Talk:Serbs of Croatia

Serbs as "constituent nation" in Croatia

I haven't noticed this before but it caught my attention after I was re-reading this article once again. The claim made in the article (War in Croatia section - Amid political changes during the breakup of Yugoslavia and following the Croatian Democratic Union's victory in the 1990 general election, the Croatian Parliament ratified a new constitution in December 1990 which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities.) that the Serbs were a constituent nation in Croatia during Yugoslavia is not supported by either 1947 constitution of People's Republic of Croatia nor by later revised and expanded constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia from 1974...I am not counting the 1963 constitution since it was basically identical to the one in 1947. Furthermore, not only that, but it is also in direct contradiction with the next two sentences. So first we have one claim then the next two sentences refuting that very claim. Confusing. Since these type of things (regarding this subject) tend to be "hot topics" I will expand more on this below...before I continue to make minor rewording of that sentence.

The 1947 constitution of PR Croatia in it's 2nd paragraph states: "Ostvarujuci u svojoj oslobodilackoj borbi u bratskom jedinstvu sa Srbima u Hrvatskoj, i u zajednickoj borbi svih naroda Jugoslavije svoju narodnu drzavu - Narodnu Republiku Hrvatsku, hrvatski se narod, izrazavajuci svoju slobodnu volju, a na temelju prava na samoodredjenje - ukljucujuci pravo odcjepljenje i ujedinjenje s drugim narodima - ujedinio na temelju nacela ravnopravnosti s ostalim narodima Jugoslavije i njihovim narodnim republikama: NR Srbijom, NR Slovenijom, NR BiH, NR Makedonijom i NR Crnom Gorom u zajednicku, saveznu drzavu - FNR Jugoslaviju." (eng. "Realizing in it's liberation struggle [and] in the brotherly union with the Serbs in Croatia, and in common struggle of all nations of Yugoslavia[,] its national state - People's Republic of Croatia, the Croatian people, expressing its free will, and on the basis of right to self-determination - including the right to secede and unite with other nations - have united on the principle of equality with other nations of Yugoslavia and their national republics: PR Serbia, PR Slovenia, PR Bosnia and Herzegovina, PR Macedonia and PR Montenegro in common, federal state - FPR Yugoslavia"). I have translated this almost literally so it might not be the most grammatically correct (kinda hard to translate this communist legal mumbo jumbo to English) but you get the picture. The paragraph clearly states that PR Croatia was a "national state of Croatian people" while the Serbs in Croatia only get a specific mention since they were the largest and most important national minority and the constitution obviously followed the general Brotherhood and Unity principle.

The above paragraph was also present in the 1974 constitution in the opening "Basic Principles" section. However it gets even more explicit and detailed in the Chapter I. named "Opce Odredbe" (eng.General Regulations) where it is clearly stated: "Socijalisticka Republika Hrvatska je nacionalna drzava hrvatskog naroda, drzava srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj i drzava drugih narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (eng. "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities [national minorities in essence] who live within it"). So it explicitly states that SR Croatia is a national state of Croatian people and a state of Serbs in Croatia and all other national minorities who live in it. This constitution was valid all the way until 1990 when the new constitution was introduced (which by the way didn't really change much regarding the defining principles described in 1974 constitution) so the entire premise that the Croatian Serbs were removed or somehow downgraded is not true. So to reitirate - the claim that the Serbs in Croatia were a "constituent nation" before the 1990 constitution is simply not supported by the facts, or rather to be even more direct, is simply not true. The 1990 constitution (which is the same constitution valid to this day) has basically the same sentence with one difference...it no longer mentions only Serbs but instead lists all significant (if not all) "nationalities" i.e. national minorities.

Links: Constitution of NR Croatia Constitution of SR Croatia Shokatz (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, buraz, you can't have it both ways, either it is mumbo-jumbo or it is valid legal documents with valid statements on which you try making your hypothesis sound. The other thing, this mumbo-jumbo of yours that Serbs weren't removed from the 1990 constitution as a constituent nation, is how you put it: "simply not supported by the facts". They were removed from the constitution as a nation with their previous status because of one significant difference. Like you said it yourself: the 1990 constitution "no longer mentions only Serbs". Other nationalities weren't mentioned before as is with the 1990 constitution where Serbs were listed under other "nationalities". Whether they were downgraded from a constituent nation by this or not might be a matter of interpretation, but surely not by some mere buraz. He managed to falsify his logic and prove his anti-Serb bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.112 (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what are you saying but I suggest you re-read everything I wrote including the paragraphs in both constitutions which can be seen in the links I provided. There was no "constituency" of Serbs in Croatia and thus they couldn't be downgraded or anything similar. The fact Croatian Serbs were separately mentioned does not mean they had "constituent" status and to claim so is wrong and non-factual. We can talk about perception perhaps but that again has nothing to do with legal documents and laws which is the issue here. And as for my "mumbo jumbo" reference I was referring to the lingo used within that paragraph which is non-typical of modern legal documents which tend to be very dry and very direct....all of which that paragraph wasn't thus making it hard to translate it into English. Shokatz (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You buraz, are one some really interesting creature. Biljka, as you might say it. I mean FWIW, if there's no constituency of Serbs why couldn't it be said then the same for the constituency of Croats? Yeah, I mean why not? What defines the constituency? Phrases like "narodna država", "nacionalna država"? What's the difference anyway? I mean, if you're no match for translating this from Serbian/Serbo-Croatian (whatever it is called language) then you're again full of mumbo-jumbo. Or I might as well call it shit. And what's with this communist shitty attributes you're applying to your sources? You some anti-commie, some fascist, what? These texts are the same documents you're trying to squeeze some premises out from. You're really funny, you know? If you wanna be taken serious, than quit bullsh*ing about perception. There's no perception in discerning legal documents. There might be interpretation, but perception: no. And how come you don't understand when I write something to you, and instead of re-reading it once again and trying to understand what is written yourself, you are suggesting it to others? Isn't that hypocrite? I'm mean it's so funny taking someone's word for his expertise when he blows it in his own face the second he speaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.112 (talk) 22:49, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum (see WP:FORUM)...unless you have something constructive to add I suggest you do so, otherwise I have no interest in chatting with you. This is also English language Wikipedia so use and understand of English language is desirable if not required. If you don't understand it then you shouldn't be here. Shokatz (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop babbling about forum. You started a forum with your interpretations of legal documents. If you're not up to it, then you have no business chatting here. You said it yourself that you didn't understand my post. Then please do us all a favor and start learning: viable command of English language is one essential, acquiring logical reasoning is another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.112 (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So do you have any valid arguments or not? Shokatz (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So do you have any solid proofs for what you are saying or all is based on your perception? Ahem, sorry, interpretation. You had me confused here - I give you that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.112 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The proof is 1947 and 1974 constitution. You should now stop trolling. Shokatz (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You as an encyclopedist should know that we don't deal with original research. If you find reliable secondary sources, then maybe it's possible to talk. This way - no. You should now stop the trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.112 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

First, his is not WP:OR as I have valid references. The sentence in question does not as it lacks direct citation and furthermore is in direct contradiction with the next sentence using the same generic reference. Second, I have warned you several times not to remove the tags without proper discussion which you here blatantly refused and continue to disrupt not only this page but the actual would-be proper discussion. I would suggest you stop edit-warring and acting in a disruptive manner as it may end up with you being blocked. Shokatz (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the Constitution and you will see that the SR Croatia was a stat of the Croatian and Serbian people and as well of all national minorities. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No it wasn't. You have clear quotations from both 1947 and 1974 constitutions (and the links provided) which clearly and directly state that Croatia is a national state of Croatian people. Shokatz (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It is funny how you read the first part of that sentence but ignore the rest of the sentence, which is really important. It was a national state of Croatian people, but also of Serbian people in Croatia, and of all national minorities in Croatia. It is all on page 116 of the 1974 Constitution. So please show some good faith and revert your edits to the article, and ask for a 3O. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure it was and it is still today the state of all it's citizens as well, but it was and still is only a national state of Croatian people. Now we are here talking about the alleged "constituent status" of Serbs in Croatia which the both constitutions refute directly. If that was the case both the 1947 and 1974 consitutions would state that Croatia was a national state of both Croats and Serbs...which it does not. I suggest you start reading with understanding. Unless you have some valid arguments I suggest you refrain from commenting in the future. Shokatz (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of this discussion but I haven't got much time to take part in it. I share passion for law and I fully agree with Tuvixer in his interpretation. As I see at the first post, Shokatz bolded the part of the constitutional text which refers to Croats, but the case is that right next, Serbs from Croatia were mentioned, and once their mention was removed, it obviously means a change in their status. FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Show me the part in the constitution where it says Croatia is a "national state of Serbian people". You can't because it wasn't. In this case the term "constituent nation" means that that Croatia was defined as "national state" for certain people. Only Serbia was a "national state of Serbian people", Croatia was a "national state of Croatian people". It's clearly stated and defined as such. How you can read that as anything else is beyond me. And Serbs weren't removed from anything, the 1990s constitution still said the same thing except it changed from "other nationalities" into mentioning each and every one...so in this case we have the absurdity of Tuvixer claiming that mentioning other nations (national minorities) was somehow degrading to Serbs in Croatia. Hilarious. Shokatz (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The status of Serbs certainly changed. Before none of the other current national minorities was mentioned in the constitution, afterwards some other ethnicities/nationalities were also there by their names. One curiosity: the constitution doesn't enlist for example Yugoslavs into national minorities so it isn't true that it mentioned each and every ethnicity/nationality. Anyway, the Serbs were by their name in previous constitutions and without the others' names, in Tuđman's there were others. So it changed at least for that matter. And that is regardless of the fact that the phrase "national state of" does nothing to reserve the constituency only to the nation that it is used for. There are surely other meanings which could be applied to that particular phrasing. I must say that I concur with some of the interlocutors that there may be a bit of excess on how free should someone feel to indiscriminately interpret primary sources on their own. Indeed a kind of original research. And there most certainly isn't anything hilarious with the fact that this issue probably was one of or the sole initiating trigger for the start of war in Yugoslavia. Anyone claiming otherwise is either seriously wrong or has very sinister motives. So laughing about it is minimally tactless if not deadly evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.64.35 (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

