Talk:Socialist Republic of Croatia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Moved from Talk:History of Croatia

[Discussions forwarded by Aivazovsky 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)]

Yugoslav Muslim Organization

WRT Jugoslovenska Muslimanska Organizacija (hope that sensible discussion is still possible on ex-Yu wiki pages). Yeah, it's name suggested that it was a party of Yugoslav Muslims. However it was really a national and religious party of the nation presently known as Bosniaks. Other predominantly Muslim nations (Albanians, Turks) had their own party, Cemiyet. All JMO leaders were from Bosnia. If a majority of editors think that this is not sufficient to link to the Bosniaks article, than I will withdraw. --Vedran 17:31, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

stubbiness

The article concentrates a lot on what are daily-political issues today, and makes no mention of e.g. what the Communist system brought (social security and relatively low crime rate, not just lack of free speech and investment opportunities), how many national parks and various tourist resorts were organized and the progress of industrialization, how the middle class appeared, how Zagreb became the largest industrial center of the country and the islands became depopulated, and all the other mundane stuff... --Joy [shallot] 00:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What?

There's no doubt that the JMO was nationalistic in nature. But I fail to see what it has to do with this particular article.

This article encompasses politics, economy, demography, disintegration...these are all important issues that came with Croatia being in the Second Yugoslavia. It is my fault that I did not include less important "mundane" subjects. I will revise this article to include it.

rewrite

User:Vincit omnia veritas basically rewrote the article on 2006-1-13, and it needs to be checked for NPOV. I only skimmed it for now, and it doesn't look good. --Joy [shallot] 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Article is fairly POV.Armandtanzarian 10:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I read the new version and it was written completely from the POV that Croats were subdued and dominated by Serbs throughout the second Yugoslavia, which is not even the mainstream view in Croatia anymore. This is a common technique - presenting internal political conflicts (in this case between Croatian communists and nationalists) as national struggle in which their side is "the nation", and the other is "traitors".

I failed to find anything that can be made useful without major work, so I reverted to the January version. If somebody can find some useful content in [1], by all means, go ahead :) Zocky | picture popups 11:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Federal (neutral)-Stalinist-Socialist

There is a distinct difference between the federal state of croatia, people's republic and socialist republic. But if you want, change it. On the other hand it was a name-change. DIREKTOR —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Merge People's Republic of Croatia and Federal State of Croatia with this article

Are the one and two sentence stubs at People's Republic of Croatia and Federal State of Croatia really necessary? All of the info from 1943-1963 is covered here just as Democratic Federal Yugoslavia and Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia are included in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. —  AjaxSmack  07:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Discuss

Personally I would not mind the merge. The change was significant, though. Note: the Federal State of Croatia was not an exclusively communist state (though they did control it more than anyone else), and the People's Republic of Croatia was a Stalinist state. The Socialist Republic was not, it was Titoist. The difference must be strongly emphasised after the merge. DIREKTOR 11:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What stalinist? Stalinism was kicked out during the Informbiro in 1948 and its followers were subjected to harsh oppression (Goli Otok and all). Or maybe you were trying to say that the "people's" adjective is of a stalinist type unlike the "socialist" adjective? That would be also untrue since the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had also "socialist" in its name both during Stalin and post-Stalin daysU prolazu 14:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the history of SFR Yugoslavia, what's your point? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated the unverified Yugoslav POV in regards to the Catholic Church being suppressed because of it "role" in the Ustase regime which is a pure lie. Yes certain individual priests and friars left to fight for the Ustase by their own free will, however most renounced their vows or were excommunicated by bishops in the NDH. Stepinac was falsely accused of collaborating with the Ustase (even though he repeatedly denounced the crimes of both the Ustase and the Communists) because he wouldn't allow Tito to establish a National Catholic Church thus because of this the Church was suppressed and Stepinac was killed by the Communists along with hundreds of other priests. Please make this objective and not just another Communist-Tito worship entry in regards to Croatia raping it of any truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.44.17 (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely support this merger, there is no reason to have three different articles about the same thing.--Footbalista (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will go through with the merge tomorrow. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church in NDH

Here's a site where the truth is actually told> feel free to search for the truth About Catholic Church in HDH> http://churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/croatia(n)-1.htm http://churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/croatia(n)-2.htm http://churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/croatia(n)-3.htm http://churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/croatia(n)-4.htm

http://churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/stepinac-sermans(n).htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective Truth (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Constituent nations in Croatia

To avoid any edit wars, here's the explanation and references:
Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. In Constitution from 1974, Croatia is "national state" solely to Croats; for others, it's just a "state". Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
Thanks for reading, Kubura (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian language

Imbris, what in the world are you doing? ("looks funny"? LoL) Your removal of this text is pure and utter nonsense. The kind I'd expect from a right-wing IP. The name of the language used in SFR Yugoslavia as the primary official language was "Serbo-Croatian language". SR Croatia was within the SFR Yugoslavia. This is not an article on Croatia only, this is an article on a federal unit of Yugoslavia. The "Croatian or Serbian language" is simply another name for the language referred to in English (Google it!) as the Serbo-Croatian language. Call it whatever you like, but don't remove the language link for a language used during the period the history article referrs to. Its like removing Latin from the Roman Empire article. It is quite plainly and obviously against Wikipedia naming conventions (see WP:NCGN, the language entry in the lead is used for depicting geographic names in different languages).
Also, your edit in the infobox introduced some highly unclear text (I'm referring to the language entry). Can you tell me what information are you trying to convey with it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop playing cat and mouse with me, and your labeling methods of all that disagree with you is particulary disruptive. There was no official language of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There would be no Yugoslavia without its member states. You should look up how the citizenship of Yugoslavia was obtainable in those times. It was by virtue of obtaining the citizenship of the member states, not the other way around. Stop placing statistics as the new deity in relation to officiality. You have the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, if not at home then at the library. My edit is just fine since Croatian language was official for a greater period of time, than any other substitute name for that language. It is most certainly not like the comparison you made. You see WP:SYN, combining of sources that do not speak of official language in particular - but just making a vague note on the name of the languages in Yugoslavia will not help your cause.

