Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:53, 9 June 2009

Yugoslavia C‑class High‑importance

Hey, Slavs is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Slovakia C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Name of the page

I have added a bunch of info and moved the page to Hey, Slavs. There's too much international history to the song for it to be kept at one of the many Slavic names. Zocky 19:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian version

Can someone add the Macedonian version? --Explendido Rocha 16:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was told by a Macedonian friend that she doesn't recall any Macedonian lyrics and that they sang it in Serbian. I couldn't find anything useful on the internet. Zocky 20:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is a choral Macedonian version. Perhaps someone can transcribe it? --Explendido Rocha 14:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unofficial anthem?

The article says:

»The old anthem was officially abandoned after the liberation in 1945, but no new anthem was officially adopted. There were several attempts to promote other, more specifically Yugoslav songs as the national anthem, but none gained much public support and Hey, Slavs continued to be used unofficially. The search for a better candidate was finally abandoned, and in 1977 Hey, Slavs became the official national anthem of Yugoslavia.«

Article #8 of the Yugoslav constitution (1974) says (verbatim translation):

»Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has an anthem.«

So, what's then about unofficiality of Hey, Slavs before 1977? --romanm (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You know how Slovenian constitution says that Slovenia is divided into provinces, but none were actually ever defined? I think it was like that. See and . Zocky 00:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Slovak translation

I've notice that on this page the word slovaci is translated as both Slavs and Slovaks Rmpfu89

I do not think so. On what page and where?Juro 01:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Jošte, kano

To the anons who keep changing these two archaic words: jošte and kano are correct, as can be checked in any source, including . Other editors, please revert those changes on sight. Zocky | picture popups 11:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no jošte in Croatian, only još ste and yes, it's pronounced like that!!!

There was no Bosnian version of the SFRJ anthem, I do not even recall there being a separate Serbian and Croatian versions either (though I may be mistaken there). However, since someone was kind enough to give a Bosnian translation I thank him but I made the correction of "još ste" to "jošte". Još ste (you are still) has a different meaning than jošte (still, archaic) and may be the result of popular etimology due to the archaic nature of jošte. However, jošte is correct. In a similar note, I changed Sloveni/slovenski to Slaveni/slavenski as this is the preferred version in modern Bosnian. And yes, I changed "riječ" to "duh" as this is the wording used in the SFRJ version of the anthem that I remember learning way back in primary school (if someone objects to this, please name your source). To avoid confusion, I think it would be best to put the SFRJ (Yugoslav) version in a separate article, to avoid confusion related to the wording of the anthem.

I have heard both "reč" and "duh", and I'm not sure which was official or most commonly used in which part of Yugoslavia. But "još ste" is definitely wrong. The sentence wouldn't make any sense: "You are still alive the word/spirit of our grandfathers". Zocky | picture popups 03:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't

Those text's be moved to Wiki media or something rather then be presented here ? --Molobo 22:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

More correct Russian translation

There is a Russian translation of «Hey, Slavs!», it stays very near to the original Slovak text:

Гей, славяне, гей, славяне! Будет вам свобода, если только ваше сердце бьётся для народа.

Гром и ад! Что ваша злоба, что все ваши ковы, коли жив наш дух славянский! Коль мы в бой готовы!

Дал нам бог язык особый — враг то разумеет: языка у нас вовеки вырвать не посмеет.

Пусть нечистой силы будет более сторицей! Бог за нас и нас покроет мощною десницей.

Пусть играет ветер, буря, с неба грозы сводит, треснет дуб, земля под ними ходенём заходит!

Устоим одни мы крепко, что градские стены, проклят будь, кто в это время мыслит про измены!

Please add it to the Russian part of the article.

I don't know if this is indeed the correct translation, but I want to point out that Hey transcribed into Russian should be Эй or Хей because Гей means Gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.145.209 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that in Ukranian and Belarusian it would be spelt with a Г, but with Russian I have no idea. Maybe in Russia the song is actually "Gay Slavs" lol. BalkanFever 13:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthem of WWII Slovakia?

So, was it the anthem of Slovakia during the Second World War? The article contradicts itself on this point. Junes 01:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

why?

Why is someone forcing ˝jošte˝ for croatian. There is no jošte, only još ste! Difference is obvious.

You are simply wrong. "Jošte" is the archaic version of "još". "Još ste živi duh naših dedova" is not a grammatical sentence. Zocky | picture popups 04:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right , but last official version was još ste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.226.61 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Zocky | picture popups 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

English translation

I do not know who did English translation, but it can be hardly called a translation. It seems to be done on a level of 13 years old heavy metal fan translating some lyrics with on-line translator... Few parts of text are missing, translation is not even slightly precise in most of fragments. I understand that to make any translation one need to know something about a cultural context of translated text. This is a main trouble in all cases. So if one knows nothing about it do not even start to translate. Here my proposal:

Hey, Slavs, The tongue of our grandfathers is alive, As long as the hearts of ours Beat for our nation.

Lives, lives the Slavic spirit, It will live for ages! Hell and thunders of your anger All shall be in vain.

Our tongue beloved God in heaven granted None of this world Will overcome His power

Let all people around be us enemy. God is with us, who against us Those shall God make perish.

So let then above us ominous storm arise. Rocks crack, oaks break, Let the earth quake.

We stand always, we stand firmly, like castle walls, Black soil devour one who's our homeland traitor.

Here is current version:

Hey, Slavs, The spirit of our grandfathers is alive, As long as the hearts of their sons Beat for the people.

Lives, lives the Slavic spirit, It will live for ages! The Hell's abyss threatens in vain, The fire of thunder is in vain.

Let all above us now be shattered by a storm. Cliffs crack, oaks break, Let the earth quake.

We're standing firmly like mountains, Damned be the traitor of his homeland!

Please advise, correct and replace current one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.97.106 (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian and Belorussian versions

Can someone please post a translation of that song in those languages? SalJyDieBoereKomLei (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect word

I changed the incorrect word "jošte" to "još ste", in serbian, croatian and bosnian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.97 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, jošte is correct. It's the achraic version of još. ;) - OBrasilo (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Including the dual name Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language

• Another language, Imbris? Despite the article name, Montenegrin is a dialect. Read the article. It is not recognized as a "language" by anyone. It is virtually never listed as such.
  
• "Croato-Serbian" is a completely obscure term in English. Get over it and use "Serbo-Croatian".
• Please stop removing the Serbo-Croatian language entry from the full list of foreign language versions. It is POV. The anthem subsection is completely separate from the below area where all foreign language versions are listed. --DIREKTOR 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Montenegrin language is a language, no matter what you belive. Languages are not recognized, they might or might not be listed on some list, but this doesn't change the fact that languages are not a matter of recognition.
2. Stop deluding the general auditorium by your rude Yugoslav nationalism manifested by blinding unitarism. Even the Yugoslav communist authorities were lenient towards the issue by establishing many names for the diasystem. Also you should know that there are no guidelines on the content of articles in the fashion of using statistics as a tool to determine the content. The policies are established only for the title of the article. Wikilinks serve a multifacet of purposes.
3. Stop adding the content twice. It is rude of you to presume on adding of extint languages in the first place, but adding it twice this is proposterous. The fact that there are subsections doesn't make it anything else than another painting of preety pictures by Mr. DIREKTOR.

Imbris (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages uses sources to support claims. ISO is the "trump-card source" as far as what are languages/dialects. ISO does not list Montenegrin. Montenegrin is not a language (even the article states that FACT clearly).
• Getting personal again aren't we? This is not Yugoslavia, this is Misplaced Pages. This is not a matter of history, it is a matter for Google. There is only one most common term in English, and that's "Serbo-Croatian". Get over it already.
• I apologize for my apparent rudeness. Serbo-Croatian is not extinct: it is spoken by a large number of people, and it is recognized by ISO. It is to be listed alongside all other languages below. There is no way I'm letting you wantonly delete languages from the list because you're apparently "offended" by them. The section above deals with Yugoslavia, the section below is concerned with all Slavic languages that have a native version of this song. You're removing an entry because you don't like it. I'm sorry, your edit is contested. --DIREKTOR 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Only a RfC here can have any bearing on the matter, and not elsewhere. I would advise against it because as Ivan Štambuk said all those names are equivalent. We are not discussing a title of the article, and in the content of the article the most appropriate wikilink should be used based on the context.

P.S. Croatian, Serbian, Slovene and Macedonian were also languages of the SFRY in one time or another, so they should be listed in both sections, is that what you are after. Funny. :)

Imbris (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I proposed an RfC on a completely different matter. Not this. There's nothing really to discuss here. Montenegrin is a non-ISO recognized dialect, and "Croato-Serbian language" is an obscure term in English. Its just that you're spiteful and stubborn.
As for the Yugoslav Anthem section, it is quite necessary to list the exact versions of the song used in the Yugoslav anthem. The section now does that in detail. There are more than one Serbo-Croatian and Slovene versions of the song, and it is necessary to make their usage clear. The reader can now clearly understand exactly which ones of the many versions in the full list were the Yugoslav anthem. --DIREKTOR 11:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Only a RfC aimed at this topic can be created, that is if you want it to solve a problem you created with denial of the Montenegrin and favourizing Serbo-Croatian language as the only way that language should be called on this Misplaced Pages. Look around Macedonia is here.

No body is deleting your precious and deprecated Serbo-Croatian language but adding valuable content in order for the reader to comprehend that this language had no standardized name, that a bunch of names could have been used to describe it.

