Talk:Yugoslavism

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page (already) moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Yugoslav nationalism → Yugoslavism — More common. Scholar:[1][2] Books:[3][4] Web:[5][6] ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed--R-41 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note to the person that removed it: Yugoslavists supported unification of Bulgaria into a Yugoslavia

As said in the headline.--R-41 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Assimilation

Surveys and reports can never clarify beliefs of people, only leading figures. And it clearly can never have been that all/most Serbs favoured denouncing their identities in favour of a united ethnicity. If however it was suggested by Serbia's key figures then there is no need to present it as "two splintering factions" nor give special mention to "Croats and non-Serbs". In so far as non-Serb forms an umbrella group, Croats are included. So, many Serb figures suggested an all-out Yugoslav race that their monarchy should lead - this was opposed by the rest of the nation who preferred to preserve their identities. Very simple. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslav/South Slav

The page refers to "Yugoslavism", a political ideology of the early 20th century advocating unity amongst South Slav peoples, and "Yugoslavs", a nationality not-then-born. So it would be more accurate to talk of South Slavs when talking about the peoples prior to the creation of the state; To say otherwise creates a false picture of the circumstances then.
So I’ve changed it. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur. There is some precedent to using such terminology: the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts existed since 1866 and the Yugoslav Committee came to be in the 1910s, but those were still particular group names, not nations, before 1929 when the Kingdom of Yugoslavia formally came to be. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging information

Just a heads-up to anyone interested that this is a duplicate stencil on my part.

Various parts of the Croatia during World War I article need to be merged onto this article to balance the actualities. The two articles, although truthful, present diametrically opposing angles of a situation regarding the mood of a nation at the time in question. I can get round to it myself but don't have the time these days. If someone wants to start before me, then be my guest. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Missing cites

The article cites "Djokic 2003" and "Ramet 1995", but such sources cannot be fined in the bibliography. --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Fixed--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

national oneness

Do we have a reference for this specific translation? Because narodno jedinstvo could easily as well have been translated as people's unity. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Joy, yes - many. For one, the reference supporting that particular sentence (Nielsen, p.20) does that explicitly. Another reference is p.110 of the same book. The term (national oneness) is also used in that particular context by Mark Biondich in Vladko Maček and the Croat Political Right, 1928-1941 (at p.209) [7]. It is used repeatedly by Lampe and Mazower in Ideologies and National Identities: The Case of Twentieth-Century Southeastern Europe [8] - at p.57 stating "narodno jedinstvo (national oneness)" to establish the translated term and the using the English version consistently. It is also used consistently by Ivo Banac in The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics (in editions later than 1984) [9]. For further examples of consistent use of the term see Yugoslavism: Histories of a Failed Idea, 1918-1992 (edited by D. Djokić) [10], such as Djokić in (Dis)Integrating Yugoslavia chapter (pp.138, 141, 145 etc.), South Slav Intellectuals and the Creation of Yugoslavia by Ljubinka Trgovcevic (p.222 where she says "At its core was the notion of 'national oneness' (narodno jedinstvo) of Serbs and Croats (and Slovenes).") etc. There's also, for instance Aleksandar Ignjatović From Constructed Memory to Imagined National Tradition: The Tomb of the Unknown Yugoslav Soldier (1934-38) article [11] at p.626, and Srdja Pavlović's Literature, Social Poetics, and Identity Construction in Montenegro [12] at p.138. None of these sources refer to that concept as "people's unity".--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, 1984 Banac uses untranslated italicised narodno jedinstvo only. The English term appears to have been added to a later edition.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslav nationalism

I have recently removed unreferenced addition by an IP editor who added unreferenced claim that Yugoslavism is sometimes referred to as Yugoslav nationalism. The addition was only made in the lede and unreferenced.

While it is certainly true that some sources refer to "Yugoslav nationalism" and claim it died (for example Lampe & Mazower here [13] at p. 267), there seem to be hardly any explicitly equating the two. A cursory search of google books and jstor to determine sources which mention "Yugoslavism" and "Yugoslav nationalism" in the same book or article turn up very few results and even some of those contradict this claim (for example Cviic [14] says "there is no Yugoslav nationalism" at p. 415, and Bougarel [15] at p. 103 uses the term in scarequotes only). Other sources like Troch (here [16] at p. 105) use both terms but do not necessarily explicitly equate them.