First, "Yugoslavs" weren't recognized as a separate "nation" or "nationality" in Yugoslavia. It was a sort of supra-national identity which came about with time. By constitutions of the federal republics and the Yugoslav federation itself only six "nations" were recognized as "constitutional". Slovenia was a the nation-state for Slovenes, Croatia for Croats, Serbia for Serbs, Montenegro for Montenegrins, Macedonia for Macedonians. The only exception to this rule was Bosnia-Herzegovina which was established as a "drzavna zajednica" (eng. "state union") of several [constitutive] "nations"...namely Muslims (Bosniaks), Serbs and Croats. Second, as I said the very notion that the addition of other minorities by name (instead of grouping them into "others") in the 1990 constitution has somehow degraded Serbs is indeed hilarious and to be more direct simply offensive. What I am talking about here is not WP:OR, it is in fact used in the very reference which right now is misused on the claim that Serbs allegedly had "constituent" status, because the original paragraph said they were changed from "status nation" ("explicitly mentioned minority") to a "constitutional nation" way back in 2011 and was never backed up by any source, discussed or elaborated. Third, this issue was indeed one of the triggers for the Serbian rebellion in the 1990s because they were manipulated into believing they had some "constitutional status" which they did not and the same claim was used (and still is) to justify the rebellion itself. We have several sources on this issue, namely: Dr. Zdenko Radelic in his book "Hrvatska u Jugoslaviji 1945-1990" (eng. Croatia in Yugoslavia 1945-1990) wrote about this issue specifically...Dr. Radelic is a member of Croatian Institute of History. We also have Dr. Mario Jareb (who we use as a reference on the site...the one currently misused) who is also member of the Institute of History and who in his book "Croatian National Symbols" wrote: '"Optužbe o tome da su hrvatske vlasti navodno željele izbaciti Srbe iz Ustava RH prate i optužbe da su usvajanjem amandmana i Ustava RH od 22. prosinca 1990. oni navodno izgubili konstitutivnost u Hrvatskoj. Kronologija događaja u razdoblju od prvih najava o donošenju novog hrvatskog ustava pokazuje da teze o najavi ‘izbacivanja’ Srba ne stoje. Nema dvojbe da je bila riječ o optužbama koje su trebale opravdati daljnje ekstremističke postupke vodstva SDS-a u Hrvatskoj uperene protiv teritorijalnog integriteta i suvereniteta RH."(Eng. "The accusation that the Croatian government allegedly wanted to oust the Serbs from the constitution of Republic of Croatia are also followed by the accusation that with the adoption of the amendments and the constitution of Croatia in December 22nd 1990 they allegedly lost the constitutionality in Croatia. The chronology of the events during the period from the first announcements about the adoption of the new Croatian constitution shows that the thesis about the announcement of 'ousting' of the Serbs does not stand. There is no doubt that these were accusations which had to justify further extremist action of the SDS [Serbian political party in Croatia] in Croatia pointed against the territorial integrity and sovereignity of Croatia")...and there is more but I will leave it at that for some other time since this is already getting too long. So anyway, this is the source we use for the current sentence which says "Amid political changes during the breakup of Yugoslavia and following the Croatian Democratic Union's victory in the 1990 general election, the Croatian Parliament ratified a new constitution in December 1990 which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities. I find that ironic, a forgery and above all indeed hilarious. And the people here who come with "arguments" such as "I am a lawyer" or "I share passion for law", and think that will count against the references and the constitution itself - which is clear and direct, is just laughable. Obviously if these ridiculous "arguments" continue I will be forced to ask for a neutral opinion...preferably from someone who actually understands what a comma means in the middle of the sentence in a legal document. Some also think they can force their POV on Wikipedia using words such as "consensus" and whatnot...yes we should have a consensus but consensus based on facts not your personal views and forgery. Shokatz (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources backing up that Serbs were a constituent nation along with Croats in SR Croatia:

• Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution edited by Snežana Trifunovska, page 477, it says: "at the Second and Third sessions of the National Anti-Fascist Council of the Peoples Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH),...,the equality of the Serbian and the Croatian nations, as constituent nations of the federal unit of Croatia, were recognized in every respect." And then at bottom of the page goes in detail.
• Integration and Stabilization: A Monetary View by George Macesich, page 24, it says: "The secessionist Zagreb regime first removed from the Croatian Constitution the constituent nation status of Serbs living in Croatia."
• The Quality of Government by Bo Rothstein, page 89, it says: "Since the constitution of the Yugoslavian Federation regarded the Serbs in Croatia as constituent nation of the Republic of Croatia, this important change..."
• Soft Borders by Julie Mostov, page 67, it says: "Serbs living in Croatia had been members of a constituent nation while Croatia was part f Yugoslavia."

This is just a start. There seems to bee plenty of sources to back up Serbs being a constituent nation in SR Croatia. I will bring more. FkpCascais (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually the second and third sessions spoke nothing about "constitutional nations", it only said that Croats and Serbs are equal in all respect and enjoy the same rights, as well as that other nations and nationalities will enjoy equal rights as well. In fact not even the constitutions themselves speak of such terms as "constitutional nations". As for the other sources what is the primary source of those must be asked? The constitution of SR Croatia? As I have shown here, clearly it says quite the opposite. I have posted a primary source which clearly states that Croatia is a "national state of Croatian people" and after a comma "a state of Serbs in Croatia and other nationalities". It is more than clear that the primary source in this case has precedence over all other secondary sources you posted which are mere (mis)interpretations.