We are not conveying information but data, prefferably with a reliable source, every person choose what one' need, the usefulness of data = the information is in the eye of the beholder, then a multitude of information create knowledge, which with time become wisdom?

Your "inspector" approach of interrogation, what we are trying to convey is harassment.

Imbris (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about!!? Harassment?! All I did was ask you to explain your edit!? If you feel in any way "harassed", please feel free to report me at once. The language used in SR Croatia for the majority of its existence and at its end was known as "Hrvatski ili Srpski jezik", known in English generally and primarily as the "Serbo-Croatian language" (Google can confirm this in two seconds). Your edits now officially make NO SENSE, at all.
I don't care if you use "(Croatian or Serbian: ...)", or "(Serbo-Croatian: ...)", its fine with me as these are two different names for the same diasystem, but pretending that the Republic did not use it as its language is nonsense. Pure and simple. (Also, curb your paranoia, plz.)

• The "Croatian or Serbian language" = "Serbo-Croatian language". The "Serbo-Croatian language" is a diasystem with more than a few similar names, these are two of them. Feel free to use any name you want in the text, I've no objections. I just want to make sure that (in spite of your seething hatred) we agree that there is no imaginary "third" language here, and that the Croatian language was certainly not used as the official language during the entire period of the existence of SR Croatia. The official capacity of the Croatian language was certainly abolished in the crackdown that marked the aftermath of the Croatian Spring. This is general knowledge.
• The "Croatian or Serbian language"/"Serbo-Croatian language" (whichever name you prefer) was used in SR Croatia between 1943 and 1963, and then again between 1971 and 1989. In between (1963 to 1971) the Croatian language was used as "official". In short, the "Serbo-Croatian language" was used for a combined period of 38 out of 46 years (83%) of the existence of SR Croatia. It was also the last language used in that entity before it became Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) (see wikilink).
• Finally having established that the language in question, the "Croatian or Serbian/Serbo-Croatian language", was used during cca. 83% of SR Croatia's existence, WHY are you removing it from its function as a historical language reference in a history article? Even if I'm completely wrong, even if it was used for 2 instead 38 years, you'd still have no cause for removing the language that was used in SR Croatia for a period. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So now you agree with me? Why did you make me spell out the whole thing!? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with you.

1. Vladimir Nazor protested against materials (papers, decisions, press, etc.) being sent from Belgrade if they were not translated. After that protest the documents were translated. So forget your claims of 1943 as a starting point.
2. In the first spelling book, published by the Department of People's Education of ZAVNOH in November 1944. - the language is called Croatian language
3. During the existance of SFRY the Official Gazette of SFRY was issued firstly in Croatian, Macedonian, Serbian and Slovene, latter in Croato-Serbian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovene.
4. In the Census, the language was called Croato-Serbian not Croatian or Serbian (inconceivable term in the English language)
5. There had been published two different editions of orthographic lexicons by Matica hrvatska and Matica srpska (a joint venture, but with different titles). These manuals were called Pravopis hrvatskosrpskog književnog jezika s pravopisnim rječnikom and Pravopis srpskohrvatskog književnog jezika sa pravopisnim rečnikom.
6. The language was rarely refered to as hrvatski ili srpski jezik (not Hrvatski ili Srpski jezik).
7. So despite the name (the title) under which the language was refered, it was two separate languages all the time ex-Yugoslavia existed. Croatian literary authors used the phrase hrvatski književni jezik because the Constitution of the SR Croatia gave the right to call the language that way, and Šuvar tried to delete that provision from the 1974 Constitution (about in 1981) but failed in his attempt.

Stop inserting Serbo-Croatian language instead of Croato-Serbian language in this particular article. SR Croatia was not Estonian SSR or Lithuanian SSR.

Imbris (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

6 out of 7 Imbris. Not bad...

1.,2., 3. Yes, I know. But these are just the first few years. Add them if you like...

4. Any name variant you prefer...

5. ...so?

6. The language was fully referred to as "srpsko-hrvatski ili hrvatsko-srpski jezik", most of the time that is. Any name variant you prefer... (I do beg your forgiveness for my terrible capitalization oversight.)

7. All the above is correct, but your conclusion is not based on the above and does not follow from it, at all. The language was predominantly called "srpsko-hrvatski ili hrvatsko-srpski jezik" for the majority of the SRH's existence (note the singular). This is not the Croatian language, nor is it the Serbian language. It is certainly not both. If you are under the (ridiculous) illusion that the "Croato-Serbian language" is somehow the Croatian language, and not the "Serbo-Croatian language"...

I fixed the links so they lead directly to the article (per guidelines!!!). There is no mention of the "Serbo-Croatian language" in the final text, nor did I insert it anywhere. Its just direct redirecting (per guidelines!!!).

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fanatical edits:
Why are you forcing a redirect to Serbo-Croatian language over Croato-Serbian language when it does not effect the article text (at all!)?
Why are you placing "Croatian" in front of "Croato-Serbian" when it is obvious that of the two Croato-Serbian was used significantly more?
Why are you adding "and" between languages when this is not done.
Why are you event editing these nonsense details!!? I'm struggling to understand why you are preoccupied with petty attempts to push your POV. That's weird and dangerously close to fanatical attitude. Please stop trying to pick a fight over nothing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For every question you are determined to push for, there is a similar question that I could ask. Stop with your misquoting the guidelines. The wikilinks are to be used if it is the sourced form. You cannot really expect people to belive a dissident like you (calling for a resurection of Yugoslavia :=) ...

... that it is a neutral way of quoting reliable sources like the Constitution or the orthographic manuals by deliberate masking of Croatian or Serbian language with [[Serbo-Croatian language|Croatian or Serbian

... or your insisting that we should all belive your memory of ZAVNOH :)

... or your insisting that we omitt from our mind and conclusions that the Official Gazette (of the SFRY) listed four languages, (the Official Gazette doesn't list Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian but Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian.

... it is only in your mind that Croato-Serbian language was used for a longer period of time than Croatian language, even if we speak of Socialist Republic of Croatia (People's Republic of Croatia and the Federal State of Croatia included). The fact is that the Constitution of the SR Croatia allowed the usage of the phrase Croatian literary language, and that this phrase was the firstly and foremostly used in that constitutional Article.

