plain Croatian that would mean that Serbs didn't have their language represented in Croatia anymore as they did before, right? And then even have direct not only juridical consequences, as described in the sentence at hand?

As far as other colleague's arguments is concerned, I wouldn't go so far to claim that there is no or that there never was such thing as "constitutive/constitutional status" in the republics of SFRJ if there were sources laid out that talked about this status being changed (and by this implicitly stating that there was a point in time were such a thing existed). And that, whether this thing ("constitutive/constitutional status") were a federal thing or merely a republics' thing. And that whether this thing ("constitutive/constitutional status") were a formal denotation or merely an informal one. And I especially wouldn't call this "constitutive/constitutional status change" a hogwash, moreover in the light of several sources gathered by colleague FkpCascais which talked about it in an non-partisan way (as it was presented in such a way as far as I can understand from other colleagues' words). And moreover, I wouldn't go so far as calling this hogwash a line originating in Serbian wartime propaganda, especially I wouldn't go so far as calling it so if there were other colleagues on this very discussion page (archived now) which were supportive of FkpCascais' stance of the "constitutive/constitutional status change" and which were coming (at least declaratively) from the part of SFRJ at which the so-called Serbian wartime propaganda was directed at. One might think colleague Director has the same kind of sinister motives that they ascribe to colleague FkpCascais. Also, "depriving Serbs of their language by establishing Serbian as the official language instead of Serbo-Croatian" is a totally different kettle of fish than the "depriving Serbs of their language by establishing Croatian as the official language instead of Serbo-Croatian" kettle of fish is. And I'm positive colleague Director is very well aware of this otherwise they wouldn't be trying to confuse the readership by talking how "loss of the status" an "the status as a constituent nation" itself is "a matter of [] interpretation" while on the other hand saying it "was an immensely important step towards open Serb rebellion". I think that others are now very well aware of that also. Don't you, Director, think that now some burden is on you also? --biblbroks (talk | contribs) 20:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Biblbroks.. Zaphod.. may I call you Zaphod? You posting this means someone will (substantively) reply. Then Fkp will reply. Then we'll have arrived at where I said we would back at the ANI thread. If Fkp keeps out of this while we talk - I'll eat my sphygmomanometer.. -- Director (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The above feels a bit too much like a hard-to-read wall of text for me, and I'm not sure I can disentangle it with my limited expertise. I don't think, however, I said anything about the limitations of my expertise on the "language issue", rather simply that I didn't want to get into it as it wasn't directly relevant. In fact, I'm much more into linguistics than into politics, and the only thing I care to say is that anyone who doesn't call Serbo-Croatian a single language (like Wikipedia itself does after all) is furthering a political agenda. LjL (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh.. all right. @Biblbroks: I'll try to reply to the best of my ability, please do bear with me. As LjL eloquently pointed out, the wording change in the preamble not only did not, it could not possibly indicate anyone's disenfranchisement, or loss of any legal "status". It is a trivial and blatant fact that the text simply does not define any such categories, and in fact explicitly states the complete legal equality of all ethnic groups. In Croatian law certainly, and in Yugoslav law almost certainly - such categories never actually, formally, legally existed. They were an informal term used in old communist Yugoslav news (many might call it "state propaganda", part of the whole Brotherhood and Unity "theme").

Prominent "honorable mentions" in the constitution, in front of any reference to "national minorities", meant a lot to the people inhabiting the federal republics of Bosnia and Croatia (Bosnia much more so). It was taken as indicating, for each ethnicity, that the state is equally "theirs" as the "other guys'". The relegation of the 12.2% Serbian minority to the actual list of "minorities" was therefore certainly provocative (possibly deliberately so), and certainly could be expected to have a huge impact on the Serbs. State-owned TV Belgrade (an instrument of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevich) exploited the change and in its propaganda proclaimed that an attempt had been made to strip the Serbian nation in Croatia from its right to secede, etc. etc.. That is the "legal right" supposedly stripped from Serbs according to FkpCascais (he says so directly, see above). That's patent nonsense, of course, unsupported by any source.