To quote the entire passage on this matter written by Dr.Jareb (an expert on this matter who wrote the most detailed discussion on this matter) in his book "Croatian National Symbols" he says next: "Optužbe o tome da su hrvatske vlasti navodno željele izbaciti Srbe iz Ustava RH prate i optužbe da su usvajanjem amandmana i Ustava RH od 22. prosinca 1990. oni navodno izgubili konstitutivnost u Hrvatskoj. Kronologija događaja u razdoblju od prvih najava o donošenju novog hrvatskog ustava pokazuje da teze o najavi ‘izbacivanja’ Srba ne stoje. Nema dvojbe da je bila riječ o optužbama koje su trebale opravdati daljnje ekstremističke postupke vodstva SDS-a u Hrvatskoj uperene protiv teritorijalnog integriteta i suvereniteta RH. Teza o gubitku konstitutivnosti podrazumijevala bi da je takvo što do tada i postojalo, odnosno da je to bilo određeno odredbama Ustava SRH. Analiza toga Ustava pokazuje da to nije bio slučaj. Kao prvo treba istaknuti da sam pojam ‘konstitutivnosti’ nije u njemu nigdje upotrijebljen. U njegovu članu 1. SRH je definirana kao ‘nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda, država srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj i država narodnosti koje u njoj žive’. Tvrdnju da je SRH nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda te država drugih naroda i narodnosti koji u njoj žive pojačana je i tvrdnjama iz Osnovnih načela Ustava SRH, odlomka I, u kojem je utvrđeno da je hrvatski ‘narod, zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj, (…), izvojevao (…) u zajedničkoj borbi s drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u narodnooslobodilačkom ratu i socijalističkoj revoluciji nacionalnu slobodu, (…), te uspostavio svoju državu – Socijalističku Republiku Hrvatsku (…).’ Navedeni tekst nedvosmisleno i u jednini označava upravo hrvatski narod kao onaj koji je uspostavio SRH. Prema tome je ona bila definirana kao nacionalna država tek jednog naroda, i to hrvatskog. Ime srpskog naroda bilo je doduše izdvojeno, no unatoč tome navedena definicija nije SRH označila i nacionalnom državom srpskog naroda. Tek takva definicija mogla bi se prihvatiti kao dokaz da je srpski narod u Hrvatskoj bio konstitutivan. Također treba upozoriti na korištenje termina ‘narod’ i ‘narodnost’ u tom ustavu. Naime, niti Ustav SRH, niti Ustav SFRJ (također iz 1974.) nije poznavao pojam ‘nacionalna manjina’ (ili slične pojmove za označavanje manjine). Iznimka od toga pravila jest formulacija u odlomku VII Osnovnih načela Ustava SFRJ iz 1974., u kojoj stoji da se SFRJ među ostalim zalaže i za ‘poštovanje prava nacionalnih manjina, uključujući prava dijelova naroda Jugoslavije koji žive u drugim zemljama kao nacionalne manjine’. Obzirom da se cijeli odlomak VII odnosi na međunarodne odnose, razložno je pretpostaviti da su u njemu upotrijebljeni termini uobičajeni u međunarodnom pravu. U SFRJ su status ‘naroda’ imali pripadnici onih naroda čije su nacionalne države bile u njezinu sastavu. Riječ je bila o Srbima, Hrvatima, Slovencima, Makedoncima, Crnogorcima i Muslimanima. Prema tome su i Makedonci, i Slovenci, i Muslimani i Crnogorci imali u SR Hrvatskoj, kao i u svim drugim saveznim republikama status naroda, bez obzira na svoju brojnost, tradicionalnu prisutnost i slično. Pripadnici svih ostalih naroda, čije su matične nacionalne države bile izvan sastava SFRJ, imali su status ‘narodnosti’, također bez obzira na broj i druge značajke. Tako se moglo dogoditi da su Albanci, koji su činili veliku većinu stanovnika Kosova (a činili su i značajan postotak stanovništva Makedonije i Crne Gore), imali status narodnosti, dok su malobrojniji Crnogorci i Makedonci imali status naroda. Inače Ustav SFRJ iz 1974. nigdje izričito ne definira pojam naroda, odnosno pojam narodnosti. Formulacija u Uvodnom dijelu toga ustava, u Osnovnim načelima, odlomak I, govori da su se narodi Jugoslavije, zajedno s narodnostima s kojima žive, ujedinili u saveznu republiku slobodnih i ravnopravnih naroda i narodnosti, upućuje na to da su narodima držani oni narodi čije su nacionalne države bile dijelom SFRJ kao njezine savezne republike. Iznimka su bili bosanskohercegovački Muslimani. Obzirom da je pet republika istovremeno bilo nacionalnim državama nekoga od naroda u SFRJ, a da je BiH bila ustavno definirana kao tronarodna država (država Muslimana, Hrvata i Srba), vrlo je lako doći do odgovora na pitanje što su to ‘narodi Jugoslavije’, a što su narodnosti. Vrlo je precizno pojam naroda i narodnosti, odnosno njihovih jezika, razložen u enciklopedijskoj natuknici ‘Jugoslavija’, u odlomku autora Augusta Kovačeca, ‘Jezici i pisma naroda i narodnosti’ (Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, sv. 6, Jap-Kat, Zagreb 1990., 241.-251.). Pojam ‘manjina’ uveden je tek Ustavom RH od 22. prosinca 1990. godine. Izvorišne osnove toga ustava govore o RH kao ‘nacionalnoj državi hrvatskoga naroda’, što je identično formulaciji iz Ustava SRH iz 1974. godine. U nastavku te formulacije stoji i to da je RH ‘država pripadnika inih naroda i manjina, koji su njezini državljani: Srba, Muslimana, Slovenaca, Čeha, Slovaka (…).’ Srbi u Hrvatskoj (ovaj put definirani i kao državljani RH) na tom su popisu stavljeni na prvo mjesto, a izvorišne osnove izričito spominju ‘narode i manjine’. Prema tome je logično zaključiti da su Srbi (i ne samo oni) držani narodom. Oni su tretirani na isti način kao i u ustavu iz 1974. godine, a jedina je razlika što su osim njih navedeni i drugi narodi i manjine. To dokazuje da Srbi nisu imali ni najmanje razloga za nezadovoljstvo ustavnim rješenjima. ‘Zločesta’ tumačenja njihovog nezadovoljstva mogla bi dovesti i do zaključka da je vođama Srba u Hrvatskoj i njihovim brojnim sljedbenicima tada smetalo to što su uz njih nabrojeni i drugi narodi i manjine. Sukladno tome isto bi se tako ‘zločesto’ moglo zaključiti da su takvi ‘pravi’ Srbi držali da su vredniji od drugih ljudi, što bi bacilo sasvim novo svjetlo na njihove prigovore o gubitku prava. Također treba primijetiti da se Izvorišne osnove ustava RH iz 1990. godine mogu usporediti s Osnovnim načelima Ustava SRH iz 1974. godine. Važno je istaknuti da su u tim dijelovima ovih dvaju ustava tek naznačena temeljna ustavna načela, koja su razrađena u nastavku ustavnog teksta, u njihovim normativnim dijelovima. Treba istaknuti i činjenicu da je formulacija o nacionalnom određenju u Ustavu SRH bila istodobno integralnim dijelom Osnovnih načela (u odlomku I) i normativnog dijela Ustava (član 1.). U Ustavu RH od 22. prosinca 1990. godine formulacija o nacionalnom određenju nazočna je samo u Izvorišnim načelima, dok normativni dio ne sadrži ništa slično. U tom se dijelu govori isključivo o općim pravima svih državljana, te je u članku 14. izričito navedeno da građani RH ‘imaju sva prava i slobode, neovisno o njihovoj rasi, boji kože, spolu, jeziku, vjeri, političkom ili drugom uvjerenju, nacionalnom ili socijalnom uvjerenju (…).’ U članku 15. stoji da su u RH ‘ravnopravni (…) pripadnici svih naroda i manjina’, a svima njima jamči se ‘sloboda izražavanja narodnosne pripadnosti, slobodno služenje svojim jezikom i pismom i kulturna autonomija.’ Uz to se u članku 12. jamči da se uz hrvatski jezik i latinično pismo ‘u službenu uporabu (…) može uvesti i drugi jezik te ćirilično ili koje drugo pismo, pod uvjetima propisanim zakonom’. Držim da usporedba rješenja u navedena dva ustava pokazuje da Srbi nisu imali nikakvog razloga za nezadovoljstvo novim ustavnim rješenjima, nego da razloge za njihovu pobunu i kasniju agresiju JNA i srpskih paravojnih skupina na RH treba tražiti na drugim mjestima.“ (eng. "The accusation that the Croatian government allegedly wanted to oust the Serbs from the constitution of Republic of Croatia are also followed by the accusation that with the adoption of the amendments and the constitution of Croatia in December 22nd 1990 they allegedly lost the constitutionality in Croatia. The chronology of the events during the period from the first announcements about the adoption of the new Croatian constitution shows that the thesis about the announcement of 'ousting' of the Serbs does not stand. There is no doubt that these were accusations which had to justify further extremist action of the SDS in Croatia pointed against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Croatia. Thesis about the loss of constitutionality would then allude that such a thing until then existed, apropos that it was defined by the provisions of the constitution of SRC. Analysis of that constitution shows that was not the case. First we should emphasize that the very term "constitutionality" was not even used anywhere in it. In it's Chapter 1 SRC is defined as 'national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of nationalities which live in it'. The claim that SRC is a national state of Croatian people and state of other nations and nationalities who live in it is strengthened by the provisions from the General Principle of the constitution SRC, passage I, in which it is found that 'Croatian people, along with Serbian nation and nationalities in Croatia, (...), won (...) in a common struggle with other nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia in a liberation war and socialist revolution it's national freedom, (...), and founded it's state - Socialist Republic of Croatia (...)'. The quote text undoubtedly and in singular terms mark directly Croatian people as the one who established SRC. According to that fact it [SRC] was defined as national state of only one nations, the the Croatian nation. The name of Serbian nation was however emphasized, but regardless of that the mentioned definition did not mark SRC as the national state of Serbian people. Only then such a definition could be accepted as proof that Serbian people in Croatia were constitutional. Also we should caution about the use of the terms 'nation' and 'nationality' in that constitution. Namely, neither constitution of SRC, nor the constitution of SFRY (also from 1974) did not know the term 'national minority' (or other similar terms for denotation of national minority). The exception from that rule is the formulation in the section VII of the General Principle of the constitution of SFRY from 1974, in which stands that the SFRY among everything else also advocates for 'respecting the rights of national minorities, including the rights of the parts of the people's of Yugoslavia who live in other countries as national minorities'. Considering that the entire section VII is refers to international relations, it is reasonably to assume that the terms used within it were those used in international law. In SFRY the status of 'nations' had the member of those people whose national states were within it's composition. We are talking about Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonian, Montenegrins and Muslims. So according to that Macedonians, Slovene, Muslims and Montenegrins also had the status of nations in SR Croatia, as in all other federal republics, regardless of their numbers, traditional presence and similar cases. Members of all other nations, whose home national stats were outside the composition of SFRY, had the status of 'nationalities', also regardless the numbers and other significant factors. So it could happen that Albanians, who made a large majority of Kosovo (and they also constituted a large portion of Macedonian and Montenegrin population), had the status of nationalities, while the far less numerous Montenegrins and Macedonians had the status of nations. Otherwise the constitution of SFRY from 1974 does not define the terms of nation, and nationalities respectively. Formulation in the introductory part of that part of the constitution, in General terms, Chapter I, say that the nations of Yugoslavia, together with the nationalities with which they live, united in a federal republic of free and equal nations and nationalities, points to the fact that nations were considered those whose people had national states as part of SFRY as it's national republics. The exception were Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Considering that five republics were at the same time national states of one of nations in SFRY, and that Bosnia-Herzegovina was constitutionally defined as tri-nation state (state of Muslims, Croats and Serbs), it is very easy to come to an answer what are the 'nations of Yugoslavia', and what are nationalities. The terms of nation and nationalities, and their respective languages, were very precisely defined in the encyclopedic footnote 'Yugoslavia', in the chapter written by the author August Kovacec, 'Languages and alphabets of nations and nationalities' (Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia, volume 6, Jap-Kat, zagreb 1990., pages 241-251). The term 'minority' was introduced only with the constitution of December 22 1990. The basic principles of that constitution talk about Republic of Croatia as 'national state of Croatian people', which is identical to formulation from the constitution of SRC from 1974. In continuation of that formulation also stands that Republic of Croatia is a 'state of members of other nations and minorities, which are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks (...)'. Serbs in Croatia (this time defined as citizens of Croatia) were put on the first place of that list, and the basic principle explicitly mention 'nations and minorities'. According to that it would be logically to conclude that Serbs (and not just them) were considered a nation. They were treated in the same way as in the constitution from 1974, and the only difference that besides them other nations and minorities were mentioned as well. 'Mean' interpretations of their dissatisfaction could lead us also to the conclusion that the leaders of Serbs in Croatia and their numerous followers were bothered that besides them other nations and nationalities were mentioned. And according with that we could also be 'naughty' and conclude that such 'real' Serbs held that they were more important than all others, which would give us a completely new light on their complaints about the loss of their rights. Also we should notice that the Basic Principles of the constitution of Croatia from 1990 can also be compared with the Basic Principle from the constitution of SRC from 1974. It is important to emphasize that in those parts of these two constitutions the basic constitutional principles are only hinted, which are more detailed in the continuation of the text of the constitution, in their normative parts. We should also emphasize the fact that the formulation about national self-determination in the constitution of SRC was also integral part of General Principle (in Chapter I) and normative part of the Constitution (Head 1). In the constitution from December 22 1990 formulation about national self-determination is present only in the Basic principle, while the normative part does not contain anything similar. That part speak explicitly about general rights of all citizens, and in the chapter 14 it is explicitly stated that citizens of Croatia 'have all rights and liberties, regardless of their race, skin color, gender, language, religion, political or other conviction, national or social conviction (...).' In chapter 15 it stands that in Croatia 'members of all nations and minorities are equal', and to all of them 'the freedom of expression of their national affiliation, free use of their language and scripture, including cultural autonomy' is guaranteed. Along with that in the chapter 12 it is guaranteed that along with Croatian language and latin alphabet 'in official use (...) could also be introduced other language and Cyrillic scripture or any other scripture, under the condition of prescribed law'. I consider that the comparison of the solutions in the two mentioned constitutions shows that Serbs in Croatia had no reasons to be unsatisfied with the new constitutional amendments, but that the reasons for their rebellion and later aggression of YNA and Serbian paramilitary groups on Croatia should be looked at in other places." Shokatz (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FkpCascais. Serbs in Croatia were a constituent nation, otherwise they wouldn't be mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. So please Shokatz stop edit warring, you are the only person who is on the other side. Now he is trying to hide his ignorance by making a mess of this discussion. Remember Sokatz, if you report someone your behavior will also be in the spotlight. ;) Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sokatz, you are not able to read the Constitution, or to better say you are not tha authority and I don't know why do you think that you are one, so citing the articles of the Constitution gives no plus to your argument. they are no sources at all. Find valid sources who back your claim, or stop this. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly as Tuvixer says. And btw, it is not up to us to interpret the constitution, but to gather what secondary sources say about the subject. And from what I see secondary sources pretty much agree Serbs were constituent nation in SR Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

First your actions will be under scrutiny as well "my friend" so it goes both ways. Second, I am not interpreting anything...I just poted an entire passage from the foremost authority from the man who wrote the most extensive analysis on this issue and it's clear what he says. Saying that a primary source which in this case is a constitution (we are not talking about bio of some living person or similar) is not a source but bunch of random references which mention the misinterpretation and which repeat the same nationalist mantra using by the SDS from the 90s is laughable. Show me part in the constitution which says that Croatia was a national state of Serbs or that they were constitutional and then we can talk. Also do not remove the tags. Shokatz (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sokatz please stop edit warring. Tnx The constitution can't be the source because you are obviously misreading it. You are the only person here who is saying that Serbs weren't a constitutive nation. You are alone in this, so please stop edit warring and present some reliable sources. FkpCascais has provided 4, I think, so Sokatz start doing that or we have nothing to discuss more. Also Jareb is a right-wing fanatic who is obsessed with the World War II puppet state, the so called NDH, and the Ustase regime. He is not a valid source. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you stop edit warring. Who are you to say I am "misreading" it...I say you are misreading it. It is a primary source stating nothing...I repeat NOTHING about "constitutionality" of Serbs in Croatia. It says clearly that Croatia was and is a "national state of Croatian people". Your "arguments" are invalid, you have not addressed a single issue except contant personal remarks...and now even Dr.Jareb (the same source you misuse to strengthen that forgery) is "right-wing nationalist". I would remind you that labeling people and outright ignoring the discussion by calling other people insane, fascist or claiming that you are "a lawyer" or that others "misread" the sources are not valid arguments and go against Wikipedia policy. The tag will stay until you discuss this issue properly. Shokatz (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I took some time and actually read all of this. I'm somewhat familiar with the topic so i think i can contribute. I would like for us to solve some initial misunderstandings about the issue. The big question is the meaning of the phrase "constitutive", so can we first establish a shared definition of the term? Shokatz, FkpCascais ,Tuvixer, 109.121.37.112. The definition of the term constitute is the following "to establish (laws, an institution, etc.).". So do we all agree that a constitutive nation is the one who established SRC? If we all agree upon that the we can see in the constitution about who established SRC. 141.138.50.1 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have already touched that issue and quoted a direct passage from the 1947 constitution which in Article 2 says next:

"Ostvarujuci u svojoj oslobodilackoj borbi u bratskom jedinstvu sa Srbima u Hrvatskoj, i u zajednickoj borbi svih naroda Jugoslavije svoju narodnu drzavu - Narodnu Republiku Hrvatsku, hrvatski se narod, izrazavajuci svoju slobodnu volju, a na temelju prava na samoodredjenje - ukljucujuci pravo odcjepljenje i ujedinjenje s drugim narodima - ujedinio na temelju nacela ravnopravnosti s ostalim narodima Jugoslavije i njihovim narodnim republikama: NR Srbijom, NR Slovenijom, NR BiH, NR Makedonijom i NR Crnom Gorom u zajednicku, saveznu drzavu - FNR Jugoslaviju." (eng. " Realizing in their liberation struggle in fraternal unity with the Serbs in Croatia, and in the common struggle of all peoples of Yugoslavia their national state - the People's Republic of Croatia, the Croatian people, expressing their free will, based on the right to self-determination - including the right to secession and unification with other nations - united on the basis of the principle of equality with other peoples of Yugoslavia and their people's republics: PR Serbia, PR Slovenia, PR Bosnia and Herzegovina, PR Macedonia and PR Montenegro in common, federal state - FNR Yugoslavia. ")

It clearly says that it is the Croatian people who expressed it's free will [realizing its national state – PR Croatia] united with other people's and their national republics. It couldn't be more clear. This is even more clear if you can understand Croatian (or Serbo-Croatian or however you want to call it) which in the word „united“ uses singular form „ujedinio“ and refers specifically to Croatian people as the culprit. The same article is present in the 1974 constitution as well. Shokatz (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this this passage is defining Croatian nation and only Croatian nation as the one who constituted SRC. So where's the problem? Could you post a link to this constitution and the constitution of 1974? I think the 1974 constitution has similar sentence on its beginning. Well usually we wouldn't need to look the previous constitutions to the 1974 constitution, since that was the valid constitution at that time, but for the question of "constituting" a state we can look the past constitutions up to where a state is constituted, since that can not change in the newer versions of the constitution which is evolving. 141.136.206.141 (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that users like Tuvixer and FkpCascais simply refuse these sources and not only that...they refuse the discussion here. And yes the same passage is found in the 1974 constitution as well but the 1974 constitution also included a new passage, more direct and definitive stating that Croatia is a "national state of Croatian people". I've also quoted the entire passage from Dr. Jareb's book "Croatian National Symbols" where he discusses this issue in detail...explaining what the term "narod" and "narodnost" would mean in those constitution and ultimately what the "constituitive nation" would mean. The links for 1947 and 1974 constitutions were posted as well...but here they are again: 1947 1974 Shokatz (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to hear from FkpCascais ,Tuvixer, 109.121.37.112 where's the problem? What is their definition of "constitutive" and why they see both Serbs and Croats defined as constitutive. I will ping them once more before i start reverting.I for a fact know that Serbian propaganda is still repeating this lie from the 90', although the very same question was not even put before the Badinter's commission because it was futile. To remind all, the Badinter's commission was constituted to deal with legal questions during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Serbian side had put several questions in front of it, but never the question of Serbian constitutive status in "Croatia". That for me is a clear admission by Serbia that there were no such status. Also a clear indication that there was no such status is international recognition of Croatia by all counties in the world, even Serbia itself. Instead, Serbia had put another question which seemed less futile before the Badinter's commission. The question about succession of nation over republics. The result of this question being favorable to the Serbs would be the same as the previous question, if even not more favorable. The thing is that Serbs did not want Croats in their new Yugoslavia (in another words, Greater Serbia), so they wanted to carve only a portion of Croatia that they had designated to became Serbian territory. With the question they asked the Badinter's commission they would be allowed to do that. With the question of this topic they wouldn't be allowed to carve only a portion of Croatia but only to revert Croatian decision to success. That would mean whole Croatia would be left within Yugoslavia. Of course, that was against the Yugoslav constitution, and that had been confirmed by Badinter's commission. I would like to hear from the people who object the answer to why the question of the supposed Serbian constitutive status was not put before the Badinter's commission. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You will not be reverting anything, you are blocked user Michael Cambridge editing as IP (see IP 141 contributions). FkpCascais (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, and not on editors analysis of primary sources. So I will continue bringing more RS backing Serbs were constituent nation in SR Croatia:

• Minorities in Europe: Croatia, Estonia and Slovakia by Snezana Trifunovska, Katholieke Universiteit, on page 23 says: "The international recognition of Croatia, as well as documents adopted by the Croatian Administration prior to the recognition, stripped the Serbs from Croatia from their status of constituent nation and active subject in decisions concerning the Constitution of Croatian State, and specially the status of Serbs in it. What does this mean? It means primarily that the Serbs in Croatia have been down-graded from nation to national minority, or to use a new European euphemism - an ethnic community." FkpCascais (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Ethnic Violence and the Societal Security Dilemma by Paul Roe, page 94, says: "...previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities." FkpCascais (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Serbia by Lawrence Mitchell, page 28, says: "...Croatian nationalist Franjo Tuđman in 1990 brought a new constitution that proclaimed that ethnic Serbs would become a national minority rather than a constituent nation within an independent Croatia." FkpCascais (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Genocide at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century by Dale C. Tatum, page 72, it says: "The original draft of the Croatian costitution did not recognize the Serbian minority as a constituent nation - a right they had during the days of communism." FkpCascais (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is one source, but the sources which say completely opposite had been presented. In fact those sources provide more details behind the opposite conclusion. That is why I wen't on discussing the primary source. Firstly I wanted to establish a consensus about the meaning of the word "constitutive" and then we could gather all sentences from the constitution which are speaking of it and then determine a subject to the term constitutive. So could you agree with the definition I posted, that constitutive nations are the one who established SRC? 89.164.239.139 (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I don't see any of this sources pointing to any part of the constitution which defines Serbs as the constitutive nation. Could you point to the parts of the constitution you think your sources are referencing in the manner Shokatz had? As I see it, Shokatz had presented a source which directly references the constitution and you had presented sources which only state your stand as a fact without further elaborating it. In my opinion this gives the sources Shokatz had presented a greater value, since his secondary sources are referencing the primary source in their elaboration of the issue, which is not the case with your sources. What are your thoughts about this? Would you agree that a sources which give a greater elaboration of the issue by referencing the primary souce have more value than the sources which simply make a statement without elaborating it and without referencing the primary source?You presented some sources and I would really like to hear your answer to this question, along with the answers of others who participated in this discussion.89.164.239.139 (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My friend Asdisis, I am not going to discuss with you. I provided 8 secondary sources opposing your view, you provided ZERO secondary sources. We don't even have a case here. I will repeat, it is not up to editors to play historians and lawyers and judge primary sources, but the editors job is to find secondary sources regarding that subject. And among the ones I provided some do elaborate the issue quite well. FkpCascais (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, was I wrong when I pinged you to hear your opinion and to discuss with you in good faith. I would still like to hear the answer of other people who participated in this discussion. The question is: would you agree that secondary sources which give a greater elaboration of the issue by referencing the primary source have more value than the sources which simply make a statement without elaborating it and without referencing the primary source? 89.164.239.139 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Shokatz didn't even presented a secondary source that can be verified. His source, Dr. Jareb (?), allegedly says that, anyway, it would be one source (and local Croatian one, thus prone to be biased) against 8 (I can bring more) secondary sources saying the opposite. Notece that those are 8 neutral English-language sources, against one Croatian. I haven't brought even one Serbian source to back my claims, and there must be many for sure, but in hot disputed topics as this one, it is better to use neutral sources than from the parties involved. I don't have any doubts there are Croatian authors doing their best to deny that Serbs were constitutional nation in Croatia prior 1990, but find neutral non-Croatian sources saying that, those have more weight. FkpCascais (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: I am not going to discuss with you as you are an indef-blocked disruptive user, and just as you did at Nikola Tesla, you provide zero sources (or perhaps one that you exhaustively push and push) and what you do best is wiki-lowyering just as again you are doing here. FkpCascais (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I have presented a secondary source and also a primary source which mentions nothing about "constitutional nations", nada, zip, zero. And "my source" which is Dr. Jareb who wrote the most extensive explanation until now is actually used in the article...or should I say misused for the claim that Serbs allegedly were a "constitutional nation". See [1], pages 737-739. It is the same thing I copied here and translated. The same source which Tuvixer deleted the link and again misused as a affirmation reference for the supposed "constitutional status of Serbs in Croatia". The problem with your sources are that they do not have any sources themselves, we don't know upon which primary source they are calling upon which is kinda crucial wouldn't you say? Just because someone can write something in a book, doesn't make it a valid reference for Wikipedia...unless ofc you want to manipulate with facts as you do here. The problem is that this is a disputed claim you are pushing here and either we go by the facts or you present both views in an equal fashion...with valid arguments. Shokatz (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not "someone writes something" but there is a clear consensus among scholars regarding this issue, its tons of reliable sources saying Serbs were constitutional nation before 1990 in Croatia. Just make a search among books, its an endless list from where I just brought the first 8 that appeared in my search. Can you find some English-language source from someone non-Croatian to back-up your claim? FkpCascais (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually there isn't a consensus otherwise I wouldn't be here challenging this claim, can you understand that? And calling these source "reliable" is at best laughable since none of them list upon which primary source they are calling upon. I suggest you go read up on WP:RS, especially the part about verifiability. Is it the constitution of SRC? Is the "oral tradion" or some other "reliable source"? None of these source mention a primary source. Also you say you didn't use a single Serbian source...that is incorrect. Snezana Trifunovska is a Serbian author, just because the book is in English doesn't make her an English author. Second, I've looked closely at all of these sources you posted, not a single source actually refers to the primary source which would be the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia...in fact in one of those she (Trifunovska) even calls upon a certain "unofficial publication"...seriously? And third, saying that Dr. Jareb would be biased just because he is Croatian is a laughable and offensive...if anyone would know better what the constitution said it would be the Croatian author because it is his immediate field of work. That would like saying that Croatian authors have greater weight on the British or American constitution since they are supposedly "neutral". Current state of things violates WP:NPOV as it puts an undue weight on a certain point of view. Making blanket statements about supposed consensus is also against Wikipedia policies unless you can quote me a verifiable reference stating such a thing. Shokatz (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Also let's take a look at the current paragraph and what it say...I find it hilarious BTW: Amid political changes during the breakup of Yugoslavia and following the Croatian Democratic Union's victory in the 1990 general election, the Croatian Parliament ratified a new constitution in December 1990 which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities. A majority of Serb politicians have misread this as taking away some of the rights from the Serbs granted by the previous Socialist constitution, because the Constitution of SR Croatia treated solely Croats as a constitutive nation. Croatia was the "national state" for Croats, "state" for Serbs and other minorities. So let's see here....the first sentence basically says Croatian Govt. downgraded Serbs from "constitutional nation" to a national minority. Then we go to a second sentence which says: "Serb politicians have misread taking away some of the rights..." - seriously? They have misread what? According to first sentence the alleged downgrade is a fact...what is there to be misread? The it continues: "...because the Constitution of SR Croatia treated solely Croats as a constitutive nation" so now it says Serbs weren't a constitutive ("constitutional nation")...I mean this is simply hilarious. The last sentence basically restates the second sentence...so in this paragraph we now have first sentence stating one thing and two next sentences stating a diametrically the opposite. If users like FkpCascais and Tuvixer don't see a problem with this then I really don't know what to say anymore. This is what happens when people make sneaky edits to enforce their POV and basically ruin the quality of article. Imagine a third party neutral reader looking at this... Shokatz (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked all of them to point out which part of the constitution is defining Serbs as the constitutive nation of SRC. Maybe Tuvixer will be more open for a discussion. I would rather if we settled this with a consensus instead with source battle since in situations like this we will find bunch of sources claiming things without a single reference or any other elaboration. If we can't reach a consensus then both sides should be mentioned as well as the lack of that question to the Badinter's commission, since that quite clearly points out that it was never a legal issue, but it was instead used as a part of propaganda, as the source points out. If Serbs were a constitutive nation of SRC then independence referendum would be invalid and we all know that Croatia was recognized. That furthermore proves that this wasn't really a legal issue. Also I'm not familiar that Serb representatives in SRC had contacted the constitutional court of SRH or Yugoslavia that their constitutional right is being removed. All of that points that it wasn't ever a legal issue, but as the source suggests, it was a part of Serbian propaganda intended to ignite the rebellion in Croatia which was already started before. Maybe one of the persons who disagrees could point out where was this issue raised on the legal level to deal with. The appropriate place would be the constitutional court and Badinter's commission. If we would to battle with source then so far we would get something like this: "some sources say that Serbs were demoted from a constitutional nation to a national minority, while other sources say....and now a big passage from Shokatz sources.....continued by the original sentence from the constitutions.....continued by the fact that the issue was never legally raised before constitutional court or Badinter's commission.". If this is the way people who disagree are prepared to go, then I don't think they will be happy with the end result since their edit will be eaten by a great deal of information suggesting otherwise since their sources do not provide any elaboration, but only stating a fact. The fact will be stated in the article, but a much greater elaboration of the opposite stand will be also stated in the article and I don't think anyone who would read it would get an impression that Serbs were really a constitutive nation in SRC. That is what we get by "source battle", so I urge everyone to go in the direction is suggested. Let's agree about the definition of constitutive nation and let's see what the constitution says. Then we can evaluate presented secondary sources. Shokatz, I don't think we will be able to reach a consensus so I think we should procede to incorporate the elaboration that your source gives, and the things which I had mentioned about the issue never being a legal issue and not even put before Badinter's commission. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, walls of text, no sources... For start, can any of you bring at least one English-language source? FkpCascais (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, typical rejection of any discussion... For start, can you bring at least one source which mentions a primary source? Shokatz (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to. They all say clearly that Serbs were constitutional nation of Croatia, many mention the change in the constitution done in 1990, so they are clearly referring to the primary source, that is what matters. I can post 10 more English-language neutral sources (OK, Trifunovska is maybe Serbian, what about the other 7? Are they Serbs too?). While you seem to be unable to post even one English-language source claiming what you claim. Without sources you don't even have a discussion here. FkpCascais (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes you do need to. Or else if you continue this charade I will report this to WP:ARBMAC as I am getting close to the end of my nerves with you. I have shown here by quoting both the 1974 and 1990 constitution that such a claim is incorrect and claiming "they said so" is not a reference to a primary source. And I have already posted sources...the one you dismiss including the primary sources going directly against the supposed secondary sources you posted. Again, take a good look at that paragraph and tell me that makes sense... Shokatz (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