This being said, I'm afraid saying explicitly that the two are the same without a source explicitly supporting the claim, and with others contrdicting it would be original research. I don't mind including such information - in the body prose, certainly not the lede alone, and certainly with good references backing the claim explicitly - but there seem to be none. It is logical to think that people at least sometimes referred to Yugoslavism as Yugoslav nationalism (regarless if the labal is accurate or not), but I'd prefer to leave it to readers to draw that conclusion on their own considering the sources available.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Self-reverting - after more digging I found a ref and (re)added the information giving it due weight.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yugoslavism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 18:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tomobe03! I'll be reviewing this and the other two articles due to the ongoing GAN backlog. I will start the review a bit later. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

General

• Since efn templates have been applied to Yugoslavism and Yugoslavdom, I would recommend adding it for Yugoslav nationalism too → {{efn|{{lang-sr|југословенски национализам}} / {{lang-sr|jugoslovenski nacionalizam}}; {{lang-hr|jugoslavenski nacionalizam}}; {{lang-sl|jugoslovanski nacionalizem}}; {{lang-mk|југословенски национализам}}}}
• Lede is well-written, it satisfies the manual of style.
• "By 1910, they rallied around the People's Party (PS) but accounted..." – Isn't the abbreviation supposed to be NS for Narodna Stranka?
• "This also produced nationalist claims Serbs were..." → This also produced nationalist claims that Serbs were...
• Link intelligentsia.
• Narodno jedinstvo translates to "National Unity", although I'm not sure if the source mentions it as "Oneness".
  • This issue has already been raised on the article talk page in October. To sum up, this particular concept in interwar Yugoslav context is specifically referred to as the national oneness in contemporary and modern English language sources. Sources to this are provided at talk. (T)
    • Alright, thanks. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• "This started changed in late 1912 with the outbreak of the First Balkan War." – remove started.
• "The fault lay primarily..." → The fault laid primarily...
• Montenegrin Orthodox Church should be unlinked since the article refers to the present canonically unrecognized church.
  • Should it perhaps be linked to Montenegrin Orthodox Church? (T)
    • Yes, that's the correct link. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Slovenian DEMOS was centre-right → "The Slovene centre-right DEMOS coalition".
  • Not sure I can find this one? DEMOS is mentioned only once in: "Slovene non-communist DEMOS coalition, which won the 1990 Slovene parliamentary elections, supported those views." (T)
    • "In April 1990 the elections to the republican assembly produced a majority for Democratic Opposition in Slovenia (DEMOS), a coalition of six centre-right parties." – mentioned in the R.J. Crampton 2002 source, it isn't in the page but it can be added.
      • Sure, reads better than before. (T)
• Is there a source that claims SDP as communist during 1990?
• "In 1988–1994, Yugoslavist ideas proposed by Serb intellectuals, but they were abandoned as unfeasible." – is "but they" a typo?

Images

• File:SHS slavlje 19189.jpg – I don't think that the license is correct in this case, and is "Dom I svijet" an author?
• File:SHS 1918 adresa Aleksandru.jpg – per above.
  • Correct. Dom i svijet is the newspaper which ran the image. I have replaced the author field with "unknown" for now as there appears to be no informatioin about authorship. It would be reasonable to assume the newspaper had its photographer in the square/sent with the delegation.
• Rest of images are alright.

Sources

• All are alright.

On hold until this gets fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up. I think I have dealt with all of the above through remarks above and/or edits to the article now. Could you please review and reassess? --Tomobe03 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Missed SDP comment. Let me get back to you on that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, no there would ne no source SDP was communist in 1990. Fixed accordingly - good catch.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Everything is alright now, thanks for fixing these issues. I'm promoting this article to GA, and I hope this article gets nominated for FA – I like it. Also, Happy New Year. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Likewise Happy New Year to you Vacant0. --Tomobe03 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)