Croatian comes alphabetically before Croato-Serbian, and your attempt at forcing Serbo-Croatian is portraying what is your mission - regarding this article and many others.

And or a semi-column.

This is not nonsense, it is just an opinion made in your mind. And I am trying to understand what are your motives for insisting on falsely quoting sources and adding "" signs around Croatian literary language.

Imbris (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Late 1940s - 1963

Do you contest that Croato-Serbian was used in the period between the late 1940s and 1963 (leading to, and causing the Declaration, the Croatian Spring, etc...)? Or do you believe that the Croatian language was used in SR Croatia during the period, but that the Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Standard Language was published out of boredom?
Because you see, I'm confused: according to your infobox edits, the SR Croatia had NO LANGUAGE in that period. Clearly Croatian was used between 1964 and 1973, and Croato-Serbian after that, but what language did they use before all that? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I will edit to repair this if you don't respond... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have not official texts supporting your POV that Croato-Serbian language was officialy used in the People's Republic of Croatia, you should not add your gutt feelings into the article's content.

Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Standard Language was issued because of the federal level being slowly Serbianized, and as a response to informal Novi Sad Agreement, which led to those orthographic manuals published as late as 1960.

You have forced the false claims of Croato-Serbian language from the very begining of the Federal State of Croatia, which you latter acknowledged to be a mistake (on your part), now you are still trying to force the notion of [[Croato-Serbian]] instead of [[Croato-Serbian language|Croato-Serbian]] in order to diminish its equality on the republican and federal level. The end-user who click onto the wikilink should have the benefit of a doubt in the first few seconds when redirected to [[Serbo-Croatian language]] from [[Croato-Serbian language|Croato-Serbian]].

The Declaration states same concerns as were the concerns of the first president of ZAVNOH

Then your claims of SFRY having a single official language, everyone had a choice to use strictly Croatian language or strictly Serbian language, or some Sarajevo dialect.

Imbris (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why in Socialist Republic of Slovenia there is no Serbo-Croatian mentioned? They were also part of the SFRY? Slovenians would not let you, is that what happened? -- Imbris (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter for sources, this is a matter of basic logic.

Simple question, please answer as this is essential:

If Croatian clearly was not used in SR Croatia prior to 1963 (as supported by contemporary primary sources, namely the Declaration), what language was used in the SR Croatia in 1962?

You see, if we have two choices, and sources tell us one is definitely not correct, then the other MUST be correct.

Finally, if you also do not know the answer to the question, then I suggest we simply list the two languages without the misleading years. In either event, this nonsensical version has to go. For the sake of accuracy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything is a matter of sources, and I do not hold your logic to be correct.

Croatian was used prior to 1963 as a de facto official language. Matica hrvatska and Matica srpska are not authorities that can decide anything (officially). The srpsko-hrvatski jezik (Serbo-Croatian language) and the hrvatsko-srpski jezik (Croato-Serbian language) were languages of the linguists who accepted them. The language had no proscribed form up to 1960.

Declaration was an instrument of Croatian intelligentsia who wanted to stop governmental influences from both federal and republican level who wanted to officialize the name Serbo-Croatian language or the name Croato-Serbian language. The Declaration was successful because a compromise was made and the language could have been reffered to as the Croatian literary language as well as the Croatian or Serbian language.

No matter of the name, the Croatian language was always there, and the language of some linguists called the Serbo-Croatian language was in fact never in any real usage. True Serbs corrupted their own language by some changes, notably the word uprava, upravni replaced the word administracija, administrativni. The fact that the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes tryed to invent a Serbo-Croato-Slovene language sheds light from the real intentions of those creators of some Yugoslav language, but that time without the Slovene language.

Imbris (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, please curb your paranoia, and end this simply by listing both languages (without the years). Try to realize this is not an attempt to "fool you" into "Serbianizing" or "communizing" the article. I honestly just want to find an amiable solution. The matter appears too complex to be listed in detail in the infobox anyway. I am actually quite proud of Croatia's independence in the SFR Yugoslavia, and have nothing at all against it. My "POV" is not opposed to yours, its just that the infobox makes no sense this way.

P.S. "...now you are still trying to force the notion of [[Croato-Serbian]] instead of [[Croato-Serbian language|Croato-Serbian]] in order to diminish its equality on the republican and federal level."

I don't know what to say to that. Textbook paranoia. The text, nor the link, does not even change at all. I am using more efficient wikilinks. Only in your dreams does this somehow pursue a POV. Seriously, your fanatical paranoia is becoming absurd. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that for the time being the years can be removed, but disagree that you self-proclaimed yourself saviour of wikipedia's space in order to shorten two wikilinks.

(1) If we have an article under the name Serbo-Croatian language and ...

(2) ... we choose to use the wiki-link to present the information accurately, ...

(3) as Croato-Serbian language, then

(4) we should not shorten the name of the language which will appear below the main title of the article

(5) and use [[Croato-Serbian language|Croato-Serbian]] formula, ... or ...

(6) if you must insist [[Croato-Serbian language|Croatian or Serbian]] (which is not preferable because it is strange to an English language speaker)

(7) no efficiency can cover for the false presentation, nor is the Wikipedia here to be efficient in the mannor of factories and economy.

(8) the least we can do is provide the user information that the Croato-Serbian language had the same status as the Serbo-Croatian language.

Please stop with super-hero saving the 24 × 2 spaces.

Imbris (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a superhero (honestly), I just made the edit perfectly normally without any "eeevil POV" intentions and I got reverted. Getting reverted is annoying. Using a direct wikilink is NOT "false presentation". I already told you that's total nonsense. There is no difference between "Croato-Serbian" and "Croato-Serbian language", as there is no Croato-Serbian nationality the term "Croato-Serbian" can refer to. Its like the difference between "Esperanto" and "Esperanto language". The whole thing is freaking me out, have it your way... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

HA! You agreed with me again! In your face! You've accepted my view, I win, I win! (kidding :P) Seriously, Imbris, find a good source on pre-1964 usage and re-insert the years. I have to say you've peaked my interest in the matter. Like I said, I'm not "against" the usage of Croatian (that's not my POV), if anything, it'd just prove how independent Croatia was during SFR Yu. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The flag of the Federal State of Croatia (1943/44 - 1945/46)

By this source, the flag used in this article (in the gallery at the bottom) is false, see:

ORDER
on Hoisting of Flags

Nations of Yugoslavia went into struggle and fought unyielding battles against the enemy, carried their National flags with the five pointed Star as symbols of the National Liberation Struggle.