They are all referring to the constitutional change in 1990. Either you have some understanding problems or you are playing dummy. Go ahead report me, I will gladly kick out from this project one nationalistic warrior who ignores duzens of sources and thinks he knows the WP:TROUTH. You have no sources to back your claims so all you can do now is make disruption, just like your friends here did and got them indef-blocked. I wish you nice journey towards that road. FkpCascais (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok let's see that constitutional change. [Constitution of SR Croatia in 1974: "Socijalisticka Republika Hrvatska je nacionalna drzava hrvatskog naroda, drzava srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj i drzava drugih narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (eng. "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities who live within it"). Constitution of Croatia from 1990: "Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda i država pripadnika autohtonih nacionalnih manjina: Srba, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Madžara, Židova, Nijemaca, Austrijanaca, Ukrajinaca, Rusina i drugih, koji su njezini državljani, kojima se jamči ravnopravnost s građanima hrvatske narodnosti i ostvarivanje nacionalnih prava..." (eng. "Republic of Croatia is established as a national state of Croatian people and state of members of autochtonous national minorities: Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Hungarians, Jews, Germans, Austrians, Ukraininans, Rusyns and others, who are its citizens, to whom equality with citizens of Croatian ethnicity is guaranteed including the realization of national rights..." Keep making personal remarks and hurling threats my way though...I am sure it will bring you much "good"...especially considering you were already blocked previously for tendentious editing regarding Yugoslavia related articles per WP:ARBMAC.Shokatz (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not up to you to make inerpretations of the Constitution. For time being I provided 8 English-language reliable sources (with links to be verified) clearly saying Serbs were constitutional nation in Croatia, you presented ZERO reliable English-language sources and no links saying the contrary, and you dare to say I am wrong? FkpCascais (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You will first have to point out where I actually made "interpretations of the constitution". As you can see I just copy-pasted the excerpts directly from both the 1974 and 1990 constitutions without any comments. The problem with your sources is that they go directly against the primary sources I just posted. Where is this "constitutional status of Serbs" mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. I implore you point me to it because I have read it length and wide and could not find anything. And yes I dare to say you are wrong...again look at the paragraph...which is it...were they "constitutional" or not? Can you explain to me what is that paragraph stating? Shokatz (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais refuses to discuss in good faith. I already asked him to discuss the primary source and to point which passage in his opinion designates Serbs as a constitutive nation. He refuses and there's nothing to be done in this situation. I suggest we eat up his sources with elaborations provided by the other sources and that we copy paste the passage from the constitution which clearly designates that Croatians are the only constitutive nation in SRC. Readers of this article will for themselves see what the constitution says and that is enough for me, because I have no doubt that any objective person can understand the quotes from the constitution you passed. Let's not discuss with him, since it is not a discussion but a battle. Let him have his sources but let's provide the quotes from the constitution you passed here. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that Shokatz has no sources to back his position. It is 8 to 0, so Sokatz start providing sources or the discussion is over. You can't make changes to the article without valid sources. And it is going to be really hard to refute 8 valid sources. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

IP 89.164.239.139 is blocked. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that I have three [3] primary sources: Constitution of NR CroatiaConstitution of SR Croatia Constitution of Croatia from 1990 going directly against the sources FkpCascais has provided. I also have a reference which contains the most detailed discussion on the issues of the consitution and the supposed "constitutionality" which cites Dr.Jareb's book "Croatian National Symbols" which you misuse currently: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između negativnih stereotipa i istine; Dunja Bonacci Skenderovic and Mario Jareb. Show me one source here which refers to these primary sources...you have ZERO. Shokatz (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This IP 82.214.103.10 is indef-blocked user Asdisis. His latest ideia is trying to convince the other editor to ignore sources. FkpCascais (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet now? I suggest you to tone down unless you want me to report you...seriously... Shokatz (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shokatz: no FkpCascais is not accusing you. He was referring to a banned user whose comment was removed, likely the same person known as "Detoner" on your talk page. It is clear from your contribution history that you are a valued contributor. Chillum 00:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed Shokatz. I didn't saw your comment here, just now that Chillum answered to you that I saw it. What I was saying is that the indef-blocked user Asdisis, avoiding block here through an IP, was trying to convince you to edit on their behalve, and I was just pointing out the fact that the IP 82 was indef-blocked user Asdisis. Just that, nothing to do with you or the content. That user Asdisis has a long history of disruption, sockpoppetry and block-evasion. FkpCascais (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will continue bringing sources that confirm Serbs were constituent nation in Croatia:

• Secessionism and Separatism in Europe and Asia: To Have a State of One’s Own by Jean-Pierre Cabestan and Aleksandar Pavković, page 71 speaking about the events in 1990 says: "It also changed the status of Serbs from a constituent nation in Croatia into a minority."
• Living Together After Ethnic Killing: Exploring the Chaim Kaufman Argument by Roy Licklider and Mia Bloom, page 158, it says: "Previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia and enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities." At this page is further explained about the changes in the Constitution.
• Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict by Melanie Greenberg, John H. Barton and Margaret E. McGuinness, at page 83, says: "The new Croatian constitution ... renounced the hitherto protected status of ethnic Serbs as a separate constituent nation embedded in the old constitution and defined Croatia as the sovereign state of Croatian nation." FkpCascais (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime none of these reference or mention any primary source. Anyone reading a primary source and then reading these sources can see for themselves that no "constitutional nations" are mentioned whatsoever. Again I suggest you read up on WP:RS, especially the part about tendentious sources. Shokatz (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that tons of secondary sources are wrong? And please don't tell me as Asdisis did that it is Serbian propaganda, cause it is quite established that Serbian propaganda outside Serbia had hardly any influence. FkpCascais (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that these secondary sources do not cite any primary source which is a problem, ok? Or are we going to pretend this is not an issue? We have the primary sources here posted in their original form...they go against these secondary sources...directly. It's not my interpretation, it's clear and direct...I quoted it several times. Anyway...I am not here to push my POV I want us to discuss this and come to a conclusion what exactly was and is this definition of this so-called "constitutional nation" mentioned in the article, and how can we have such conflicting paragraph stating two opposite things. Shokatz (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also if we cannot reach any agreement on this I am prepared to ask for a third opinion or some sort of mediation where we would present both these primary and secondary sources and see what others think...if anyone would be even interested in this matter. Shokatz (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Do I count? We are not supposed to interpret primary sources. We are a tertiary source so we use secondary sources. It is not our place to say that the secondary sources got it wrong and our interpretation is better. That would be original research. Chillum 00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I really doubt that so many secondary sources overwhelmingly saying Serbs were constituent nation are wrong or they missed something. FkpCascais (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It is our duty to analyze the secondary sources per WP:V. The problem with these secondary sources is that, as I have already stated and quoted, directly contradict the primary sources. There is no personal interpretation of the primary sources, they say what they says. Also all of those secondary sources seem to fail on basic criteria - to cite the actual primary source - which is a blanket failure to satisfy WP:SOURCE. I mean where is the definition of this supposed "constitutional nation" they are talking about? There is nothing about it in both 1974 or 1990 Croatian constitution...or any other Yugoslavian constitution. What is the actual primary source for these blanket statements? It's like I am reading a newspaper report or something. Ofc every author can express their own opinion but then it is up to us to analyze these sources and fact check them. Shokatz (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I hope nobody minds but I have made a section break here to make the conversation easier. Chillum 01:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Again Skokatz it is not for us to look at primary sources and say the secondary sources are wrong. That is original research. You may not think you are interpreting primary sources but you are certainly assigning weight and value to them much as is the task of a secondary source. If your interpretation of the primary sources is so objective and clear cut then secondary sources should exist. Chillum 02:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing WP:V and WP:SOURCE with WP:OR. I am not interpreting what the primary sources say, I am stating an obvious fact that those secondary sources do not mention primary sources...which in this case would be the constitutions. Furthermore the primary sources say nothing about "constitutional nations" and this is a blatant fact. Shokatz (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't you see he is a troll? Everyone who reads the Constitution of SRC can see that it mentions Croats and Serbs as constitutive nations. Yes it says that SR Croatia was a state of Croatian people, but in the same sentence it says also that it is a state of Serbian people in Croatia, as well as of all national minorities. So Croatis and Serbs were constitutive nations. Like that today Constitution says that Republic of Croatia is a state od the Croatian people and all national minorities. So today Croats are the only constitutive nations. Serbs back then were a significant population in Croatia, like today Bosnia and Herzegovina is a multi ethnic state, and has three constitutive nations, Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. And there is a ton of sources that prove that Serbs were a constitutive nation. Shokatz is practically saying to us: "No Frodo is not a hobbit, look it up in the primary source, those secondary sources are wrong." Why don't you just ignore him? He is obviously a troll here. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And this is the true WP:OR. Quote me the part of the constitution which mentions any "constitutional nation". You can't, because it's not in it. The constitution of 1974 said the same thing as the constitution from 1990 - that Croatia is a "national state of Croatian people". This is a blatant fact written in black and white and no secondary source which doesn't cite a primary source can deny this...especially if it goes directly against the primary source which it should refer to. Everything you just wrote has nothing to do with facts, but your POV-pushing agenda. As for Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was always described as a "state union"...both in 1974 and modern-day constitution and it's a completely different thing from Croatia (and all other ex-Yugoslav republics) which was defined as a "national state" of only one nation. I will give you one final warning before I actually go and report you to WP:ARBMAC...make another personal ad homimen comment about me. I dare you. Shokatz (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Serbs as "constitutive" nation in Socialist Republic of Croatia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The question on this RFC is not well written, and it is way to long. But the discussion hinged on the term "constitutive nation", and its lack of definition. There is consensus that the section implies something that is not sourced (loss of rights), and that "constitutive nation" is not defined and it needs to be defined. There is also consensus for the wording used in the Croatian War of Independence article. While sources were provided, none of them provided the definition of "constitutive nation" nor did they provide the implied claim. AlbinoFerret 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