Your campaing to list the Serbo-Croatian language in both Yugoslav anthem and Other Slavic languages section of the article is proposterous and resulted in listing Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian language texts of the anthem twice (in both of those sections also)

Your futile attempt to portray as if the anthem was official in 1977 is destined to fail. The law said nothing of a sort, it merely determined the name of the anthem and stated that it is going to be temporary until a new anthem would be selected. The official status (from that of semi-official/temporary status of 1977) was gained 11 years latter in 1988-11-25 :)

There is no neccessity to list those text (exactly the same) twice in the very same article.

Imbris (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Stop removing Serbo-Croatian from the top list, that's obvious POV as its historic and even present-day significance is extremely relevant to the article (if you have not noticed, this article also deals with the historic use of the song). Use the standard English name for the language, not some version you personally prefer.
• Montenegrin is not internationally recognized as an independent language by the ISO. Removing its entry is a matter of sources, not ideology. I have absolutely nothing against Montenegro's independence from Serbia and hope that the Montenegrin language (quite different from Serbian) will be fully recognized one day. When that day comes, I'll try my best to include it in leads and articles everywhere. Unfortunately, as things stand now it is not ISO-recognized. --DIREKTOR 22:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No one removed Serbo-Croatian, and it should be listed alphabetically as well as other languages. Stop with your "historic" BS, it has no relevance for this article, especially the denial that 1977 was a temporary fix.

Stop pretending about standard English usage, on one is forcing the ordinary English speaker to any particular name, other than you of course. The statistics on the frequency are used to determine the title of the article, not the content, and the descriptivness is better than omitting the info. No one has deleted Serbo-Croatian language from the equation, but complemented it with Croato-Serbian language (as the language had a dual name)

Montenegrin language, standardized or not is still a language, whatever you say it is. The SIL company cannot change that fact. The enough sorce is the Constitution of Montenegro, and the Census.

Imbris (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages uses the most common term in the English language, not the one you prefer.
• Montenegrin is not ISO-recognized. ISO is the main source for languages on Misplaced Pages. What its called is irrelevant. Non-ISO recognized, and non-standardize languages are unsupported by sources and are not listed until they are indeed standardized. There's no way it will remain here alone of all Misplaced Pages articles because of your anti-Yugoslavism POV. --DIREKTOR 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have listed both names from the begining of this, you portray the issue as if I have deleted something. I did nothing of a sort.

Montenegrin language is used on this wikipedia, it has its own article and ISO cannot change that fact. ISO (controled by some other authority continue to blatantly oppose Security Council which determined that SFRY had not a single successor, like the FRY claimed and lists that .yu was continuously used by the FRY (with no breaking in usage other than a number change.

I have no anti-Yugoslavianism POV. You are the biased party here + not listing any reliable information.

Imbris (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Subject 1: using "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language" as a term for the Serbo-Croatian language. Misplaced Pages uses the most common term in the English language, not the one you prefer.
  • Why are you doing this against standard practice ("Serbo-Croatian" is used everywhere)? You like to use the obscure and over-long variant simply because you like to think that's "more Croatian". Remember when you said they were seperate languages? :) Oh boy...
• Subject 2: adding the Montenegrin language version. The Montenegrin language is not internationally and ISO-recognized. It is included as a seperate language just about nowhere on Misplaced Pages.
  • Why are you restoring Montenegrin? Well, you believe that I'm removing its entry because I'm a "Yugoslav unitarianist" (I actually fully support Montenegrin independence from Serbia). Therefore, as a nationalist you feel an overwhelming desire to contradict the real situation and the fact that noone recognizes the language, all for the purpose of "fighting" Yugoslav unitarianism. Keep-up the good work.
• Subject 3: Serbian and Croatian as official languages of the SFRY? Ok, read this carefully: Serbian and Croatian were never official languages of the SFRY. Never. What you think are the Serbian and Croatian language are (in Yugoslavia) the two variants of the single Serbo-Croatian language. You are totally mistaken.
  • Why are you contradicting reality yet again? That's an interesting question, since by now you probably will have realized that you've misinterpreted your source, the Yugoslav constitution. Which is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not written in Serbian and Croatian as seperate languages. So why are you continuing to restore Croatian and Serbian as supposed "official" languages? Well, probably out of spite, because I lost my temper and bluntly exposed your obvious error on User talk:Ivan Štambuk. You now feel you simply must contradict me, no matter how demonstrably wrong you may be.

--DIREKTOR 09:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not done anything of a sort, at the talk page of Ivan Štambuk your POV could be seen out of Space. See User talk:Ivan Štambuk

Imbris (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well your POV is visible from Mars. There you go, I win. --DIREKTOR 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Space is a broader term. And I must say that I haven't seen such rude behaviour on this wikipedia since I joined. Even Panonian was 10x more respectfull. We are not here to win, but to contribute with reliable sources. -- Imbris (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Win"? Oh, that was sarcasm (its all in the article). Your incredible stubbornness, constant disregard of arguments, use of revert-warring to push an edit that was contested when you introduced it, your petty insistence on changing every detail just the way you imagined it... well, all that pretty much tells me you shouldn't have "joined" in the first place. It may be just my opinion, but I have to say you're probably not cut-out for proper discussion. You like having your way too much.

Also, your POV can be spotted from an alternate dimension. Top that! --DIREKTOR 01:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting. Nobody removed anything of value. Even the English speaking authors use the dual form when addressing to the language, most notably in scientific papers and linguistic studies about the language/macrolanguage. Stop deleting Montenegrin and the Hunagrian. Yugoslavia did not have official language as per the Constitution, languages of nationalities were equall in their right of usage and after 1970 the Official Gazette of the SFRY was published in two of them (Hungarian and Albanian. -- Imbris (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why am I reverting you? Because you're reverting me. Who should stop? The one who first introduced the edit, and now thinks that if he reverts enough times his version will stick. You, User:Imbris, are using edit-warring to push your edit. That's a plain obvious fact. Trying to make me look like the instigator, eh? Clever, very clever...

Yes, as is well know, English uses the term (and about four others) for the language, just barely. However, compared to simply "Serbo-Croatian" the other terms are obscure. Misplaced Pages uses the term which is most common. You're using that term which makes your nonsense sound least ridiculous. Not only that, but the term "Serbo-Croatian" is used all over Wiki. Introducing the use of a new, obscure, term will undoubtedly cause considerable confusion with the average reader. But that doesn't bother you, does it? After all, your primary duty is to defend the Croatian language...

Montenegrin is not standardized or recognized internationally as a language. It makes no sense calling it a language if it isn't even properly defined. (It will probably get standardized next September, I hear.)

Hungarian?! Albanian?! LoL... Admit it, now you're just being silly...

--DIREKTOR 18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have first introduced Serbo-Croatian in the South Slavic languages list and push for it really hard, you have also first introduced the division of South Slavic languages (to this article). Serbo-Croatian (also called Croato-Serbian) can only be listed where it was listed before you came along, and that is under the section Yugoslav anthem.

You are a troll, not an investigator, you act like you WP:OWN the article, and you haven't produced any significant source for the article, even tryed to misconcieve the reader by listing 1977 as the year of officiality. Sad to see Rjecina gone, he could explain it to you.

Your inspector like questions, like, why do you think this content should be listed or what emotions I think the reader will perceive after reading the article shows just how your mind thinks. You have big issues, my dear fellow.

We are not discussing about a title for the article named Serbo-Croatian language where BTW in the lede is the full name of the macrolanguage e.g. Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language(s).

Why didn't you have problems when it was phrased like this: ]?

In the English language, both common and expert the phrase Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language is also present, you should not be mistaken, it is present in about 10% cases

Your primary function on this wikipedia is disruption and labeling other editors, you continuously defame my person and presume on my personal integrity. Please stop this.

No one is introducing anything new, I am simply trying to add content from the lede of the Serbo-Croatian article.

You omitt Montenegrin which is a constitutionaly sanctioned language of Montenegro and keep adding a Serbo-Croatian variant in the South-Slavic languages section even if that language is neither constitutional (in any country) not defined generally as a language, since it is a macrolanguage. sh - no longer exists as a language.

Hungarian and Albanian, as all other languages of nationalities in Yugoslavia were equallized as by the language policies of Yugoslavia with Serbian, Croatian, Slovene, Macedonian and with the defunct Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.

Imbris (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fresh start?

Ok, how about we start anew with this whole thing. There's no end in sight, and it seems to me that the only way we're ever going to be done with this is if we reset the discussion. Two things are essential, though, if we're going to do this (I'm assuming you agree to giving this a go).
(1) You need to stop viewing me with suspicion to such a degree, as that completely undermines all possibility of a proper consensus. I have a POV? Well, so do you. I think its safe to say most users have a "POV", its just a question of whether or not they remain objective while editing on Wiki. That's a whole different issue, and I shall certainly do my best to be as objective and "professional" as possible.
(2) Please, please, wait until discussions are over before you re-introduce your edit. You can demonstrate your changes here with no problem, and you probably realize we'll both likely get blocked for a period when somebody notices the revert-warring. It really won't make any difference who's version is on when we reach an agreement, and forgive me but I think its fair that since you started all this you be the one to temporarily give it a rest? (I'm probably deluding myself, but there you go...)
If its not too much to ask, can you list the proposed changes to the article point by point so that we may start discussing them separately? I also have to get to bed, so if you don't want to give this a fresh start (quite likely, I imagine) you can have your way for a few hours. Knock yourself out... --DIREKTOR 21:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, I tried... --DIREKTOR 09:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You have first introduced Serbo-Croatian in the South Slavic languages list and push for it really hard, you have also first introduced the division of South Slavic languages (to this article). Serbo-Croatian (also called Croato-Serbian) can only be listed where it was listed before you came along, and that is under the section Yugoslav anthem.