At the Historical 2nd Session of the Antifascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia, held in Jajce on 29th of November 1943, at which the foundations of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia were laid, the State Flag became the symbol of strength of all Nations of Yugoslavia.

The five pointed Star on flags is the star which has shined to us and gave us strength and belief in hardest times of national uprisings and enemy offensives, it instil unshakeable confidence that the Nations of Yugoslavia, under the leadership of the National Hero, Marshal Tito will enjoy days of liberty, happiness and fortunate existence.

Regarding all of the above, the duty of each individual is to respect these sanctities, and therefore I

o r d e r :

1. In all occasions when the National flags and the Yugoslav flag are hoisted or carried, these must only the flags with the five pointed Star on the middle field, laid in a way that the peaks of the points of the five pointed Star grasp other fields. This is the only form of our State flags and other flags i.e. the ones without the five pointed Star are not to be displayed.

2. At all of the State Institutions in the area of the Federal State of Croatia, it is obligatory to fly the Yugoslav State Flag and the Flag of the Federal Croatia.

This order is valid immediately from this moment on.

Death to Fascism – Freedom to the People!

Ministry of Interior Affairs
No. 1644.-45.
26th of May 1945.

Minister of Interior Affairs:

Vicko Krstulovic, m. p.

• Source: Proceedings of Laws, Decrees and Orders (Zbornik zakona, uredaba i naredaba), the Official Gazette of the Federal State of Croatia (“Narodne novine”), Year I, Vol. II, No. 30, Page 87, Issue 25th September 1945, Zagreb.

It should therefore be removed.

Imbris (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What the...? There isn't a single word in your entire quote proving that the flag is "false". Explain, how does it prove what you claim?! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The red star must go into the red and blue stripes of the flag, the presented flag contains the red star only in the middle (white) stripe. Please stop shouting with capital lettering. -- Imbris (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1

There's something weird about this... the flag of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia definitely had a red star that only stood in the middle field. (I sometimes use capital letters to emphasize words, no "shouting" was included I assure you.) (This flag is sourced as the FSY flag.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This has something to do with the flag of the Federal State of Croatia? I do not think so, or you have proof that all Yugoslav flags are styled like the federal flag. The persons who made the flag of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia are clearly misguided. Some partisan flags had the red star only in the middle field. I would like to ask you not to shout, I am not used to such expression of emotions, also if you could use the term Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (that would be great). -- Imbris (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

2

3

Well, I think it will be very hard to find a proper published source on this, but have a look at this website: [2]. These are apparently professionals, Janko Ehrlich is a vexillologist. I can't imagine Croatia sporting flag 2 while Yugoslavia has flag 1. Very hard to believe, that... Your source must be referring to the new flag. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Constitution of the People's Republic of Croatia was from 1947-02-18 so the Order on hoisting of flags (dated 1945-05-26) is not a description of the new flag of the Socialist Republic of Croatia but the correct description of the flag of the Federal State of Croatia (from 1944 to 1946-01-31). Please stop your assumptions on the Flag of the Yugoslav partisans (which was in use up to 1945 and the end of the WWII) (marked by you as 1). -- Imbris (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it now? Well how nice that you've cleared everything out for me LoL... You are wrong on two levels.

1) Your own interpretations do not concern me, bring me a source confirming that the flag defined in 1945 is "the correct description of the flag of the Federal State of Croatia". Does the 1945 order define it retroactively or does it just define it? LoL....

2) Or better yet: don't bother. Even if you're right (doubtful), and you manage to confirm your theory that the 1945 Order was supposed to define the flag "retroactively". Even if that is so, we are not here to present flags that were defined retoactively, we are here to use the flag that was in actual use.

Janko Erlich says it was in use, though not officially defined, you say that it was changed retroactively (which, even if true, is completely and utterly irrelevant). Your above post is also borderline illegible. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You once said that everything which shows Croatia having a greater share of autonomy in the times of Yugoslavia makes you happy. But it seems to me that assumption is wrong?!

The Federal State of Croatia existed from 1944-05-08 to 1946-01-31. Its flag existed lege artis from 1945-05-26 to 1946-01-31, and was latter used as a de facto flag of the People's Republic of Croatia up to 1947-01-18 (exactly from January 3rd to January 18th, 1947)

(1) These are not my interpretations, but hard facts, you on the other hand demand OR, since retroactivity was never desirable in any legal system. It was the time of WWII, which ended in the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia on 1945-05-25 (in Odžak).

(2) The admin who helped us agree on the issue of the Emblem of the Federal State of Croatia might disagree with you. We are here to present on the basis of reliable sources. The Internet can be a reliable source if the material on it has references. We are here to contribute with sources and not with bias of sources. Even Janko Ehrlich Zdvořák recognizes that the flag of the Federal State of Croatia was used as a de facto flag of the People's Republic of Croatia up to its first modern Constitution (1947).

(3) The Partisan movement (NOP, or in Slovene: Narodnoosvobodilno gibanje — NOG) had numerous flags and designs, there were no official standard, and you proclaim these as somehow more valuable than the official standard. The WWII in DFY ended on 1945-05-25 and the Order on Hoisting of Flags was issued on 1945-05-26. The flag of the Croatian NOP is not exactly the same thing as the flag of the Federal State of Croatia.

(4) Stop clouding the issue, there were no Constitution in those times, so there were no retroactivity — the notion is a Constitutional matter. Stop making fun of the source, it can be verified by simple visit to a library; while your suppositions cannot be verified as well as the suppositions of Janko Ehrlich Zdvořák (who did not name sources and references, page numbers).

(5) The flag of the Federal State of Croatia as it is currently depicted should be removed.