---

I think a RfC is needed here, and I think that anyone who reads the below paragraph will agree. I see much debate but the paragraph still stands in the article. I will try to present it in a neutral way by stating the issue, and each side's sources and brief argumentation.

This is the paragraph: "Amid political changes during the breakup of Yugoslavia and following the Croatian Democratic Union's victory in the 1990 general election, the Croatian Parliament ratified a new constitution in December 1990 which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities. A majority of Serb politicians have misread this as taking away some of the rights from the Serbs granted by the previous Socialist constitution,[40] because the Constitution of SR Croatia treated solely Croats as a constitutive nation. Croatia was the "national state" for Croats, "state" for Serbs and other minorities."

Extended content

I think that the issue is obvious, but I will restate it. The first sentence says:"new constitution in December 1990 changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority", while the very next sentence says:"the Constitution of SR Croatia treated solely Croats as a constitutive nation". That is a clear contradiction. The paragraph is also written in a very confusing way even without that contradiction. The dispute is the following. Were the Serbs a "constitutive nation" in Socialist Croatia? The following question is also interesting from Wiki's point of view to the sources. In the above discussion editors have presented a great number of sources that simply state the fact that the "Serbs were constitutive nation in Croatia", without any elaboration or any reference to the primary source. On the other hand, a source that says otherwise gives much wider elaboration and references the primary source. So the question is (as I see it), which bears more weight, quantity or quality? Here is the primary source [2]. Unfortunately it isn't in English. The first thing to notice from the primary source is that the paragraph speaks of the "constitutive nations" while the primary source does not contain any mention of that term. This is also stated in one of the secondary sources listed below. The first side's secondary sources state: (1) "the equality of the Serbian and the Croatian nations, as constituent nations of the federal unit of Croatia, were recognized in every respect" (2) "The secessionist Zagreb regime first removed from the Croatian Constitution the constituent nation status of Serbs living in Croatia" (3) "Since the constitution of the Yugoslavian Federation regarded the Serbs in Croatia as constituent nation of the Republic of Croatia" (4) "Serbs living in Croatia had been members of a constituent nation while Croatia was part f Yugoslavia" -> this one in my opinion doesn't go along with the rest of sources from this group, but the source which goes against this group of sources (5) "The international recognition of Croatia, as well as documents adopted by the Croatian Administration prior to the recognition, stripped the Serbs from Croatia from their status of constituent nation and active subject in decisions concerning the Constitution of Croatian State, and specially the status of Serbs in it. What does this mean? It means primarily that the Serbs in Croatia have been down-graded from nation to national minority, or to use a new European euphemism - an ethnic community." (6) ".previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities" (7) "Croatian nationalist Franjo Tuđman in 1990 brought a new constitution that proclaimed that ethnic Serbs would become a national minority rather than a constituent nation within an independent Croatia." (8) "the original draft of the Croatian constitution did not recognize the Serbian minority as a constituent nation - a right they had during the days of communism" (9) "It also changed the status of Serbs from a constituent nation in Croatia into a minority" (10) "Previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia and enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities." (11) "The new Croatian constitution ... renounced the hitherto protected status of ethnic Serbs as a separate constituent nation embedded in the old constitution and defined Croatia as the sovereign state of Croatian nation." The first side's arguments are: (1) The majority of sources say that Serbs were a constitutive nation, while there is only one source that says otherwise. (2) The only source that says otherwise is Croatian, so it is prone to be biased (3) "Croatian authors doing their best to deny that Serbs were constitutional nation in Croatia prior to 1990" My note: I couldn't find further arguments that the Croatian source is biased, or unreliable, apart from the quote stated under number (3) The second side's secondary sources: (1) "The accusation that the Croatian government allegedly wanted to oust the Serbs from the constitution of Republic of Croatia are also followed by the accusation that with the adoption of the amendments and the constitution of Croatia in December 22nd 1990 they allegedly lost the constitutionality in Croatia. The chronology of the events during the period from the first announcements about the adoption of the new Croatian constitution shows that the thesis about the announcement of 'ousting' of the Serbs does not stand. There is no doubt that these were accusations which had to justify further extremist action of the SDS in Croatia pointed against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Croatia. Thesis about the loss of constitutionality would then allude that such a thing until then existed, apropos that it was defined by the provisions of the constitution of SRC. Analysis of that constitution shows that was not the case. First we should emphasize that the very term "constitutionality" was not even used anywhere in it. In it's Chapter 1 SRC is defined as 'national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of nationalities which live in it'. The claim that SRC is a national state of Croatian people and state of other nations and nationalities who live in it is strengthened by the provisions from the General Principle of the constitution SRC, passage I, in which it is found that 'Croatian people, along with Serbian nation and nationalities in Croatia, (...), won (...) in a common struggle with other nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia in a liberation war and socialist revolution it's national freedom, (...), and founded it's state - Socialist Republic of Croatia (...)'. The quoted text undoubtedly and in singular terms marks specifically Croatian people as the ones who established the SRC. According to that fact it [SRC] was defined as a national state of only one nation, the Croatian nation. The Serbian nation was however emphasized, but regardless of that the mentioned definition did not mark the SRC as the national state of Serbian people. Only then such a definition could be accepted as proof that Serbian people in Croatia were constitutional. Also we should caution about the use of the terms 'nation' and 'nationality' in the constitution. Namely, neither the constitution of the SRC, nor the constitution of the SFRY (also from 1974) did not have the term 'national minority' (or other similar terms for the denotation of a national minority). The exception from that rule is the formulation in section VII of the General Principle of the constitution of the SFRY from 1974, in which it states that the SFRY advocates for 'respecting the rights of national minorities, including the rights of the peoples of Yugoslavia who live in other countries as national minorities'. Considering that the entire section VII refers to international relations, it is reasonable to assume that the terms used within it were those used in international law. In the SFRY the status of 'nations' consisted of the members of those peoples whose national states were within it's composition: Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Muslims. So Macedonians, Slovenes, Muslims and Montenegrins also had the status of nations in the SR Croatia, as in all other federal republics, regardless of their numbers, traditional presence and similar cases. Members of all other nations, whose home national states were outside the composition of the SFRY, had the status of 'nationalities', also regardless of their numbers and other significant factors. So it could happen that Albanians, who made up a large majority of Kosovo (and also constituting a large portion of the Macedonian and Montenegrin population), had the status of nationalities, while the far less numerous Montenegrins and Macedonians had the status of nations. Otherwise the constitution of the SFRY from 1974 does not define the terms "nation", and "nationalities" respectively. Formulation in the introductory portion of that part of the constitution, in General terms, Chapter I, says that the nations of Yugoslavia, together with the nationalities with which they live, united in a federal republic of free and equal nations and nationalities, points to the fact that nations were considered those whose people had national states as part of the SFRY as it's national republics. The exception were the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Considering that five republics were at the same time national states of one of the nations in the SFRY, and that Bosnia-Herzegovina was constitutionally defined as a tri-nation state (the state of Muslims, Croats and Serbs), it is very easy to come to a conclusion as to what are the 'nations of Yugoslavia', and what are nationalities. The terms "nation" and "nationalities", and their respective languages, were very precisely defined in the encyclopedic footnote to 'Yugoslavia', in the chapter written by August Kovacec, 'Languages and alphabets of nations and nationalities' (Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia, volume 6, Jap-Kat, zagreb 1990., pages 241-251). The term 'minority' was introduced only with the constitution of December 22 1990. The basic principles of that constitution talk about the Republic of Croatia as the 'national state of Croatian people', which is identical to the formulation from the constitution of the SRC from 1974. In continuation of that formulation also stands that the Republic of Croatia is a 'state of members of other nations and minorities, which are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks (...)'. Serbs in Croatia (this time defined as citizens of Croatia) were put first in the list, and 'nations and minorities' are explicitly mentioned. So it would be logical to conclude that Serbs (and not just Serbs) were considered a nation. They were treated in the same way as in the constitution from 1974, and the only difference is that other nations and minorities were mentioned as well. 'Mean' interpretations of their dissatisfaction could lead us to the conclusion that the leaders of Serbs in Croatia and their numerous followers were bothered that besides them other nations and nationalities were mentioned. And according with that we could also be 'naughty' and conclude that such 'real' Serbs held that they were more important than all others, which would give us a completely new light on their complaints about the loss of their rights. Also we should notice that the Basic Principles of the constitution of Croatia from 1990 can also be compared with the Basic Principles from the constitution of the SRC from 1974. It is important to emphasize that in those parts of these two constitutions the basic constitutional principles are only hinted at, which are more detailed in the continuation of the text of the constitution, in their normative parts. We should also emphasize the fact that the formulation about national self-determination in the constitution of the SRC was also an integral part of the General Principle (in Chapter I) and a normative part of the Constitution (Head 1). In the constitution from December 22 1990 formulation about national self-determination is present only in the Basic principle, while the normative part does not contain anything similar. That part speaks explicitly about the general rights of all citizens, and in chapter 14 it explicitly states that citizens of Croatia 'have all rights and liberties, regardless of their race, skin color, gender, language, religion, political or other conviction, national or social conviction (...).' In chapter 15 it states that in Croatia 'members of all nations and minorities are equal', and to all of them 'the freedom of expression of their national affiliation, free use of their language and scripture, including cultural autonomy' is guaranteed. In chapter 12 is guaranteed that along with the Croatian language and Latin alphabet 'in official use (...) other languages and Cyrillic script or any other script, could be introduced, under the condition of prescribed law'. I consider that the comparison of the solutions in the two mentioned constitutions shows that Serbs in Croatia had no reason to be dissatisfied with the new constitutional amendments, but that the reasons for their rebellion and later aggression of YNA and Serbian paramilitary groups in Croatia should be looked at in other places" Second side's arguments: (1) The first group of sources simply states the fact without further elaboration or any reference to the primary source (2) Although there is a majority that states otherwise, the quality of those sources is much less than the quality of this source which gives much wider elaboration and references the primary source. Lastly, I'm sorry if I neglected some of the arguments or anything else. I haven't read the debate too carefully so I may have omitted something. In that case it would be advisable to add the omitted parts in a concise way.