You are a troll, not an investigator, you act like you WP:OWN the article, and you haven't produced any significant source for the article, even tryed to misconcieve the reader by listing 1977 as the year of officiality. Sad to see Rjecina gone, he could explain it to you.

Your inspector like questions, like, why do you think this content should be listed or what emotions I think the reader will perceive after reading the article shows just how your mind thinks. You have big issues, my dear fellow.

We are not discussing about a title for the article named Serbo-Croatian language where BTW in the lede is the full name of the macrolanguage e.g. Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language(s).

Why didn't you have problems when it was phrased like this: ]?

In the English language, both common and expert the phrase Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language is also present, you should not be mistaken, it is present in about 10% cases

Your primary function on this wikipedia is disruption and labeling other editors, you continuously defame my person and presume on my personal integrity. Please stop this.

No one is introducing anything new, I am simply trying to add content from the lede of the Serbo-Croatian article.

You omitt Montenegrin which is a constitutionaly sanctioned language of Montenegro and keep adding a Serbo-Croatian variant in the South-Slavic languages section even if that language is neither constitutional (in any country) not defined generally as a language, since it is a macrolanguage. sh - no longer exists as a language.

Hungarian and Albanian, as all other languages of nationalities in Yugoslavia were equallized as by the language policies of Yugoslavia with Serbian, Croatian, Slovene, Macedonian and with the defunct Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.

Mr. DIREKTOR did not answer anything, not sourced anything he edits completely on the basis of his POV, he did not present any sources and keeps bickering about the dual phrasing, as if this is not present in the article itself.

Imbris (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sooo... you don't like me? I'm hurt. Now can we please talk bout your changes?! --DIREKTOR 18:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean about your changes, no other macrolanguage (e.g. Church-Slavonic) has been listed in the South-Slavic Section of the article, so why should Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian when it is listed in the section Yugoslav anthem -- Imbris (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My changes? If I introduced Serbo-Croatian there, I don't even remember. When I introduced it, it was there for ages. Everything in this article was edited and introduced at one point. What I'm saying is that nobody contested the edit at the time. By your logic the definition of "new changes to the article" encompasses quite a bit. I ask you again to please show some good faith and leave the new contested edits you introduced recently out of the article for now while discussions are on. (I did introduce some unrelated uncontested organizational edits in the meantime, but they are not contested, are they?) --DIREKTOR 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I've had a lot of tough debates on Wiki, but I've never been told I'm "inquisitive like an inspector". You just hate my guts so you see every question I ask as a hostile act.) --DIREKTOR 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop misleading the content ] was present before i changed it slightly to ] or ] to show that the two names are of equall value. Then you started this petty edit-war to get away with completely POV phrasing. Note that both Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian lead to the same article. Ivan Štambuk supported that any phrasing is good if it lead to the same article named Serbo-Croatian language or Croato-Serbian language (in its lede).

Then you started including Serbo-Croatian under two subsections of the article, the one (where it was always present) is Yugoslav anthem section and the other (which you created) Slavic languages, South Slavic languages where it has not ever been present.

Now you insist I abandon my edits, while your should be spared.

This is not an option

Either both of our edits will be present or none

Stop misleading the general public about your kind nature and my bad nature, we are not here to discuss each other but the content, and the sources.

You have deleted the version in Montenegrin language even if that version is present for ages

You oppose the properly sourced Croatian and Serbian version from the Yugoslav anthem section, with what purpose?

You oppose the properly sourced Hungarian language version from the Yugoslav athem section, with what purpose?

You have even deleted the Croatian version from the times of ZAVNOH and still claim (with no sources whatsoever) that Croatian language did not exist in the times of Yugoslavia, Croatia was in the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia as the Federal State of Croatia in 1945, and Croatia was in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as the Socialist Republic of Croatia in 1990 when the Croatian language was most official and under its natural name of Croatian language.

Stop and discuss, if you have anything really to say, with sources please, and not with Srđan says, so and so.

Imbris (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much translations?

Seriously, what is this translated stuff even doing here? Bosnian? Montenegrin? We have "Croatian", "Croato-Serbian" and then "Croato-Serbian" in Cyrillic. They're significantly different to the original, really. Who cares about Polish or Turkish translations? Transwiki that elsewhere, to respective national Wikipedias, wikisource, wiktionary, wherever. We're killing the poor reader. Is this stuff even referenced? If you want a WP:30, this is crap, pardon my French. If I had enough time, I'd prone it myself. No such user (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris is making a joke of this article. He's on a crusade to prove Croatian was not unified into Serbo-Croatian, and no amount of nonsense will stop him. Bosnian is ok, its a recognized language, but Montenegrin!? I mean the language isn't even standardized, for goodness' sake. Serbian was never independent of Serbo-Croatian in the SFRY, and neither was Croatian. The two variants of Serbo-Croatian simply changed their names a few times. The Croatian variant never used Cyrillic, and he listed Hungarian and Albanian as official languages of the SFRY?!

The man is fiercely opposed to historical Yugoslavia and the old unification of the two languages. That's fine and dandy, I suppose, but now he's transferring his POV to the article. It also looks like he'll move on to other articles as well... --DIREKTOR 09:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I will not engage in "discussions" with Mr. DIREKTOR, who is currently so busy in defaming my character

First. Have I ever said that the languages were named in the Constitution of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia? — No. I have not said that. What I have said is that the Constitution of the FPRY existed in the four different languages, Croatian, Macedonian, Serbian, and Slovenian. Also Mr. DIREKTOR deliberately speaks of SFRY in order to cloud the issues.

Croatian language was and is open to neologisms, with an excellent authors like Bogoslav Šulek. As for the standard language, it is in major connection with sociolinguistics.

As for the official languages of I should remind you of the Odluka o objavljivanju odluka i proglasa Antifašističkog vijeća narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije, njegovog Predsjedništva i Nacionalnog komiteta na srpskom, hrvatskom, slovenskom i makedonskom jeziku (»Službeni list Demokratske Federativne Jugoslavije«, br. 1/45, No. 10, stranica 5.) and of the sources listed below my contribution to this discussion.

As for the fact that languages were not listed in the Constitution of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (1946-01-31), I should refer you to its Article 65. Zakoni i drugi opći propisi Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije objavljuju se na jezicima narodnih republika. (See also the Article 13 and the Article 120.)

From 1970s the Official Gazette of the SFRY was also published in the Albanian language and the Hungarian language, see Odluka o početku izlaženja Službenog lista SFRJ na albanskom i mađarskom jeziku (»Službeni list Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije«, br. 51/70, No. 582, p 1216)

Mr DIREKTOR is simply wrong, not only because of the facts, but because his POV is blinding him.

Sources:

• Uz te svoje »preteče«, ovaj rječnik ima i svoju pretpovijest. Njegov je zametak nastao zapravo još u danima prvog desetljeća komunističke vlasti, kad je još (doduše uglavnom samo zato da bi se hrvatski narod dao lakše podjarmiti) postojala ustavna odredba o četirima službenim jezicima u Jugoslaviji; srpskom, hrvatskom, slovenskom i makedonskom, pa još nije bilo zabranjeno i govoriti hrvatski, nego su se, dapače, čak i sami Titovi govori s njegova socijalističkog metajezika u beogradskom tisku prevodili na srpski a u zagrebačkom na hrvatski. U to dakle prijelazno vrijeme ranog socijalizma u kojemu je kroatiziranje srpskih tekstova, dakle njihovo prevođenje na hrvatski, još bio zakonit posao, a ne kontrarevolucionarna rabota, radio sam profesionalno na uspoređivanju srpskih književnih tekstova s njemačkim i francuskim izvornicima i »prevodio« ih za hrvatske čitatelje. Pri tome sam bilježio sve leksičke, sintaktičke i stilističke osobitosti srpskoga jezika, s čvrstom nakanom da načinim neku vrstu priručnika za »čitanje s razumijevanjem« srpskih književnih djela, priručnika prijeko potrebna svakome govorniku hrvatskoga jezika koji bi se želio temeljitije pozabaviti kako suvremenom tako i starijom srpskom književnošću, za što je u prvom redu potrebno potpuno razumijevanje teksta koji se čita.
• Otkako Jugoslavija postoji, u njoj se nije ustalio trajniji i jedinstveniji koncept jezične politike, pa je povijest problema bitno diskontinuirana. Njen se diskontinuitet manifestira u ovih nekoliko varijacija: hrvatskosrpski kao jedinstven jezik ili ne, hrvatskosrpski kao zajednički jezik ili ne.
• Iako mi jezičnu i nacionalnu šarolikost Jugoslavije rado ističemo kao nešto posve iznimno, moramo odmah reći da to u odnosu na većinu evropskih zemalja nije, osim eventualno po broju različitih etničkih i jezičkih skupina, ništa specifično. No posve je jedinstven status etničkih i jezičnih skupina u Jugoslaviji u pogledu upotrebe svoga jezika, i općenito njegovanja kulturne, jezične i nacionalne posebnosti; ovom modelu u jezičnoj politici, kojemu je osnovna načela dao AVNOJ, približuju se samo Švicarska, i donekle SSSR. Naime, za Jugoslaviju je karakteristično da nema jednog državnog i nadnacionalnog jezika, koji bi važio na cijelom teritoriju, a da osim osnovnih nacija (južni Slaveni osim Bugara) i svaka druga etnička i jezična skupina, koja to želi, ima puno pravo i slobodu na upotrebu jezika u gotovo svim sferama javnog života (ali ne npr. za službeni saobraćaj u JNA), tj. da na svom jeziku, ili na varijanti svoga jezika, organizira sve stupnjeve škola, izdaje novine, časopise i knjige, da se svojim jezikom služi u lokalnoj administraciji itd. Iako u novije doba i u drugim zemljama, barem načelno, zapažamo slične razvojne tendencije, do danas nijedna zemlja nije dosegla razinu jugoslavenske jezične politike ni u pogledu pravnih normi ni u pogledu prakse. Jugoslavija zauzima posebno mjesto na jezičnoj karti Evrope, ne samo po broju i raznorodnosti etničkih i jezičnih skupina neko i po upotrebi jezika narodnosti u najrazličitijim sferama života.
• Poznate su i često citirane odredbe Avnoja i Ustava FNRJ, gdje se navode četiri jezika, među njima srpski i hrvatski.
• »Termin hrvatskosrpski/srpskohrvatski za Hrvatsku je u 45 godina druge Jugoslavije kao ustavna kategorija važio devet godina, od Ustava FNRJ 1963. do amandmanā na Ustav SR Hrvatske u ožujku 1972, sankcioniranih Ustavom iz 1974, odredbom da su u SRH “autentični tekstovi saveznih zakona i drugih saveznih općih akata (...) na hrvatskom književnom jeziku, latinicom” « (Matković, 2006, 204)