(6) The president of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia, Mr. Blažo Jovanović stated on 1965-01-01 in Borba that almost 2/3 of the bylaws in Yugoslavia are retroactive, which is against the Constitution.

Visković, Nikola. Jezik prava, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1989., p 161., ISBN 86-349-0227-7

Imbris (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, Imbris... the matter is simple, while your post is too long. I am very happy Croatia was an independent and sovereign state of the Yugoslav federation. The shape of a star on the same WWII Croatian flag has nothing to do with Croatian independence in the SFRY. This is about the shape of the star.

You are talking about post-war legislature, and I keep telling you I'm talking about WWII. We're here to depict history as accurately as possible. If this star was historically used by Partisans (and naturally, their state) during WWII, then it is relevant and should be included regardless of its WWII legal status. Why do I think it was used during WWII? 1) Because Zdvořák says so (and so far its him against you), and 2) because the Yugoslav flag of the period used the exact same star. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not about the shape of the five-pointed red star but on the fact that according to the Order on Hoisting of Flags decrees that the five-pointed red star must enter into both red and blue stripe (field) of the Flag. The orriginal wording goes like this: "U svim prigodama kada se izvjese ili nose na-cionalne i jugoslavenska zastava, moraju to biti samo zastave s petokrakom zvijezdom na srednjem polju položenom na način da vrhovi krakova petokrake zvijezde zahvataju ostala polja."

The symbols were laid by the Parliaments of each people's republic' so you insisting that they must be equall to the state flag of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (or the flag of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia) is unfounded, unsourced and shed light to what your beliefs on independence and sovereignity are.

NOP is one thing, and the Federal State of Croatia another thing. They are connected but not to a point that you or any editor should dismiss the decree (or order) titled the Order on Hoisting of Flags.

Zdvořák says nothing, he did not know of the Order on Hoisting of Flags; if he knew of the text he would describe accordingly. You have only one person (Zdvořák) that do not quote sources for his POV.

The flag should be omitted and instead the real flag of the Federal State of Croatia should be portrayed and displayed in the article.

Imbris (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again: you are talking about post-war legislature, and I keep telling you I'm talking about WWII. I'm not saying it was legally defined or officially instituted, but both the WWII Yugoslav flag and the WWII Croatian flag were used during WWII with that same exact star in place. In other words: forget post-WWII legislature (and stop boring me with it). I am talking about what flag was actually used during WWII. The caption of the flag says explicitly: "Flag of the Federal State of Croatia (used during WWII)".

Imbris, you have no argument for WWII usage. All you are doing is repeatedly quoting post-war legislature over and over again. You are wrong. The flag was used during WWII. Either you find a source contradicting the current one or admit you'r wrong (for once).

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the jibberjabber. The source is presented, now you are the one who should find a reliable source on the flag of the Federal State of Croatia.

(1) You are deliberately trying to mislead the future editors with your insisting of WWII usage as a norm. During WWII, normative acts were scarce and the use of the flag was various. Both in proportions, positioning of the red star, its shape, etc.

(2) You should stop insisting on unsourced nonsense and stop boring me with your futile attempts at bringing even more nonsense into the discussion. The Federal State of Croatia is not just a WWII topic, but also a post war topic. We have a source and it should be utilized. It should be utilized not just because it describes the official flag but because we do not have a reliable description of the during WWII flags.

(3) Why are you "fighting" for a unsourced version, when it is always that the sourced stuff prevails.

Imbris (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to understand me when I am speaking to you? Are you capable of understanding English words? NIX on the post-war flag. Forggetty post-war flag. You right about post-war flag. NOT TALKING about post-war flag. Trying to place wartime flag into article. You savvy? Let's try again, just to be sure the message got across:

• You are right about the post-war flag of FS Croatia. ("misleading" enough for you?)
• I am not talking about the post-war flag of FS Croatia
• I am trying to place the flag of FS Croatia used during wartime into the article.
  • The wartime flag of FS Croatia is sourced by Erlich
  • It is also the same type as the Yugoslav wartime flag.
  • The flag used during wartime has absolutely nothing to do with your quote of post-war legislature.

Can you understand me? Am I being unclear? How can I be any clearer? If there is any way, just tell me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No ammount of fact twisting can help your desire to place the flag(s) which had not been defined (used many ratios, heights, widths, colours, scale of the red star, borders, position of the red star) in front of the defined flag which was in use 1945-04-26 to 1947-01-18. The flag(s) of the NOP is not the same as the flag of the Federal State of Croatia.

We named this article, the Socialist Republic of Croatia, its latest name, we did not name it the Federal State of Croatia, nor the People's Republic of Croatia.

Stop using the WWII as an "excuse" or justification for the insertion of material which is biased (because it is not referenced with reliable sources)

The flag of the NOP can remain but with a disclaimer that it is one of the used designs, that it was not proclaimed the flag of the Federal State of Croatia, and that it was used during WWII.

Imbris (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact twisting? Am I twisting facts? Ok, then: what flag was used by FS Croatia during WWII? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It was not defined back then, thus we should not invent or choose some Croatian NOP flag as the "state flag during WWII". Why is this so big of a deal for you? We have a source, which most people's republics of the FPRY do not have (before the constitutions of 1946/47). -- Imbris (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ffs I agreed days ago that no flag was officially defined, but that does not mean no flag was used. I asked you what flag was used by FS Croatia during WWII (and please don't say "none")? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Many different designs were used, none officialy. Selecting one would be pure WP:OR. It would be great if you would stop pretending that you agreed on something, that was not the case because you deny all chances of agreement. You insisted that if the flag of the Yugoslav Partisan movement had a design (and it had many — all unofficial — designs) that the flag of the Croatian Partisan movement must' be exactly the same (but reversed, with — naturally — correct placement of the fivepointed red star). Please read this discussion to gain some inside in the matter. -- Imbris (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(I agreed, of course, and if that wasn't good enough: I agree now, ok for you??) Ah, now we come to the point I'm making: you say "many different designs were used", the vexillologist says one specific general design was used. Perhaps the proportions and the exact shape of the star on the World War II flag were not officially defined, as you say (it was bloody WAR ffs!), but this general design was used according to the professional. And not of the "Croatian Partisan movement", since no such organization or sub-organization existed, he's very clear that its a flag of wartime FS Croatia. The Partisan movement on the whole never had a flag of its own (unlike the Macedonians, where we have an entirely different story): the movement's flag was synonymous with the flag of the DF Yugoslavia.