213.5.192.78 (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup Markewilliams (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me just comment on the above RfC format: it's TLDR for me, and chances are most editors will feel the same, which is bound to limit the input - and that is bad, since RfC is all about the input. RfC is not meant to present exhaustive pro and con arguments. Also, the above RfC question is not formulated in the right way: the point of RfC is not to give an answer to a real-life question, but to give an answer to a question about the article's content. I gather that what you are actually asking is "Should the article say that the Serbs were a "constitutive nation" in Socialist Croatia?"

Even without reading the above arguments, i can say that the answer to this rephrased question is yes, because there is plenty of sources saying so. If this view is disputed by a significant number of other sources, then this dispute should be mentioned too. But, apart from that, the crux of the matter is what does the "constitutive nation" exactly mean; without explaining it properly, this bit of info is virtually useless to the reader. GregorB (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

After reading the long treatise twice, I would agree with GregorB: If both sides have sources, then both sides should be represented on the page. And the article needs a clear definition of '"constitutive nation"'. Markewilliams (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Markewilliams, it was already said before. "Constitutive nation" is undefined term in the Yugoslav constitution. The word constitutive does not appear in it and that's exactly why this debate is interesting. We have one group of sources that state the fact that "Serbs were constitutional nation" without defining the term or without referencing the constitution. Well the lack of a reference is natural, since the primary source does not speak of it. However that sources constitute the majority over the only source that explains the question in great detail. It also explains the term "constitutional nation". That is the only source that explains the term. To me it would be illogical to take definition of the term from that source and the statement that "Serbs were constitutional nation" from the source which is in direct contradiction with the source we used to define the term. The source that defined the term is the only source that explains the question is detail (opposed to just simply stating a fact without any reference to the primary source). To me personally, it will be interesting to see what will become of this. Is a single source which speaks of the question in great detail with references to the primary source be taken as more valuable than a bunch of sources that lack any explanation of the question or any kind of reference to the primary source. Quality of quantity, is the question. Or maybe both will be mentioned in the article. It will be also interesting to see how a previous consensus on this question will affect this discussion. All is very interesting from the Wiki point of view. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, but... which sources dispute the fact that Serbs were constitutive nation in Croatia during SFRY? FkpCascais (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I appear to have ignored the whole discussion above, and I will freely admit that I haven't had the stomach to read the ridiculously overbloated introduction to the RFC, which is against the rules. But it's fairly irrelevant because ISTR we discussed this before on other articles, so for example, Croatian War of Independence has been pretty stable with:

---

On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution, which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.

• Vesna Pešić (April 1996). "Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis". Peaceworks (8). United States Institute for Peace. Retrieved November 29, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

---

I've had a look at the current content of the article and I don't see any properly formatted references that are better than this. So I would absolutely steer clear of entertaining this fairly intricate and contentious discussion in the article and instead just add this old, yet very level-headed explanation from Vesna Pešić in here, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree with you. The above formulation ("...which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution") is excellent, as it focuses on the reception of the changes, not their actual legal impact. GregorB (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Perceved by Serbs" may imply that that was not the case, and that only Serbs perceived it that way, so it all really depends on the edit itself, on where and how this citation will be added. FkpCascais (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a source that says "due to constitutional changes, the Serbs lost the right to foobar, which they had before" (where foobar is something with real-life relevance), I think it is fair game to talk about the perception. GregorB (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Gregor, please see the sources from the discussion above. FkpCascais (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty. So when plenty of sources say "The sky is blue" there is no reason to say that "Crazy John perceives the sky as blue" when talking about the color of the sky. Then, Joy, I understand your unwillingness to read the previous discussion, but if you are going to make proposals that deal exactly with the issue that was discussed there, well, maybe it wouldn't be bad for you if you gave a look at it, at least to the sources. I thank you very much for bringing this beautifully formatted source, it may be very usefull, just don't forget that the content of the sources is more important than the way they are formatted in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

From almost 9 years ago - [3]. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also how in the 9-year-old version, the context was not lost - it was a tool for fuelling extremism. As far as I'm concerned, we're pretty much done here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me Joy but can I please ask you to be clearer; what is "a tool for fuelling extremism" and what is pretty done? FkpCascais (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow me gentleman to remind you the sources:

• Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution edited by Snežana Trifunovska, page 477, it says: "at the Second and Third sessions of the National Anti-Fascist Council of the Peoples Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH),...,the equality of the Serbian and the Croatian nations, as constituent nations of the federal unit of Croatia, were recognized in every respect." And then at bottom of the page goes in detail.
• Integration and Stabilization: A Monetary View by George Macesich, page 24, it says: "The secessionist Zagreb regime first removed from the Croatian Constitution the constituent nation status of Serbs living in Croatia."
• The Quality of Government by Bo Rothstein, page 89, it says: "Since the constitution of the Yugoslavian Federation regarded the Serbs in Croatia as constituent nation of the Republic of Croatia, this important change..."
• Soft Borders by Julie Mostov, page 67, it says: "Serbs living in Croatia had been members of a constituent nation while Croatia was part f Yugoslavia."
• Minorities in Europe: Croatia, Estonia and Slovakia by Snezana Trifunovska, Katholieke Universiteit, on page 23 says: "The international recognition of Croatia, as well as documents adopted by the Croatian Administration prior to the recognition, stripped the Serbs from Croatia from their status of constituent nation and active subject in decisions concerning the Constitution of Croatian State, and specially the status of Serbs in it. What does this mean? It means primarily that the Serbs in Croatia have been down-graded from nation to national minority, or to use a new European euphemism - an ethnic community." FkpCascais (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Ethnic Violence and the Societal Security Dilemma by Paul Roe, page 94, says: "...previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities." FkpCascais (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Serbia by Lawrence Mitchell, page 28, says: "...Croatian nationalist Franjo Tuđman in 1990 brought a new constitution that proclaimed that ethnic Serbs would become a national minority rather than a constituent nation within an independent Croatia." FkpCascais (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Genocide at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century by Dale C. Tatum, page 72, it says: "The original draft of the Croatian costitution did not recognize the Serbian minority as a constituent nation - a right they had during the days of communism."
• Secessionism and Separatism in Europe and Asia: To Have a State of One’s Own by Jean-Pierre Cabestan and Aleksandar Pavković, page 71 speaking about the events in 1990 says: "It also changed the status of Serbs from a constituent nation in Croatia into a minority."
• Living Together After Ethnic Killing: Exploring the Chaim Kaufman Argument by Roy Licklider and Mia Bloom, page 158, it says: "Previously a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia and enjoying equal constitutional status alongside the Croats, the Serbs were now relegated to the category of other nations and minorities." At this page is further explained about the changes in the Constitution.
• Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict by Melanie Greenberg, John H. Barton and Margaret E. McGuinness, at page 83, says: "The new Croatian constitution ... renounced the hitherto protected status of ethnic Serbs as a separate constituent nation embedded in the old constitution and defined Croatia as the sovereign state of Croatian nation."