1. Brodnjak, Vladimir. Razlikovni rječnik srpskog i hrvatskog jezika, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1991., p VII
2. Andrijašević, Marin; Erdeljac, Vlasta; Pupovac, Milorad. Jezična politika u Jugoslaviji in: Jezici i politike : jezična politika u višejezičnim zajednicama : zbornik , Centar CK SKH za idejno–teorijski rad »Vladimir Bakarić« (in cooperation with »Komunist« — Zagreb, Zagreb, 1988, pp 68-75 (p 74)
3. Kovačec, August. Jezici narodnosti i etničkih skupina u SFRJ in: Jezici i politike : jezična politika u višejezičnim zajednicama : zbornik , Centar CK SKH za idejno–teorijski rad »Vladimir Bakarić« (in cooperation with »Komunist« — Zagreb, Zagreb, 1988, pp 56-67 (p 57)
4. Lončarić, Mijo. Odnosi među standardnim jezicima, Znanstveni institut gradišćanskih Hrvatov / Wissenschaftliches Institut der Burgenländischen Kroaten, Trausdorf/Trajštof, 2007-12-05, retrieved 2009-05-24, On-line – full text, Template:Hr icon
5. Žanić, Ivo. Hrvatski na uvjetnoj slobodi: jezik, politika i identitet između Jugoslavije i Europe, Fakultet političkih znanosti Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, 2007, pp 182-192 (p 188, footnote 133)

I'm "defaming your character"?! LoL, did you see your posts!? They all start with "You", and they all tell me how much I suck. I'm "defaming" you? --DIREKTOR 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are portraying your opinions about what I supposedly think, and in a way that is derogatory and defamatory. I have tryed to assume good faith, addressed you constantly as Mr. DIREKTOR and valued your contributions, like the re-positioning of languages to West, South and East Slavic. Your contribution at that srbosjek issue is also noted quite favourably by me. So stop playing a victim here, start discussing issues. -- Imbris (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

One at a time

Here are the issues, lets tackle them one at a time.

Name of the "unified language"

(Reply to your post above)The names did have "equal value" in Yugoslavia, but not in English. We are talking two names of one language (with two variants, but its still one language and one language only). These two names are:

• "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language". That's the full official name of the language, and that's the name you've been using. You may believe you're listing two names, but that is a mistake: "Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" is one name, the full official name of one language (with two variants). It is never used in English. Not on Misplaced Pages, not anywhere. It has 266 hits on Google . (Just to be clear "Croato-Serbian" has a grand total of 3,310 hits on Google. )
• "Serbo-Croatian language". That's the by far most common name of this language in the English-speaking community. It is used everywhere. Both on Misplaced Pages and everywhere else. It has 2,430,000 hits on Google.

At the risk of being "inspector-like", I must ask you to please explain how do you justify using the name with 240 hits (or at best 3,310 hits) against one with two-and-a-half million hits? Are you trying to defend the Croatian variant's (quote) "equality"? I may be wrong, but that's how it looks to me. --DIREKTOR 23:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer to DIREKTOR

In order for the better understanding of a bystander, we are here not discussing the renaming of the article Serbo-Croatian language, statistics cannot apply.

The article on that "language" exists and has these wikilinks, all available for a user to use:

• Serbo-Croatian
• Croato-Serbian
• Serbo-Croatian language
• Croato-Serbian language
• Croatian or Serbian language
• Serbian or Croatian language
• Etc.

The Internet can be used as a tool, but up to a point, statistics also, and those infamous Google search results can be used in the context of determining the title of a particular article. Not here, where we discuss whether or not we should list besides the Serbo-Croatian the Croato-Serbian name in a phrase that goes like this:

• Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian

Google books places a different light on the data

• 678 hits for Croato-Serbian
• 6760 hits for Serbo-Croatian

This reads something like 10% of those authors that mention Croato-Serbian naturally in the context of Serbo-Croatian.

From looking at what books, papers and such publications can be found in those sources, seems that the term Serbo-Croatian was used predominantly in some dictionaries (sponsored by the state) and that we have a great number of scientific (linguistics) papers that deal with the language and use just the phrase:

• Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian

And one can find English authors that describe: "The Serbs refer to the joint language as 'Serbo-Croatian', the Croats call it 'Croato-Serbian'"

• 628 hits for Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian is a good place to start our search for the sources that show that even if this is a minority view it should be respected and presented accordingly.

This is why the Serbo-Croatian is before Croato-Serbian and even portrayed like this:

• Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian in the article Hey, Slavs

Mr. DIREKTOR is obviously not a inclusionist but a rigid statistician (I hope that he would specialize in public health and go to work in Africa) ;-)

Mr. DIREKTOR should read: Undue weight, Croato-Serbian has every right to be used when we are dealing with specific issues, which include the joint heritage of Yugoslavia.

Mr. DIREKTOR should also look at the Template:Slavic languages (on this and other related issues)

Imbris (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No response by DIREKTOR. Now he is insisting that this discussion should be at Talk:Serbo-Croatian language. Well, this is not the problem for the article on that macrolanguage (under the code hbs), but the problem on this article. There are no serious problems with the SC article at this particular moment. Other than the fact that Central South Slavic diasystem article should exist separately from the SC article. DIREKTOR should have a great deal of trouble setting up a RfC at the SC article, because its content is not involved with the right of every user to use whatever wikilink (leading to the SC article) that he or she wanted. -- Imbris (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talking to your "general auditorium" I see... I refuse to discuss while these edits are being pushed without consensus. I will not address the issues until the revert-war is stopped. We have to agree to some kind of "ceasefire" first and finally stop editing the article while discussion is on. --DIREKTOR 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of the Montenegrin language

The Montenegrin language is not a standardized language. It is not recognized internationally, and has no ISO designation. It is mentioned virtually nowhere throughout Misplaced Pages, other than its own article. Should its entry be excluded here as well on the basis that the we really have no idea what grammar and wording adheres to this language's (non-existing) standards? --DIREKTOR 11:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Montenegrin is still a virtual "language" in production. It has no ISO code, no normative grammar/dictionary/orthography. For all the practical purposes it can be treated as standard Ijekavian Serbian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Virtual language or not, it is official language in the constitution of Montenegro, and the reason for no ISO is the diversity between two sides of how should the language be standardized, but until that, it still uses the standard of Serbo-Croatian which doesn't mean it is a dialect of Serbian. Rave92 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be in the constitution of Montenegro, but this article has nothing to do with Montenegro. We're talking about the language itself, not the Republic of Montenegro. If the language is a virtual language (as you've agreed) it is not standardized, if its not standardized, we don't know what it is. If we don't know what the standard Montenegrin language is, we can't really use it. --DIREKTOR 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I didn't agree, I just said it in the way virtual or not, the fact is that it is the only official language (beside "in official use" which doesn't have any meaning) in Montenegro, a country which was a part of Yugoslavia and it was also their anthem and it deserves to have it own translation when we can have some other languages like Russian etc... And also take an example of section for Montenegrin language at the University in Niksic. They have classes and work with the old Yugoslavian standard. So if they can, I think we can use it here, it's not like it translation will be changed after the final standard :).Rave92 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're ignoring my point. This is not about Montenegro, or what it "deserves". Its a simple matter: how can we use a language that does not have a standardized form?? Until its standardized its doesn't really exist, it exists in name not in form ("virtually"), it isn't "formulated". --DIREKTOR 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Standard language has nothing to do with the appearing of the words Montenegrin language in this article. We have a native speaker, Rave92 who rightfully thinks that the language will not change any of the words of the song named Hej Sloveni. Who are DIREKTOR and Ivan Štambuk to demand that Montenegrin would be a banned language on this wiki. They are not native speakers of that language, and even if they knew something about that language or the text of the song in that language, any mistake can be easily repaired.