(WP:OR?? Are you kidding? I'm citing a source! You have no idea what you're quoting here.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Janko did not quote any sources. The Coat of arms of the Federal State of Croatia (the Emblem) did not exist and the same source Janko says that the Flag of the Federal State of Croatia looked somethink like you drawn (!). This is not reliable and is thus null and void. Did you ever heard about NOP. Please stop making jockes like your denial of the Croatian Partisan movement. Also please stop definite OR about the synonymous with the flag of the Yugoslav Partisan movement. AVNOJ was re-constituted as the Temporary People's Assembly at the virge of the end of the WWII. Janko is no proffesional, or you have proof that he is a member of some proffesional association? -- Imbris (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Janko (your buddy?) did not, but neither did you. So far, we have a vexillologist's opinion (published in a very well known, reliable, and objective website) against yours. Forgive me if I question your "objectivity" (you're probably trying to favor the NDH with all this, by removing the "rival" Croatian flag. No dice). Also, we have a sourced Yugoslav flag of the period that impeccably matches the one "Janko" stated was of Croatia (with just the colors in the Croatian tricolor). I rest my case. The vexillologist says that was the WWII flag, the WWII Yugoslav flag was virtually of the same design, and on the other hand we have you saying "that's not true" and claiming that the whole thing must be removed because the flag was eventually standardized with essentially only a different star. Objectively, the situation favors the depiction of the flag. Although I agree it should be noted that the flag was never standardized during WWII. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He is not a vexillologist but a hobbist. His POV is unsourced. The website in question is a collective work of the contributors, he is one of them. Then we have editors, one of those editors reviewed his "work" and it was placed on a web page. It is still unsourced and by the his own remarks "fluid". Your provocations will not work and we all know that you deliberately insult other users to cloud the issues, to strain the discussion and to make communication least productive. This behaviour will meet its end, eventually.

What removal of "rival" flag you are talking about. This is pure paranoia. We do not have a sourced nor official flag of the Yugoslav Partisan Movement, and this flag in all its variations is not the same as the Croatian Partisan Movement flags (colours, stars, etc.) There existed a Croatian Partisan Movement flag with the historical CoA that contained 13 red and 12 white squares + the red star. Please stop that WWII BS. We should not even discuss placing any of the WWII flags because they are not official, because they were of significantly different designs and because they were made in such small numbers — which prevent any of those being called the most likely candidate. We have the Flag of the Federal State of Croatia as defined by the Order on Hoisting of Flags.

There is no question about how much different designs were used in WWII, how many different designs were of the Soviet Flag (also used by the Partisans, with modifications for the Youth brigades), plain Red flag was also used. Should all those flags be present in the article to satisfy your blatant POV.

The articles on historical states do not contain all flags used in them or by them (in official capacity)

The flags were not of the same ratios, nor of the same colours, nor shape of the red star. They had some additions in some cases that were not present on other flags. The Youth brigades, and some other had Hammer and Sickle symbols.

Please stop or produce compelling arguments why should Partisan flags be present in this article, provide sources other than the only one you managed to find (which disclaim itself by its author) and we have proven that the Federal State of Croatia had not had a Coat of arms nor an Emblem (which your source cannot disprove).

Imbris (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Who was the commander (specifically) of the "Croatian Partisan Movement"? What were the units of the "Croatian Partisan movement"? How many men did it comprise? You see, unlike the Macedonian resistance, the Serbian, Muslim, and Croatian Partisans were fully integrated, with no distinction or separation made between the states or nationalities. The flag of the Partisan movement is the flag of the DF Yugoslavia. This is simply so, while the flag of the "Croatian Partisan movement" is non-existent, since the organization itself is non-existent - it was one Partisan movement as far as Croats (who were unexpectedly numerous) were concerned. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is pure revisionism and propaganda of an user who advocate reunification of Yugoslavia that is impossible by the Constitution of the State in which he lives. The National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Croatia were under the High Command of Croatia (Gošnjak). The fact that NLA & PD of Croatia (NOV i POH) was part of the National Liberation Army of Yugoslavia doesn't change the fact that it existed. I see that whoever wrote Yugoslav Partisans is deeply mislead.

If this is your mission to portray falsely the History of Croatia during World War II, without the 1941-06-22, without the intro on Croatians fighting Fascism in Istria at its very begining in 1920s. If you are to glorify Živorad Žikica Jovanović — Španac and "history" of when the first bullet was shot, then it is even worse than I thought. The National Uprising in Montenegro on 13 July 1941 was the start of the Montenegrin Partisan Movement (NOP in Montenegro). There is also a thing called NOPO (National Liberation Partisan Detachments in the times when they were volunteers).

You keep on insisting that back then Yugoslavism was the idea of the National Liberation. It was simply not.

Imbris (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then, perhaps you and I may have a common cause after all. Namely, the Yugoslav Partisans article was recently stormed by User:LAz17, a Serbian user with an agenda of portraying the Partisans as Serbian as possible, and the Chetniks as "non-collaborators". I sincerely recommend you have a look at his edits and sources. Again: I can only be proud of Croatia's independence within Yugoslavia. I am not trying to "Serbianize" the movement nor do I advocate the idea that we are "one nation". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well well, you're a sneaky one Imbris... you've been out there pushing non-consensus edits you know are opposed. What else were you up to while I'm on the beach? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour and the nature and tone of your addressing to me borders harrasment. No concensus were reached on the issue that you insist all flags that were used during WWII and after must be inserted in this article. This article is not a list of any kind. Stop violating WP:AGF and furthermore making this "experience" more difficult than it allready is. See http://flagspot.net/flags/hr_afm41.html#part – should that one also merit to be inserted in the article? -- Imbris (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to report me for harassment (two "s", one "r") anytime, Imbris. I already told you, the source clearly states this flag was used during WWII, prior to official post-war standardization. It corresponds with the Yugoslav flag of the period. Your word is kind of... insufficient to contradict these facts - considering your profound right-wing bias and attempts at legitimizing the NDH... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The flag of Croatian Antifascist Movement which constituted and created the Federal State of Croatia, and latter flags of the People's Republic of Croatia and the Socialist Republic of Croatia (both during the time of "Second Yugoslavia") were never corresponding with the Yugoslav flag in each and every detail. The two were never exactly alike (not to mention exactly the same). You are the most biased editor I have ever encountered.