Therefore indeed, insofar as "constituent nation status" is understood as what it actually was - an informal "status", awarded by mere prominent mention in the constitution - it could be said that it had been "revoked". And that's what Fkp's sources are actually saying. Fkp himself, however, is doing his best to use those sources and the obscurity of the topic - to imply what TV Belgrade (and indeed, modern-day Serbian Radicals) are saying: loss of "legal rights". Specifically vague claims of legal right to "self-determination", i.e. - secession. Along with all the "regions where they form the majority" (Fkp's words).

The events surrounding constitutional status and the (perceived) loss thereof are pretty crucial (not least due to being accompanied by state discrimination against Serbs in government employ). They're the main immediate cause of the Serb revolt in Croatia, and thereby the "Yugoslav Wars". And in the end, the (often-ethnically-disputed) legal technicality of whether some legal rights were actually lost (as they were not) doesn't necessarily matter in the narrative of many historians - what matters is the perception. Therefore, if like Fkp you go to GB and google "Serbs constituent nation", you will get a whole bunch of sources that vaguely say "Serbs lost constituent nation status"... and they sort of did. As long as you understand what is meant by that. And its not what Fkp is openly out to imply. In that respect, the burden absolutely continues to lie squarely on his shoulders.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm on CET and must be off to bed (as soon as I check on the results of the parliamentary election we had just now.. looks like the conservative HDZ, the party that pertinently changed the constitution in 1990 :), will take over from the social democrats). Really looking forward to reading Fkp's inevitable posts when I wake up for work...

P.s. I'm confused as to what your "language issue" is? There can really be no question that Serbo-Croatian is a single language, and that "Croatian" and "Serbian" are "ethno-political variants" thereof. We basically proclaimed them in the '90s to spite each-other :). So again, there's a provocation there, but no tangible consequences, certainly not any "loss of rights". -- Director (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

To put it in a sentence: "constituent nation status" was a real thing, by virtue of public perception - it just wasn't a real legal thing. Its the prominent mention in the constitution, ahead of national minorities. Its a significant thing in the eyes of the Yugoslav populace. But it wasn't a legal category entailing any kind of legal rights. Fkp is (pretty openly) out to imply that it was (namely the supposed right to "self-determination" i.e. secession). He has no sources for what he wishes to imply - and the text of the constitution itself (along with other sources) blatantly contradicts him in that regard. -- Director (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Had lots of out-of-wiki stuff that needed attention, but hey, I'm back now. Anyway, I'm sorry for causing an emotional disturbance with my "wall of text", if any caused, but given the impression of having an eloquent interlocutor in front of me I just thought that presenting all of my arguments at once wouldn't be such an obstacle for them. It seems obvious I have misjudged them. Ok, I'll try presenting only one argument in one post. This is it: a party that claims they're more into linguistics than into politics should be aware of the reality that language issues (as one name of the language is) can have more than just ornamental effects. Right? If so, how come then that they are dismissing those issues as irrelevant when reminded about a fact that the name of the official language (one in official use) of one political entity had changed to a different form (hrvatski jezik i.e. Croatian language, and that solely in Latin/Roman alphabet), a form that favors one nation in that political entity and not the other nation which at least according to its former form (hrvatski književni jezik - standardni oblik narodnog jezika Hrvata i Srba u Hrvatskoj, koji se naziva hrvatski ili srpski [2]), it had favored before? I'm being given a hard time understanding that a linguistically knowledgeable editor such as one that has such a firm stance on the issue of "Serbo-Croatian" language existence and name has such a hard time understanding that "Serbo-Croatian language existence and name issue" could be more than just relevant in this case of perceived loss of (some) status or (some) rights of the Serbs of Croatia after the new 1990 Constitution. Is it possible to strip my away of my hard time... at least for the moment?