But the oppression of Montenegrins who use Montenegrin language should be seen through as an attempt to alienate Montenegrins from editing this wiki, because they are subject of constant harrasment and defamation of their homeland, their government and their native language (each an every nation has a right on their maternal language)

The two users are trying to scare Rave92 to allow the continuation of the domination of certain aspects of historical constructs, like the SC "macrolanguage" in order to kling as much as they can with the illusion of (better said delusions) of unified nation called Yugoslavs.

Imbris (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Montenegrin language" except in the heads of some Montenegrin nationalists who are too proud to call themselves "Serbs" (the usual Balkan identity crisis). Montenegrin kids still (AFAIK) in schools learn grammar and orthography from books that have a title "Serbian language", Montenegrin press and mass media use standard Ijekavian Serbian. Efforts by Montenegrin nationalist to standardize a language that will have some Montenegrin-specific traits (2 new letters of alphabets, Montenegrin-specific lexis etc.) have not been fruitful so far. For a language to "exist", there has to be more to it than simply a bunch of personae claiming to "speak it". No grammars, dictionaries, orthography books, school curriculum - it doesn't exist. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fight the oppression! Don't give in to the fear! :P What a colorful world you live in. Anywayz, ignoring the irrelevant stuff... the issue is obviously not the inclusion of the words "Montenegrin language", but the words in that language. A language that, again, has no standard formulation, no international recognition, no grammar, and only a name. When that language gets standardized (hopefully soon), I'll be the first to introduce it in equal status. How about addressing the other guy's point for once, Imbris? --DIREKTOR 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ivan, if Montenegrin doesn't exist, neither does Croatian. I can't believe that Croats are talking here about "nationalism", you even created a new words just so it will be different from Serbian. You have no right to tell to anyone if their language exist or not. Imbris thanks for the support. Rave92 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unlike "Montenegrin language", Croatian is fully established as a modern standard language, having its own grammars, dictionaries, orthography books and literary tradition. Of course, "Croatian language" is but a mere sociolinguistic creation: at the dialectal and genetic level, taking also Bosnian and Serbian into account, there is really only one language (Neoštokavian dialect). It all depends on the perspective of how you define a "language".

Coinage of new words (neologisms) has been a part of Croatian literary tradition for centuries (from Kašić along Šulek to Krleža), and has nothing to do with "differing from Serbian", except in the brief period of the first decade of 1990s (Tuđman's dictatorship) and the unfortunate fascist period of 1941-45. You'd be surprised to find out how many words used today by Serbs and Montengrins are a result of some scholar's mental effort to invent new words, not being incorporated into literary idiom from narodni govor ^_^

Whether a language exists or not is not a matter of somebody's opinion. For a Montenegrin language to exist as a codified variety of Neoštokavian/Serbo-Croatian (with it's own peculiar features), it must have some kind of normative, codifying literature (officially published grammars, orthography books, dictionaries..enforced by the media and academy). Bosnian got those really fast (in a few years), but Montenegrin is still at its inception (there seems to be a lot of political will, but not enough scholarly, at least not since Nikčević's passing). For a language to exist on paper, there must be some kind of standard. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I dreaming or are you personifying all Croats, and giving them form of Ivan Štambuk and myself?! What else is there to say? Montenegrin is not a language in anything but name. Not yet unfortunately. Hopefully soon it will be. You should also notice that Imbris is quite obviously by far and without competition the most nationalistic Croat editing this talkpage. --DIREKTOR 19:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't really see what's the point of the discussion. It is true that the term "Croato-Serbian" existed if that's the problem (sorry I didn't read all). He is right. I mean, I think I have dictionary on which says "Croato-Serbian" from 70's which was published in Zagreb :/. Rave92 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... its a bit more complicated. "Croato-Serbian" is an alternative name for the language known in English primarily as the "Serbo-Croatian language". The alternative name, "Croato-Serbian", is most commonly used when referring to the Croatian variant of the two variants Serbo-Croatian has, however in English usage it is virtually non-existent. Its still the same language. (I think I may have the same dictionary :) --DIREKTOR 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha quite possible about having the same dictionary, but here is an example of what I am talking about: http://i.ebayimg.com/17/!BRH-GlgBWk~$(KGrHgoOKj8EjlLmVnm)BJ8ZyYGL9g~~_1.JPG . Rave92 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, mine's all yellow. --DIREKTOR 23:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So is mine but I am saying that term Croato-Serbian was known in English. Rave92 09:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well considering that it has 3,000 hits on Google compared to 2,500,000 of "Serbo-Croatian", I'd say there is no real competition. That dictionary itself is Yugoslav, so I don't see how it factors in your statement... --DIREKTOR 10:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

Hi guys, I saw the request for some informal mediation on this article so thought I'd come give you guys a hand. Firstly, just so you know, I know nothing about the anthem or any of the countries/languages involved. If you guys are happy for some informal mediation please sign your name below & outline briefly your viewpoint-what the issue is & what you would like to see in an ideal world. In order to do this, we are going to need everyone to agree not to edit the article when the discussion is taking place-otherwise we can get it protected. It's been protected to make everything easier. Let's get started! Thanks. Dotty••| 14:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)PS. I may organise people's comments to make it easier for me-don't worry I won't change what you say at all.

• Comment: This is out of procedure, 3O, then RfC, and then some informal mediation. In my opinion DIREKTOR is calling his troops to vote his POV into "law". -- Imbris (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Stambuk

• Confer Hey,_Slavs#South_Slavic_languages. Do you, as a total ignorant and an outsider, see any difference (and hence reason to keep the columns) between the "Croatian variant of Serbo Croatian" and "Croatian" columns, and also between the "Serbian variant of Serbo-Croatian" and "Serbian (Latin script)" columns? Now, according to Imbris, we are supposed to keep them because they represent "different languages"... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR

• First off, thanks for taking the time to get involved in this mess. I can guarantee it wont be easy, but getting involved in such conflicts does credit to any Wikipedian :). As I mentioned before, there's a lot that's in dispute. In an ideal world I'd like to see the article restored to its state before User:Imbris introduced his disputed changes (hopefully without him pushing his edits with constant edit-warring). In detail, that means I'd like to see:
  • the most common name for the Serbo-Croatian language (i.e. "Serbo-Croatian") used everywhere except its article's lead, per my understanding of the MoS. Usage of the other various names and variations thereof will unavoidably lead to confusion with the average enWikipedia reader. Moreover, the usage of an alternative name is, in this case and most others, motivated primarily by petty Croatian nationalist tendencies (I'm Croatian as well) trying to emphasize the "Croatness" of the language by using the term "Croato-Serbian language" which places "Croato-" (i.e. "Croatian") to the front of the name. Completely disregarding the alternative term's obscurity and the needless confusion it may well create.
  • I'd like to see the unstandardized, incomplete, controversial, and unrecognized Montenegrin language entry removed. Not because I have something "against" Montengrins and/or their independence and language, but simply because that language is incomplete, unrecognized (a "work-in-progress") and its existence and standardization is a subject of much controversy even in the Republic of Montenegro itself. Insistence on the inclusion of that language is, in my opinion, based only on the nationalist tendencies of the opposing party, which believes that its removal is somehow "pro-Yugoslavia".
  • The "Yugoslav anthem" section is also being clogged by the listing of languages that simply were not official in Yugoslavia. I'd like to see that stopped. The claim that the Republic of Yugoslavia had no less than seven(!) "official languages" is ludicrous at best.
  • Since the "Slavic languages" section includes all version of this song in historic and present-day Slavic languages, I'd like to see the Serbo-Croatian language version included there as well. It is arguably the most significant version of the song, as it served as the Yugoslav anthem. It is being consistently removed, again due to the idea that its inclusion in that particular section somehow "resurrects" that language.