The flag of the Federal State of Croatia can not be selected from the numerous versions that have existed during the WWII.

The editor who helped us in the question of the Emblem of the Federal State of Croatia said that only official sources can be used. This means that you are in the wrong again.

You are biased towards the WWII era and see everything through the pink glasses when it comes to the "left", also you are not objective when it comes to the "right".

But the issue here is not left/right but the complete disregard of the facts by Mr. DIREKTOR who did not draw the image but took it from FotW and published on Wiki under his own name.

Imbris (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the flag can't be of Croatia because it was the flag of the Croatian Partisans, because both would be impossible? Isn't it interesting that the Yugoslav Partisans and WWII Yugoslavia had the same flag... could that mean that the Croatian Partisans and WWII Croatia had the same flag - like the source states? Or is it absolutely impossible for them to have the same flag, considering they invented it either way? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The admin who advised us on the question of the wrongly attributed Emblem of the Federal State of Croatia said that we should have reliable sources and not some hearsay. Janko did not present sources but his own view. He obviously did not know about the Order on Hoisting of Flags. You should stop with the logic that the Federal State of Croatia had a flag before the end of the WWII. It simply did not, not officialy. The flag that you insist on is not official. The admin who advised us said that only official info should be used in such cases. Like the Coat of arms of the People's Republic of Croatia, which existed from 1947, and not before.

Croatian Antifascist Movement had a flag but the Federal State of Croatia had not a flag before the Order on Hoisting of Flags. Other constituent people's republics' had not even had simmilar orders and their symbols came to officiality by passing their respective constitutional acts.

You are deliberately misleading the reader by insisting that the flag before 26th of May 1945 was the official flag of the Federal State of Croatia. It was not, you have no evidence other than a sourceless Janko's orriginal research. The admin helped you and me both to prove that the Emblem of the Federal State of Croatia did not exist. Janko claims that it did exist. He is the only one with such claims.

Stop insisting that it is reliable, because it is not. It is just an one, singulair, source that names no sources of it own.

The flag before 26th of May 1945 was the flag of the Croatian Antifascist Movement (Croatian National Liberation Movement to be exact Croatian NOP) and also served in different variations as the flag of the Croatian National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments (officialy: National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Croatia, which existed before the centralisation of the NOVJ).

Imbris (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

SR Croatia (1943-1991) ?

Imbris old man, you're looking at this the wrong way. This article's name should be "Croatia within SFR Yugoslavia", except that "Socialist Republic of Croatia" is immensely more common (as it is with every other SFRY republic). There is no policy whatsoever stating that the "last name must be used", that's a complete fantasy. Your argument that constitutional changes and name changes are significant is valid, except that the names an constitutions of Croatia within SFR Yugoslavia varied greately and we still use the same article:

• 1943-1945 Federal State of Croatia (completely different "constitution")
• 1945-1963 People's Republic of Croatia (different name, used for 18 years)
• 1963-1990 Socialist Republic of Croatia (most common name, 23 years)
• 1990-1991 Republic of Croatia

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be Croatia within SFRY because SFRY had diff names also. Plus the fact that the Federal State of Croatia changed officialy its name by virtue of a law passed after the proclamation of the first Constitution of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (1946-01-31).

Some other way of presenting the info is needed, it cannot be SR Croatia 1943-1991 but 1944-1990 because that was the time frame of socialist/self-management, and not 1944-1991.

Please stop making disruptive titles, this has nothing to do with our other disputes.

Imbris (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no wacky titles... if you insist. Just please don't change any of my other posts. I'm afraid I just don't get the rest of your post... "It cannot be Croatia within SFRY because SFRY had diff names also"? So what if SFRY had different names also? That's a whole different matter for a whole different article. In fact, that's a good example of how a state with completely different names throughout its history uses one most common name.

Socialism, Stalinism, Worker's self management, Capitalism or something in between, it doesn't really matter - its still "Croatia within SFR/FPR/DF Yugoslavia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Croatia within socialist Yugoslavia is definitely most common name. No DF/FPR/SFR cannot supstitute that. -- Imbris (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand you, be clearer. You want to propose a move for the SR Serbia, SR Croatia, SR Macedonia, SR Montenegro and SR Bosnia and Herzegovina articles? I'm not usure if you meant that... "No DF/FPR/SFR cannot supstitute that"? What does that mean? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Such appelation solves all kind of problems, time periods, formal name problem, etc. I hope that you have learned that what happens here doesn't merit at other talk pages. For each of the "socialist republic" articles (and in case of Slovenia the article called Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991)) should have its own discussion on the move. -- Imbris (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but that's what you don't understand: there are no "problems" to solve as long its the most common name. "Croatia within SFR Yugoslavia" [3] and "Croatia within Socialist Yugoslavia" [4] get about 4 hits. "Socialist Republic of Croatia" gets 206,000 hits [5]. This matter was settled long ago, its just way more common. If we had those seperate articles, we'd need other ones like "Federal State of Slovenia" and "People's Republic of Macedonia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem, the Commonname policy cannot be used to fabricate data. SR Croatia existed 1944-1990, then happened the changes, multi-party system, free trade, private ownership, etc. You connected (made a mental link) of the Republic of Croatia being formally still a part of SFRY. This is false and fabrication. The breakup of Yugoslavia was a process. If the article is dedicated to SR Croatia, it is fine, but if the article is dedicated to all forms of Croatia within all forms of Yugoslavia then it should be Croatia within socialist Yugoslavia.

Google and statistics have no bearing on that. SR Croatia existed 1944-1990, and the Republic of Croatia exists from 1990.