As far as the other commenter's post(s) go(es) I will again post my sincerest apologies for causing an emotional disturbance with my substantial replies. I mean, again, if any emotional disturbance had been caused this time again, for that matter. I certainly wouldn't want anyone eating anything inedible let alone their sphygmomanometer (or anyone's sphygmomanometer for that sake). Out of exasperation with the mere participation in this discussion or for any other cause. I hope nothing of the sort hasn't happened while I was away - that significant *sigh* has had me concerned alot. Anyway, I'll try and alleviate their troubles also. First things first: "constituent nation status" being a real thing but not being a real "legal" thing cannot outperform the first part of the statement - that is "being a real thing". Or to quote the hopefully not sphygmomanometer-eating troubled editor: "constituent nation status" was a real thing. That is if it was a real thing it doesn't matter if it wasn't legally codified - it existed, even so if only by virtue of public perception. I mean, someone stating "Serbo-Croatian is a single language" and that even if only by virtue of their sole perception, someone stating this contributes to the case of "Serbo-Croatian actually being a single language". And that exactly for the fact that language and constituent nation status are society's, or more precisely human concepts - their existence isn't dependent on some natural and/or physical laws, it suffices that humans can conceive these concepts for the concepts to exist. As far as the Croats' provocation of proclaiming the "Croatian" in the '90s to spite the Serbs (and that even in the very Constitution of Croatia) "not having any tangible consequences" except for and/or besides the "events surrounding constitutional status and the ... loss thereof ... not least due to being accompanied by state discrimination against Serbs in government employ... [being] pretty crucial [and being] the main immediate cause of the Serb revolt in Croatia, and thereby the Yugoslav Wars", as for that I can only say: ok, maybe Yugoslav Wars were approximate to or even nothing on the global human historical scale, but maybe just maybe they have some minor influence on the importance of the issue that is central to this discussion. I mean just because of the fact that a "legal technicality of whether some legal rights were actually lost" could "matter in the narrative of" some or many "historians" because "what matters is the perception". I mean if one says that "Serbs lost constituent nation status" and "they sort of did'", I think it does matter what one "understand[s] what is meant by that" especially if "what matters is the perception". I mean, if someone's perception is something along the line of "[i]ts kinda like a collective [f**k you] to Serbs: its there, it degrades, its a brazen provocation..." and also "what matters is the perception" is true then what is that one "understand[s] what is meant by that", that what one calls "a significant thing in the eyes of the Yugoslav populace" which one claims some use to advantage some particular point and that besides "the obscurity of the topic"? I mean if something "meant a lot to the people inhabiting the federal republics of Bosnia and Croatia" and if "[i]t was taken as indicating, for each ethnicity, that the state is equally theirs as the other guys'" how come that "the wording change in the preamble not only did not, it could not possibly indicate anyone's disenfranchisement, or loss of any legal status" and if "what matters is the perception" and one possible perception is that "[t]he relegation of the 12.2% Serbian minority to the actual list of minorities" could be a direct consequence of the wording change in the preamble and that direct consequence was exactly what proponents of the no_significant_(juridical)_change_in_the_Constitution_occurred position claim it didn't happen - that the Serbs were perceived and now even regarded as minority, and that despite the wording in the Constitution that supposedly doesn't ascribe them the status of a minority. For what is worth, I personally never even knew of this relegation of the Serbian minority in the Croatian census. Also, what is this notion that "an informal term used in old communist Yugoslav news (many might call it "state propaganda", part of the whole Brotherhood and Unity "theme")" had to formally "legally" exist? Акординг ту Ајван (хоуп ју донт мајнд ме делибератли инглишли проноунсинг јор нејм - хед то мејк а појнт ов шоуинг дет Запход из нот несесерили д сејм тинг аз Zaphod из лајк Иван изнт д сејм eз Ivan из ;-) ) ивен Кроејшн ленгуиџ "олмост сртнли" диднт егзист аз а формал лигел категори бефор д 1990 Конститјушн, јет ви хев ит нау аз а реал лигел категори дет нот онли инфлуенсиз оур реалити бут комз ин д форм ов енд сетера.

Also, having such a vocal grudge against some other editor's recurring involvedness in a discussion, makes one a target for reevaluation of them being an impartial party, and instead grouping such an editor with the a bunch of not-knowing-better-but-know-it-alls that have merely personal motives against some other persona to participate in Wikipedia. Maybe even a vendetta of a kind, huh? Nah, they know better than that... --biblbroks (talk | contribs) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)