--DIREKTOR 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Imbris' comments

I hope that Dotty would search through the history of the article because he/she would see that it is DIREKTOR who added the Serbo-Croatian twice:

• Introduction:
• In the Yugoslav anthem section of the article (where he expanded it beyond comprehension to the Croatian variant in Ijekavian "pronunciations" and Serbian variant in Ekavian "pronunciations" forgetting the fact that Serbian variant also uses Ijekavian, and that both scripts were equalized , and the fact that peoples in easternmost part of Slavonia use(d) Ekavian "pronunciations", etc., etc.)
• In the South Slavic languages section of the article, where it was not included before. BTW in the Template:Slavic languages it was Ivan Štambuk who placed the Serbo-Croatian among "Other" Slavic languages, even if certain international institutions regard it as a macrolanguage.
• Mr. DIREKTOR then added Macedonian and Slovene language to the Yugoslav anthem section, denying the same courtesy to Croatian, and to Serbian language.
• Conclusion of this part of the discussion would be:
  • (1) stop listing texts in the Yugoslav anthem section in those languages that are listed in either Slavic languages section (nest), or in the Other languages section.
  • (2) create Slavic languages, Other where Serbo-Croatian should be listed.
  • (3) arrange the lede (where the titles of the anthem are listed in bold) in a fashion similar to those of the Slavic languages and Other languages section.
• Delete as well as the anthem of the World War II Slovak Republic since the section Tiso's Slovakia says otherwise.
  • Formating of the table should be as before – 100% and the text should be grouped per three or maximum four in a "row"
  • In the lede the titles in various languages should not be mixed, the titles should be arranged either by alphabet (names of the languages) or by the groups, west, south, east, other (containing Serbo-Croatian). The current way of sorting is biased, without reliable sources to support it and frankly defamatory towards the Bosniak language, the Croatian language, and also the Serbian language.
• On the dual name. First of all we are not speaking about the title of the article named – the Serbo-Croatian language. All of the versions of the name of that article have its support, all lead to that article and Ivan Štambuk at one point said this is a fine enough solution.
• As I explained here, and as can be seen at Talk:Bosnian language, the users, Mr. DIREKTOR and Mr. Ivan Štambuk are trying to accomplish different things in the same sphere of thought. They propagate including the alternative name of the Bosnian language (in the article about it), even if that name is used by a smaller portion of the World. The name they are trying to include is the Bosniak language. But no, in this and other articles they place a virtually dead language in front of all other living languages, they deny that in times before the Agreement of Novi Sad there were four main "official" South Slavic languages in Yugoslavia (except Bulgarian), and they deny the common usage of any phrasing other than Serbo-Croatian or even Serbo-Croat.
• I advocate that in articles that deal with the content specific to Croatia, which relates also with former SFR Yugoslavia (Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and Democratic Federal Yugoslavia also) we can use Croatian or Serbian language or Croato-Serbian language, where we deal with the content specific to Serbia (in times of SFRY) we use Serbo-Croatian language or Serbian or Croatian language, when we deal with the content specific to Montenegro we should use Serbo-Croat (up to 1974, latter in Montenegro the language was not officially named), and when we deal with the content specific to Bosnia and Herzegovina (all in times of SFRY) we use Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.
• In cases where we deal with a multitude of spheres, and with content that is not specific, but a generally Yugoslavian content, we should acknowledge the use of:
  • Serbo-Croatian (also called Croato-Serbian language)
  • Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian
  • Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian
  • Serbian or Croatian/Croatian or Serbian
• Why?
  • Because we have enough sources that show that the Croato-Serbian language is used in the English language and listing that content is not confusing anybody. I will not play games of speculating why Mr. DIREKTOR is willing to drag this issue as if it is controversial. With the addition of content like (also called Croato-Serbian language) we do not confuse but clarify. No one deleted Serbo-Croatian language from usage, but added content that clarify on the historical policy accepted by a certain number of English authors. This is why the Serbo-Croatian is listed before the addition.
• On the Montenegrin language:
  • There are plenty of languages in the World that are not completely standardized, the English language, whether you believe it or not; is not completely standardized. This has no bearing of the usage of the name of the language. The language might have only speakers, the language could have been only written. The Etruscan civilization had a language; we do not know exactly what every "word" of it means, but we list it, we describe what we know.
  • First of all there is no Republic of Yugoslavia; nor has ever been (to Mr. DIREKTOR), second the Republic of Montenegro is constitutionally no longer called this way, but only Montenegro. We have a certain number of native speakers of the language called the Montenegrin language, we must WP:AGF when Rave92 tells us that he is a native speaker, and that he believes that the words of the song Hej Sloveni would not change from the times when it was official in the Socialist Republic of Montenegro (the last Constitution of the SR Montenegro did not name the official language)
  • Mr. DIREKTOR is putting pressure on Montenegrin language for the sole benefit of driving Rave92 from this topic, and thus from supporting a position different from Mr. DIREKTOR. Mr. DIREKTOR cannot deny users who speak Montenegrin, to include the Montenegrin language from any list that pertains to that language.
• Languages of national minorities:
  • In the Constitution of the FPRY and latter SFRY, as well as in the Amendments to those former constitutional acts, the languages of national minorities in Yugoslavia were equal with those of South Slavic nations of Yugoslavia (except Bulgarians, who were considered a national minority). DIREKTOR should known that, so listing the name of the anthem in all those languages should be done in the Yugoslav anthem section.
• Mr. DIREKTOR is wrong, the texts of the anthem are listed in their historical versions of the same West, South and East Slavic languages. Serbo-Croatian is deprecated as a language, considered a virtual macrolanguage (a term vaguely described in the General Linguistics), it belongs in the South Slavic languages, Other section. See diff
• @Ivan Štambuk: Concluding on the basis of the words in this song that Croatian, and also, Serbian texts should be deleted to make "room" for the Croato-Serbian is a completely null and void POV. There is no longer any state that use Serbo-Croatian. Croats and Serbs had a choice of using just words of the Croatian literary language, or just words of the Serbian literary language, the orthography manuals of the 1960 contained doublets, and multifaceted words, nothing was strict (for the personal usage, fine literature (when authors issued their words paid by themselves)).
  • The historical failure of the Serbo-Croatian language warrants us to list it last, to use its full double/dual name and even not to portray the text in SC but rather say, see Croatian, and also, see Serbian text.

Imbris (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy... I need to skip the lectures tomorrow if I'm going to read, decipher, and weed out the irrelevant stuff from all this... I asked you to please be briefer and to pay more attention to your grammar. You can cut down your posts easily by keeping only to the stuff that's relevant to the subject of discussion (that probably means you should stop devoting so much of your post to discrediting me personally as an editor). Can you also try and organize your posts better? I have no idea what you're trying to say most of the time. (I'm being sincere, I'm not saying this to annoy you: please work on your posts a bit more.)

P.S. You don't have to address me as "Mister DIREKTOR", "DIR" is fine :) --DIREKTOR 01:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, can you briefly (in several points) describe what exactly is that you advocate in this article? How should the introductory paragraph noting the name of anthem look like with respect to various (ex-)Serbo-Croatian languages, and which columns in the section on South Slavic languages' version of the anthem should be kept, and under what name? Extensive historical and political perspective that we have abundantly already discussed elsewhere simply obscures the issue altogether (I'm not even sure what the issue is). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Sorry, if you can't get your point through in one or two paragraphs, I can't be bothered to read those walls of text. I really don't have enough time to read that, let alone respond to that amount of hand-waving, where the subject changes in every sentence. For what I gathered, you think that some nations in Misplaced Pages are suppressed because we didn't mention their Holy Name of the Oh So Distinctive Their Own Language, to which I replied that we miss Chinese translation indeed. These days we have many Chinese immigrants in all Ex-Yu republics and they ought to understand the lyrics of the former anthem, or otherwise they would feel oppressed. Or did I miss something? Oh, yes, that you're edit warring to make sure your point -- whatever it is -- gets in the article. No such user (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not so much that the edit is long, its the lack of organization and good grammar ("to use its full double/dual name and even not to portray the text in SC but rather say, see Croatian, and also, see Serbian text...").

(unindent)Well I tell you what-you know how to confuse someone who doesn't know about all this! With regards to the matter at hand-I think I hear what you are saying Imbris-but can I ask you to briefly say what you would like changed about this article-we can then look at each individual thing you want changed & work something out. Thanks! Dotty••|☎ 09:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• The intro should look something like this. Providing that both names should be mentioned "Serbo-Croatian (and also called Croato-Serbian", I would agree to this macrolanguage (of today) to be listed according to the alphabet, by the names of languages in that intro-list.
• Yugoslav anthem section should be without texts of the song
• Because this is primarly the anthem of Panslavic movement, there is nothing strange in allowing all the texts of that song in all living Slavic languages to be present. Omitting one of those languages because of some simmilarity would be playing favourites with what text should stay.
• All of the central South Slavic languages, that Ivan Štambuk speak of, are obscure in the English speaking world, to the point of insignificant, so picking favourites would be without base in any real data or sources.
• If there is a need to list Serbo-Croatian it should be listed as Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian, when we speak of certain symbols, and Yugoslavian topics shared to a point that they are not specifically Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian and Herzegovinian, Montenegrin, Serbian (Kosovac, Vojvodinian), Kosovar, or Macedonian.
• For a language to exist, we do not need any manuals, Ivan Štambuk is disrespectfull toward Montenegrins and their Montenegrin language on basis of his quasi-scientific POV. His opinion should not be regarded as proven, there are many languages that have no written standard, even languages that have not been written with a single word in any script (those languages have only spoken standard)

Imbris (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Going, going, OK?

OK. This is what I think the basic dispute is as far as I understand it-it's very likely to be wrong!

• Serbo-Croatian vs Croato-Serbian-Imbris wants the second one mentioned everywhere the first is mentioned.
• The official language of Yugoslavia-can anybody clarify-What was the official language of Yugoslavia-The only language that should be under the Yugoslav section is the official language at the time & the English translation.
• The anthem then became Serbia & Montenegro's correct?-what was the official language at the time of that country?-again, that's the only one that should be there in my opinion.
• Other languages-if you want translations of other languages-please put it down & give some reasons as to why you want it.

I think we want to avoid having 4 million different translations for the song & try & condense it a bit. This is my brief overview of some points-please feel free to correct me on any if I've misunderstood! Thanks! Please try & ensure your points are concise & to the point! Dotty••|☎ 07:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC) PS. Renaissancee has volunteered to help, wanting to get some experience mediating so hopefully he'll pop in & give us his thoughts!