Imbris (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

First we have "'Croatia within socialist Yugoslavia' is definitely most common name", now we're "fabricating data"? SR Croatia existed 1944-1990? No. SR Croatia existed 1963-1990. The Stalinist PR Croatia existed 1945-1963, then happened the changes, decentralization, worker's self-management, private ownership of small enterprises, name change, etc.

The Republic of Croatia WAS indeed "formally a part of the SFRY." It is amazing you do not know this, and yet you're causing so much trouble. When the HDZ came to power, in 1990 the name of the Yugoslav state was changed to "Republic of Croatia", along with all those changes you mentioned. The country would still be in Yugoslavia for almost 2 years. "This is false and a fabrication"? heh, you have no idea what you're talking about (again).

The breakup of Yugoslavia was a process, yes, a process consisting primarily of states breaking away from Yugoslav federation. The Republic of Croatia broke away in 1991, becoming an independent country. SR BiH broke away in 1992, SR Macedonia in September 1991, etc. The independent country known as the Republic of Croatia did not exist from 1990 - THAT is "fabrication of data".

Long story short: this is the most common name, and it simply is not "fabrication of data", forget about that completely. If this article "fabricates data" (LoL), then so does Kingdom of Yugoslavia, SFR Yugoslavia, SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, SR Montenegro, USSR etc etc... You can try something else now. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The article under the title SR Croatia describes just that the Socialist Republic of Croatia. The Socialist Republic of Croatia was not a Yugoslav state but a constituent republic of the SFRY. The "crisis" started in mid-1980s, and at one point Croatia stoped to acknowledge the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia, that was before formal independence.

Breaking away has nothing to do with the historicaly significant proclamations of multi-party system, removing the punishment for "criminal thought" from the Penal Code, shading away the red star,

Self-management started in 1950.

Countries exist for a period of time, that has nothing to do with independence, Republic of Kosova for instance declared in 1990.

The article is dedicated to the Socialist Republic of Croatia (1944-1990), and not to the Republic of Croatia (1990- ) which gained independence in 1991. The article is not dedicated to Croatia within Yugoslavia, because the Federal State of Croatia was not part of the internationaly recognized Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, the country would have to be recognized first, (UK recognized it on May 20th, 1945, then USA, and then USSR).

Stop making fog about the pure name changes, the People's Republic of Croatia was from January 31st, 1946. The Law on the name of the People's Republic of Croatia is dated February 26th, 1946 and published in the Official Gazette on February 28th, 1946 (No. 34/46, Vol. CVIII.) It was declared by the Presidency of the National Parliament of Croatia (it was not yet called the Presidium).

Countries are not divided by simple name changes, but by the significant socio-political changes. The Republic of Croatia exists from 1990-07-25, or better yet from its first Constitution, promulgated on 1990-12-22

There exists Republic of Slovenia (1990-1991), I think that is unneccessary, but if must be, it would be better than your biased version.

Imbris (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Split was not the capital of the Federal State of Croatia.

Split was not the capital of Croatia during World War II. ZAVNOH was the highest governing institution of Croatia. The headquarters of ZAVNOH were: in Otočac up to the beginning of 1944 (naturally moved around in Lika), then it was operating in Topusko (and in hiding on and around Petrova gora). ZAVNOH operated in Šibenik from 1944-12-31 to 1945-05-13. The extraordinary session of the Presidency of ZAVNOH, which was indeed held in Split on 1945-04-14, decided the Executive Committee of ZAVNOH to change its name and outgrow to National Government of Croatia. From 1945-05-20 both ZAVNOH and the executive body that is responsible to ZAVNOH (called the National Government of Croatia) operated in Zagreb. ZAVNOH changed its name to National Parliament of Croatia on 1945-07-15. This way Šibenik has a better claim of being the capital of the Federal State of Croatia. The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was recognized as a new country by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 1945-05-20, and latter USA and USSR followed suit. This means that internal affairs and civil war in Croatia during the WWII period has no bearing on the fact that Zagreb was the only recognized capital of Croatia in the Modern era see: — Modern history#Modern era — § 3.

Imbris (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

SAOs

You don't know what a state is. A state is a "political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area and population which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state". By the time of the Croatian declaration of independence, the SAOs were states or political entities - by definition. Whether they were called "Autonomous Oblasts" or "Principalities" or "Duchies" is completely irrelevant. They had no association with Croatia.

• The SAOs were states (political entities), I will not discuss this point at all.
• The SAOs were not a part of Croatia by the time Croatia declared independence. Another obvious point.

You are wrong, again. You don't know what you're talking about, again. All you know is that's "too many Serbian flags on a Croatian article", am I right? Now you're not going to budge a millimeter for five months, right? I'm going to keep reporting you until someone gets involved, your disruption on this website has to come to an end. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you should familiarize your self with WP:DR, and also with reliable sources. SAO's tryed to make an Association of municipalities under the Croatian law, this means that they still feld constitutionally as part of Croatia. The Republic of Serbian Boundary Land (literary), proclaimed independence, when Croatia was outside of Yugoslavian legal system. Please stop misleading the public.

SAOs had not had been in internal and external sovereignity.

This is very sad, now you resort of threats of me being reported, you should follow the WP:DR policy and also WP:AGF (so please stop threatening).

Imbris (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't presume to patronize me. "I should familiarize myself with WP:DR"? I've been around a bit longer than you, Imbris, I have 20,000 edits - I know WP:DR. You however, have never in your entire history on Wikipedia once asked for WP:DR. Which is very notable since ALL you do here is edit-war and push your childish POV on every article unfortunate to grab your attention.

All you did was ignore mediation findings by inventing transparent excuses such as "not every WP:DR option had been tried first", as if that somehow invalidates the mediation itself. Farcical. I suppose I should've first asked for a third opinion (WP:3O) after months of discussion and with five users involved? Don't think every single person with half a brain can't see that for a comical exuse to continue the dispute and push your POV.

Its not that you want to solve disputes, you just want to perpetuate them until you get your way by sheer agonizing persistence. Discussing issues with you is like trying to prove evolution to a creationist, no matter how wrong you are there's no way you can ever admit that for a fact. Experience has finally taught me that discussion with you is completely and utterly pointless. I shall waste no more of my energy on it. This has to stop, Imbris, one way or the other. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)