Point-by-point:

• I think that the Imbris's request, if you summarized the essence well, is utterly absurd. We don't write "yogurt (yoghurt)" or "colour (color)" at every occurrence to maintain the political correctness. We aim to be correct and reader-friendly but not necessarily politically correct, esp. if it comes on the expense of first two. We can mention "Serbo-Croatian (Croato-Serbian)" first time, possibly once more if we're to include both variants (see my point #3) but everything more is just ugly.
• For what I know, there wasn't really a notion of official language in SFRY. Even if it were, it probably gradually changed, in the sense that definition was moved from federal to republic level (i.e. each republic defined it in its own way, akin to U.S. States). If we had to define them, these were Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian, Macedonian and Slovenian. The first one had two equal variants, "western" (Croatian) and "eastern" (Serbian). Minority languages (Albanian, Hungarian, Slovak etc.) were "equal" in Serbian provinces but not on the federal level.
• Let's put this in the following way: suppose there is a common song in English-speaking world, among Brits, Americans and Aussies. Naturally, each variation will have minor spelling variances, such as color/colour, -ise/-ize etc. For example, spelling in Serbia is "živeće", in Croatia "živjet će" and in Bosnia & Montenegro "živjeće". I'm not sure if those variances were even officially sanctioned, but even if they did, why should we record every combination of these? Why should English reader care? Why should we have "post-SFRY" variants, practically identical to previous versions, when the song is not an anybody's anthem anymore?
• In my opinion, we should leave only 3 translations (Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Slovenian), possibly 4 ("western" and "eastern" variant of Serbo-Croatian). Everything else should go to Wikisource. In addition, the early WWII variants may be included, to see the historical development. Everything else should go out as PC-cruft. No such user (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a a matter of "political correctness". The name of the language in English is "Serbo-Croatian" (2,500,000 hits). The name User:Imbris is insisting on ("Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language") has cca. 250 hits. The alternate name is being pushed here (i.e. outside its main article) solely due to nationalist POV, which would not be "appeased" no matter what concessions we make. Even though I know from experience this will not be enough for User:Imbris, I'm also ok with mentioning the alternate name in the lead only. I do not think any further mention would be necessary, and I would find it quite distasteful to make any further alterations solely for the purpose of pleasing one User's POV, which would not be satisfied in any case.
• Agreed with Dottydotdot and No such user, Serbo-Croatian (x2, Croatian + Serbian variant of the language), Slovene, Macedonian. These are the only languages that supersede the Republic borders and reach federal level. "Croatian" and "Serbian", even if they were called that, were never standardized in the SFR Yugoslavia and were considered variants of the Serbo-Croatian language. To list them is pure POV beyond belief. An effort to rewrite history into a version which keeps the Croatian language alive throughout the 20th century.
• Montenegrin isn't a "living language". Its not yet "come to life", as it were. When it does, you may rest assured noone will object to its introduction in the text.

--DIREKTOR 11:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what are people's views on:

• a)At the beginning, making clear it can be Croato-Serbian as well & then referring to it as Serbo-Croation for the rest of the article?
• b)Keeping Serbo-Croation, Macedonian & Slovenian as suggested by No such user & removing the rest?
• c)Are there any others you feel need to be in there?

Obviously, this is mainly directed as a question towards Imbris. Dotty••|☎ 10:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) I have not demanded that everywhere Serbo-Croatian is mentioned we must mention Croato-Serbian, I have expressed concerns over this article and simmilar articles. The phrase Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian is perfectly suited for such articles as articles on symbols and on issues that are in general Yugoslavian.

(2) I hope that in the list of the title of the former anthem and Panslavic song, all languages should remain.

(3) As Yugoslavia never had an official language, we should use modern languages, not historical and defunct Serbo-Croatian language (which was artificially composed of the Croatian language and the Serbian language)

(4) we might link all the versions to like this ], make a table of some sort, and thus not list any version, other than historic versions in Czech, Slovakian, Polish and WWII Croatian.

(5) Insisting of Serbo-Croatian, Slovene and Macedonian is a false interpretation of Mr. DIREKTOR who disregards constitutional acts of AVNOJ which guaranteed four South Slavic languages (except Bulgarian) the right of existence, no matter of his delusions about standard languages, English is not completely standardized, there are languages in Africa which by his definition do not merit. etc.

(6) In those special cases where a language doesn't have its wikipedia, we should list the article on this wikipedia that is dedicated to that language, namely Montenegrin language.

(7) In that table we should keep the division that is used in the template on Slavic languages, which lists separately West, South and East Slavic languages, as well as a separate Other Slavic languages.

(8) Even the English translation should be on wikisource.

Imbris (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK, so as you say you have not demanded that everywhere Serbo-Croatian is mentioned, we mention Croato-Serbian, I can assume that we will make clear that it can be called either at the beginning of the lead & then refer to it as Serbo-Croation.
• Although it looks like Imbris does not want to budge, to me, it would seem that only the languages mainly spoken at the time should be in the article-which in this case would seem to be Serbo-Croation(with it's split). Yes, it is historical, but in the end, this is an historical anthem. Thoughts?
• With regards to Montenegro-disregarding the dispute over whether it's a proper language, in essence it's a new country & therefore, although the Hey Slavs anthem may be slightly related to them because they are Slavs, it was never & is not an official/semi-official anthem of theirs, so I can see no need to have it in there-is that right?

We need to remember that it's likely we aren't going to end up with a solution perfect for everyone, but we need to try & build some consensus if possible. Thoughts on my points? Dotty••|☎ 19:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) In this article, it should be everywhere if we are to assume that you advocate that in SFRY there were official languages, because there weren't any official language in SFRY. There were official languages in the socialist republics, but SR Montenegro hadn't declared the official language in their Constitution of 1974.

(2) None version other than in English language should be present, because we will never agree on the fact that there were at least four South Slavic languages (except Bulgarian) that were used in the times of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia ended in 1991, by that time most republics declared their national language as official.

(3) There weren't in fact any singular Serbo-Croatian language, ever in former Yugoslavia, except in the military.

(4) The song was anthem of the SFRY from 1988 to 1991 (officialy) then it was anthem of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which officialy had Serbian language (both Ekavian and Ijekavian, both scripts) as official., then it was the anthem of Serbia and Montenegro (which succeded only the FRY, not the SFRY). So the matter is very complex, to say we shall write Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Slovene.

(5) The easiest way to solve this mess is to write only in English language, that the translation to English is the only one that should be included and that all other should be outsourced to wikipedias, wikisources, etc.

(6) Only the original Czech and Slovak should remain, as well the historical version of the song from the times of the WWII (in Croatian), and the last official text in Serbian (it was official in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) + Slovene pre-WWI text of course

(7) The song never had been published as having official text in the times of FPRY/SFRY, the anthem was only named in 1977 as temporary and again only named in 1988 (listed by name) but this time in the Constitution, the text was never issued officially.

Imbris (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'm having trouble understanding your posts again, please pay more attention to the grammar. I'll be blunt: but your posts, when hasty, are barely comprehensible.

• (1) That's your opinion. No, it shouldn't be everywhere because it is unnecessary, obscure, and POV.
• (2) Your proposal makes little sense, and we all know beforehand that you won't agree to anything. I can't see how you figure "forcing" people into letting you have your way by threatening to "never agree" will work for your benefit. Official languages of the six constituent republics of the Yugoslav federation: #1 SR Bosnia and Herzegovina - Serbo-Croatian (both variants), #2 SR Croatia - Serbo-Croatian (Croatian variant), 3# SR Serbia - Serbo-Croatian (Serbian variant), 4# SR Montenegro - Serbo-Croatian (Serbian variant), #5 SR Slovenia - Slovene language, #6 SR Macedonia - Macedonian language. That makes three: Serbo-Croatian in four republics, Macedonian and Slovene in one each. No standardized Croatian or Serbian language, no Hungarian and no Albanian on the federal level. Your insistence on including four more imaginary languages (making the total seven!) is absurd, and only makes sense if one assumes you're acting out of POV (trying to prove Croatian was somehow "official" and in existence).
• (3) That's just nonsense. It was one language with two variants. The military used the Serbian variant of this same language predominantly, which caused controversies.
• (4) Further nonsense... A simply wrong statement, most of it. It was the anthem for more than three years... more like 46 years.
• (5) Easiest for you, because you'd rather have the whole article stripped to nothing than entertain the notion that you may be wrong.
• (6) Czech, Slovak? What?
• (7) Legal nitpicking. It was used all the way from 1945 to 1991.

Just an opinion: User:Imbris has never, and will never, budge on any issue. He will never agree to let the other guy have his way in even the slightest detail. He will likely continue the edit-war in some capacity after all this unless the conclusion of this discussion is comprehensive and binding in some way. Forgive my prophetic digression, and lets hope reverse psychology does its part... :) --DIREKTOR 00:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading the arguments, it would appear, as a neutral observer, Imbris, you are going to need to start agreeing with the points here. Unfortunately for you, the points made against yours are the much more functional & neutral than yours. If you can't agree with anything & constantly try to push your view, we won't get anywhere & then the issue will need to go to a higher authority. The point of informal mediation is that it's informal, I cannot impose a solution on you, but if we can't come to a solution, then you will need to take this to somebody who can & they are very likely to be saying the same thing as me, which won't get you anywhere. Please try & agree with some of the points. Thanks! Dotty••|☎ 07:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok... looks like we lost User:Imbris. "Fading out" of a losing debate is his trademark. There's a possibility he'll wait until all this blows over and then try to reintroduce his edits. (I'd hate to have to do all this again...) --DIREKTOR 09:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left him a message on his talkpage, so we'll give him a few more days, otherwise we'll continue without him. Dotty••|☎ 10:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. --DIREKTOR 19:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

• (1) I can agree with No such user that the dual name should be mentioned only twice (in this article). But using only the Serbo-Croatian text (playing favourites) against using at least Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian – this is highly POV and biased. The dual name should be mentioned once in the lede and the second time under the Yugoslav anthem section
• (2) I did not say that I will never agree, but that we are going to never agree (on the four languages). Also, I said that I will definitely not agree to your insisting that Serbo-Croatian would be placed between bos and hrv (or in some other controversial fashion). I will agree to the alphabetical order or the order of Template:Slavic languages.
  • (2a) Please do not misinform: SR Bosnia and Herzegovina formally styled the official language (as every other socialist republic, in the Constitution (very formal and legal text, that by your approach should be used when it suits you, otherwise it is legal nitpicking), so #1 Bosnia and Herzegovina used Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian (not Serbo-Croatian both variants what you misconstrued), #2 SR Croatia used the Croatian literary language (defined by two separate articles in the constitution – the Article 138 and the Article 293, + the fact that SR Croatia never used Serbo-Croatian in its Constitution), #3 SR Serbia did use Serbo-Croatian all the way up to 2006, officially, but what is the factual condition, the real fact is that in Serbia they always used just Serbian language, (sometimes calling it Serbo-Croatian, but it was just a formal name), #4 SR Montenegro in the 1974–Constitution did not name their official language, not by any name, they just proclaimed that a one exists, #5 SR Slovenia had Slovene language but up to 1990 the pupils and students had a subject called – Serbo-Croatian. #6 SR Macedonia used the Macedonian language. Your discussion is led to show that there were only one unitary South Slavic language (except the Slovene and Macedonian), this can not be proven, and this is just your fabrication of the past.
  • (2b) Stop this pretending and mentioning the "standardized" language. The theory on Standard languages is part of the sociolinguistics, there are many languages that are not completely standardized. Ask your friend Štambuk, whom you canvassed to this discussion, are the English languages completely standardized. From the 1944 – Croatian – Macedonian – Serbian – Slovene were proclaimed official and in 1970. Albanian and Hungarian were listed among the big four as equal in the Official Gazette of the SFRY. All federal laws, bylaws and other legal norms were from that year officially translated to Albanian language and the Hungarian language. Albanians in SAP Kosovo and Hungarians (and others) in SAP Vojvodina were members of the federation (not just via the membership of the SR Serbia) but also in their own right.
  • (2c) DIREKTOR needs to calm down with his accusations of POV. I have presented sources in the Talk:Hey, Slavs#Too much translations? (That weren't answered by DIREKTOR). Mr. DIREKTOR cannot prove that Serbo-Croatian was official through the entire history of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (latter Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia).
  • (2d) To conclude, by using WP:ENGLISH and WP:UNDUE we should use only English, all other should be wikisourced out. If the campaign led by Mr. DIREKTOR against facts (that are sourced, and not rebutted) is to continue, the most principal way of solving this mess is using just English.
• (3) From the so much adored linguists, we can find opinions that Serbo-Croatian did not in fact exist, that it was a politically construed "title/name" and that it was not accepted by its designated speakers who continued to use their personal idiom (if I am not mistaken for linguists, every speaker is called an idiolect :-)
  • (3a) The dual Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian existed as a Constitutional norm in Croatia between 1963 and 1972
  • (3b) In the Yugoslav People's Army (a highly Marxist and ideological Communist Army) as the "official" Serbo-Croatian was from 1963 to 1974
• (4) The anthem existed as the constitutionally sanctioned from 1988-1991, and from 1943 to 1945 it was a partisan song, and then used as an honoured song, but not as an official anthem. So again, you use formalizations when it suits, but in general you do not like the law. It is a sad thing that a person who regard the law so much, cannot admit that even at best the listing of just the name of the anthem in that 1977 law was temporary, because the search for a better candidate continued up to mid-1980.
• (5) The article will not be stripped to nothing, as Mr. DIREKTOR exaggerates, lots of "entertaining" facts will remain.
• (6) The song was first written in Slovak language in Prague, this is why these two should definitely remain, and the English translation that can be wikisourced.
  • (6a) There will not be 4 million translations as Dotty indicated, and the attempt of shrinking the article "a bit" could be good if not discriminatory to the main languages of the central South Slavic diasystem (Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian)
• (7) Mr DIREKTOR did not answer to a counter claim about his Google statistics Talk:Hey, Slavs#Answer to DIREKTOR.

Answer to three points of Dotty (and some other):

1. No such user granted two occurrences of the dual name (] or ])
2. Did DIREKTOR ever answer on the sources that indicate both Serbian and also Croatian existed officially as two languages (translations between the two) from 1944, repeated in 1945 to the school year 1953/54, and again in 1990. (at least in Croatia), and 1993 in Montenegro.
3. The anthem was last used as the anthem of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, so the conclusion that Montenegro did not use the anthem is void. All the Constitutions of the former Yugoslav socialist republic' contained the provision that allowed an anthem (with an exception of SR Bosnia and Herzegovina), so before 1977 all constitutive parts of SFR Yugoslavia used the "song" as its anthem also.
4. Removing what "the rest", dear Dotty, please do not assume on this discussion, none of us all (that discuss) do not want any language removed, except DIREKTOR wants to remove both Serbian and also Croatian to make room for his double listing Serbo-Croatian under the Yugoslav anthem section and under the South Slavic languages section. Even if this is cherry picking and biased he is utterly convinced that Serbs and Croats is one nation (with two names) and that it speak one singular and unitary language.

Imbris (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry I have been gone! It seems my router was fried, so I had a few days wait before I could get another one. Sorry about that, and it's good to be back! Renaissancee (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on Imbris' section please? Dotty••|☎ 07:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the edit is huge, please try to express yourself without writing an entire article about your beliefs. Although, this time the post is at least better organized.

(1) And then there were two? In all fairness, why should we mention "Croato-Serbian" at all? There are other alt. names that just as equally warrant inclusion in the article (such as "Croatian or Serbian language", "Serbian or Croatian language"), and yet we do not list them. We only seem to be "forced" to compromise on the one alt. name insisted upon by User:Imbris (because of his nationalist POV).(The name of the language is mentioned only a couple of times in the article, the goal is apparently to have it in all noticeable spots, so as to make any concessions on Imbris' part minor and irrelevant.)

I repeat, MoS does not require of us to list alternative names in any way, least of all to select which will be included on the basis of sheer stubbornness and POV on the part of one user. Despite all this however, I'm exhausted with this, frankly, petty affair and I agree to the inclusion of the alt. name in the lede. Just for the sake of ending all this. However, I'm also not deceived by Imbris' "compromise".

--DIREKTOR 08:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hej, Slovenci

So, the Slovenian Misplaced Pages has no problem mentioning, that the original Slovenian version was Hej, Slovenci, and not Hej, Slovani, but yet, when I tried to put that here, I kept getting my edits rejected, because of another editor's POV. Granted, Hervardi aren't the most reliable source, but I still seriously doubt, that they made it up. They clearly reference their statement with the old Slovanian litterary magazine Slovenska grlica, and the Slovenian Misplaced Pages also references it with Jakob Aljaž's Slovenska pesmarica song book, so there must be something to it. That's, why I just can't understand, why we need to follow one single editor's POV, and reject information, just because he doesn't like it. It clearly violates Misplaced Pages's NPOV guide-lines. Honestly, if sourcing is a problem, let's just add a "citation needed" tag, but still leave it in the article, rather, than deleting it. It would be much more NPOV. ;) - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a while, all versions will be included once this current dispute is resolved. --DIREKTOR 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The lede

The article should consist of the appropriate content and not of the texts (of the song)

Imbris (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

So you think that we should have both Serbo-Croatian and B/C/S, as if they're four "different languages" ? Absurd.. What's wrong with the current formulation in the lead (that I edited just when article was about the get protected), which states: In Serbo-Croatian it is known as Hej, Slaveni (Croatian and Bosnian variety) or Hej, Sloveni/Хеј Словени (Serbian variety) ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's wrong because it doesn't have Montenegrin :-). Rave92 09:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We'll add Montenegrin as soon as Pravopis crnogorskog jezika, Gramatika crnogorskog jezika and Rječnik crnogorskog jezika get published and blessed by the Montengrin Ministry of Education.. ;) BTW, did anything come out of this? The article it'll be over until the beginning of the next school year, and that's in mere 3 months.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Decision

OK, having read all the arguments & as I have posted on Imbris' talk page, I believe that Ivan & Direktor's viewpoint is the most neutral & least POV & therefore should be implemented. To that end, I believe that Serbo-Croation(with its two variations), Slovene & Macedonian should be the only languages in there & the differences betwen Serbo-Croation & Croato-Serbian clarified neutrally. I have asked Imbris to respect the decision & not to revert, & so I'll wait a day or two for him to chat to me if he wants to about something specific-but this does not include retelling me his arguments. Dotty••|☎ 12:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• C-Class Yugoslavia articles
• High-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
• C-Class Slovakia articles
• Mid-importance Slovakia articles
• All WikiProject Slovakia pages
• C-Class song articles