There are many more, these were just the first ones that appeared in my search. So, can I ask you Joy what is exactly that you pretend? Cause from what I see, we should also change the wording at other related articles so they would reflect what the majority of RS say. FkpCascais (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by I'm done here is that it's clear to me that I have no additional arguments that will elucidate the issue any further. It is a political distinction that was a mark of the time, and has no significance today other being a comparably trivial factoid, and perhaps being used in promoting a political talking point (contrary to WP:ARBMAC). We have an RFC about a single ancient hot-button political issue that refers to Serbs in SR Croatia, while at the same time the article has an entirely empty section about the Serbs in SR Croatia. Any further pontification on this issue, such as what you did above, is WP:NOTHERE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My only concern was that the fact that plenty of sources saying Serbs were constitutional was not forgotten and also to point out regarding GregorB and Markewilliams agreement on including both sides of the dispute in the article that we are lacking sources saying the opposite. The source you brought doesn't contradict either the group of sources I presented, it simply confirms that Serbs perceived the events that way. Don't take me wrong, but without my attention, it seems that you and Gregor were supporting a change in the article that would exclude the Serbian loss of constituent nation rights as a fact and leave it just as if it was an exclusively Serbian perception of events, which is a substantial difference. Regarding your opinion about its significance today, that is entirely irrelevant, all that matters here is that we correctly add in the article what the majority of RS say. I am not seeing any relevance if the issue is a political hot-bottom, if other users use it for promoting whatever, this is just about sources. I also really hope that your mentioning on how my continuation of discussion on this issue would mean breaking some Wikipedia rule in your view was not serious since we still have some aspects that need to be worked out, like choosing the best sources among the ones brought here for using in the article, and also, this discussion can be used for making the same edit at the Croatian War of Independence article. Yours and everyones help is always appreciated. Thank you Joy. FkpCascais (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about rights "with real-life relevance" with a reason, and the above-quoted sources illustrate this reason well: as far as real-life relevance goes, they collectively draw a blank. This is precisely why the matter seems to be chiefly about the perception. Of course I'm not disputing the change in the constitution, and I feel it should be mentioned, but I see no fault with the wording suggested by Joy. GregorB (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gregor. I don't know how relevant or not that can be for every-day life in Croatia cause constitutional articles and laws are generally relevant depending on what people do with them and how they use them. There are many laws, for instance, which are written but ignored in every-day life by citizens and the authorities, while there are also laws which are applied rigorously. The relativity is even more visible in this kind of constitutional articles which may have different levels of interpretations. We can really only speculate how much real-life impact the inclusion or omission of Serbs as constitutive nation in Croatia would have. I can guess that, for instance, if Serbs were left as constitutive nation they would have probably have much less difficulties implementing the use of their language, or that the inclusion by itself could serve for Croatian citizens to have bigger awareness about the role played by Serbs in Croatia... not wanting to contradict you totally cause I think both of us are here in land of speculation, but the difference and impact in every-day life could even be significant in the social, cultural and other spheres. So, it may seem safe to add the fact in the article just the way most RS mention it. FkpCascais (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Impact on real life was also discussed in the previous section,GregorB. FkpCascais spoke of the possible impact, but the impact Serbian claim that they lost their constitution was not present at that time. If you see the sources, you'll see that this question was not raised on official or legal level. It was only used as a part of that day's propaganda. As said earlier, Badinter's commission was formed to deal with the legal questions, especially the constitutive issues like this. This issue was not raised in front of Badinter's commission or any other relevant international institution, nor the constitutional court of Yugoslavia. The source from second group speaks of that in great detail while the sources from the first group do not even reference the primary source, although there's a bunch of them. I personally agree with Joy's suggestion. I would just add the following to the sentence: " On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution, which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution. Although this issue was highly represented in media, it was never raised in front of Badniter's commission or any other relevant body." 89.164.241.4 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the references in the article that existed at the time I posted were by and large of lesser quality than what I mentioned. Some of the new ones you cited are contradicted by others as far as I recall, so we would need third ones that discuss this controversy in order to be actually useful to readers, as opposed to teaching the controversy. Ultimately I remain under the impression that the context Pešić's work puts this in is what is most useful to readers - it doesn't simply engage in legalistic terms but cuts through to what was actually important. You mention a Licklider & Bloom book that discusses further than your Google Books search term - I suppose you should examine that one for more actual insight. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I need to say that I absolutely oppose the removal of "Serbs lost the constituent nation status" which is widely sourced, and I am not sure if I missed something but is there any source contradicting that? Also, I beleave that it is clear to everyone that saying that Serbs perceived it that way implies that Serbs were the only ones perceiving it that way and leaves space for doubt if the fact happened or not. FkpCascais (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is called the Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia which says nothing about Serbs being "constitutional" or anything similar...same with the constitution of Yugolavia, it only states that SR Croatia was a "national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people and all other nations and nationalities". As for your sources...first, your "sources" are nothing but dogmatic propaganda and beliefs of the authors themselves...which btw is ok but should be emphasized as such...and second, these sources fail to list any primary source they are calling upon, while at the same time we have unspoiled direct black on white constitution paragraphs which are as clear as the sky. Now for example if you had any reason you would recognize this fact and work to rectify the ridiculous and ludicrous paragraph in the article which goes against itself and against the primary source. People like you make me sick and avert me from ever participating on Wikipedia. Shokatz (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Unusual for you to ask if there are any sources opposing that, when you are perfectly aware of the source which you called to be biased because it is Croatian and added that "Croatian authors doing their best to deny that Serbs were constitutional nation in Croatia prior to 1990". Let's not play dumb and let's not suggest that there are no sources opposing your sources. Joy [shallot] had given a reasonable solution to this RfC. The solution is to accept the consensus reached on Croatian War of Independence article which was established by a great number of editors. If this discussion yields a different consensus then we again have a problem. We can't have 2 articles say completely opposite things. Then a RfC is needed again on Croatian War of Independence article and then we need to include all the editors that participated there to establish a single conclusion to a single question. In fact that would be a good idea to do anyways. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Shokatz, this is the last time I will close my eyes to your PAs. If you being confronted with reliable sources saying what you don't want them to say makes you sick, then the problem of your sickness is entirely yours, so I believe everyone here would prefer if you keep your health problems to yourself. Regarding the constitution, it actually confirms that the mention of Serbs was removed. What exactly that removal means is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide, but scholars. Seems that the vast majority of sources agree that Serbs lost their constituent nation status. If you want to challenge this, you should stop repeating your own interpretation of primary sources and find what secondary sources say regarding the matter. If you cant find any substantial amount of secondary sources backing your interpretation of the constitution, then please stop disrupting the discussion. The war in Yugoslavia is a widely covered subject in English-language publications, and something allegedly so obvious, as you claim it is, not being found in even one single English-language source clearly indicates you are wrong. So please, bring secondary sources, not your opinions. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, by seing editors supporting the denial of Serbian loss of constituent nation status supporting Joys proposal just confirms that the proposal goes in the direction of that denial and thus, in present situation, the proposal becomes unacceptable. The proposal clearly indicates to readers that the Serbian loss of status was an exclusive perception of Serbs while the reality may be another. When in fact, by observing all sources, the reality seems to be exactly the opposite, in the sea of sources, only one Croatian author challenges that. FkpCascais (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what you will do or not. I lost my patience for all this some time ago...personally I don't even know why I am here since it's pointless to discuss anything with you nor do I have time or will to bring this to relevant bodies of Wiki managment. The only reason why I haven't reported you yet for continuous personal attacks is that I just cannot be bothered with this crap anymore. As for your "reliable sources", they fail to satisfy two major points of being an actual RS, which are: 1. They fail to mention the primary source they are calling upon, thus making blanket statements out of their ass and 2. they fail to explain what this term even means...what exactly is this "constitutional nation" when the Constitution itself doesn't mention it at all? Also your claim that the Serbs were somehow "removed" from the 1990 Constitution is just a blatant lie and fallacious claim as I have already proven by posting a direct quote from the Croatian Constitution. Not only are the Serbs indeed mentioned, there was a whole amendment regarding the Serbs in Croatia and their position within the state. You are nothing but a POV-pusher who degrades the quality of this article, but you don't care since you think Wikipedia is actually some sort of "battleground" where you can enforce your own agenda in an attempt to justify the illegal actions of the Serbian leadership in Croatia during the 1990s...of which btw. most were convicted of war criminals. It is because of you that projects like WP:ARBMAC were formed and users from the Balkan region are looked upon as pariahs here. Shokatz (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't care? You are reported. FkpCascais (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

My pants are shaking. You are aware that every personal attack you made against me is still on this page? Good luck. Shokatz (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You are the only one that goes against the consensus established on Croatian War of Independence article which is edited by much greater number than this article. Ok, let's say you manage to push your edit to this article. What then? Will we change the same sentence in the Croatian War of Independence article? Of course the proposal goes in the direction of denial. As said earlier, this wasn't a real issue but a part of propaganda. Thus I think we have to mention that this. If this was a real issue back then, then the issue would be brought in front of Badinter's commission which was established to deal exactly with that kind of legal issued during breakup of Yugoslavia. Serbs were no more "constitutional" nation in Croatia than Croats were in Serbia or any other Yugoslav nation in any other Yugoslav republic. All Yugoslav nations constituted Yugoslavia and all Yugoslav nations were constituent in every Yugoslav republic. The source carefully explained that, but you seem to neglect it although the source directly references the constitution whilst none of your sources reference the primary source. We can battle with Wikipedia rules, but it's obvious what's the reasonable thing to do. Follow up the already established consensus on this question. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

When substantial new evidence is provided as in this case, consensus can always be re-examined and changed. Also, can you please indicate me the place where this consensus was archived? Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Joy had spoke of it. Could you define substantial? Up to now you posted a great number of sources which speak of "constitutive nation" whilst none of those sources defined the term. How can we have a substantial new evidence if we do not even know about what they are speaking of? New evidence to what? Do you realize that you are trying to push an edit containing and you don't even have a definition of that term? Constitutive can be a great number of things. Please define the term, because it is obvious that no one of us here know what have we all been discussing. The only source which provides a definition goes against your position? So the question is , why are you trying to push a term to which you provided no definition. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your challenging of a strongly sourced statement with wikilawyering is doubtfully going to take you anywhere. Till you provide sources I am not continuing any further discussion with you. I appreciate if you respect that. Best regards. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I just thought you had a definition of the term you are trying to introduce, but it's hard to introduce something without a definition.141.136.211.26 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The statement is so clear and so well sourced that any further asking of definition is just wikiloyering and disruption. What you are doing is like someone opposing a strongly sourced Bob Dylan birthdate of May, 24, 1941, with a question of "Wait! But, what is life? You cant add that till you don't define me life." ... Please stop talking and find some sources, will you? FkpCascais (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really. This is far more complex question and none of your sources gives an explanation to the term. How are we going to state something in the article when we don't know the definition of the term? The term that is not mentioned in the primary source. The term not explained by none of your sources. The only source that explains this term is the source that opposes your view. Ok, if you think you don't need to define a term you are trying to introduce, them be it. We shall see how much such request has. As I said, it's interesting that the definition is given by the source that opposes your sources. Now to explain the complexity: Serbs were constitutive nation of Croatia as one of constitutive nations of Yugoslavia. Every nation of Yugoslavia were constitutive in every Yugoslav republic. For instance Croatians could not be a "minority" in their own state of Yugoslavia, not in any republic. So Croatians were constitutive nation of Serbia as much as Serbs were a constitutive nation of Croatia. However if the term speaks about the constitutive nations of Croatia then Serbs are not constitutive nation of Croatia. They are in the sense on the Yugoslavia, but not Croatia. I hope you see how complex that is. Once Croatia declared independence all Yugoslav nations became a "minority" from a "nation". The change in the definition was needed because Croatia was no longed a Yugoslav republic. In fact, the first Croatian constitution from 1990. did not even used the term minority solely, but it used the definition of "other nations and minorities". To repeat, it is natural that the Yugoslav terms of "nation and nationality" had changed once republics became independent, however no change in anyone's status had occurred. I hope you can see how complex that is, and your sources do not give any definition to the term "constitutional nation". How can we introduce it in the article if we do not even know what are we introducing? That is why I agreed that the sentence from Croatian war of Independence is used as suggested by other editors. It does not use the undefined term but it says that Serbs perceived that they lost some rights. The source for that edit had been provided. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There's only one source that gives the definition of the term and it opposes you opinion. So what now? How can we introduce something without a definition? I think there's not much value in sources which state something had been revoked, without defining what that is. Ok, we will stop here, I asked for a definition of the term you are trying to introduce and you feel it is not necessary that the sources define the term nor that they reference that term to the primary source. I'm interested to see how that plays off. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• SUPPORT change to the same sentence present in the Croatian War of Independence that Joy [shallot] had purposed. That is more a important article with a lot more editors who had extensively debated this issue there. The consensus from that article should extend to this one. However, if not, then the consensus reached here should extend there. We can't have 2 articles say opposite things and surly we can't have this article state 2 contradict statements in consecutive sentences. I gave my support because the issue had reached a consensus among a lot of editors who edited Croatian War of Independence article, and this article had not even reached a consensus. In the least case, just fix it so it says one thing, and not 2 contradict statements. 89.164.237.182 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What consensus? Please point out the discussion of that alleged consensus. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Look at Joy [shallot]'s edit from 15th September. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not a consensus. So please stop referring to your desired edit as consensus when that is not the case. If you want to challenge the statement that Serbs lost the constituent nation status they had in SR Croatia, please provide reliable secondary sources. FkpCascais (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Joy can say more about it. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• UGGH... I quite agree with GregorB's initial comment: is anyone at all capable of summarizing this issue in a couple sentences? If you want input from more than suspicious IPs.. I'd ask you to please lay it out in brief. -- Director (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree, summarize could work quite well. Serbian side perceived it one way, while Croatian side perceived it the other way. It should be also mentioned that, although the question was often present in that time's it was never brought in front of any relevant body, most notable the Badinter's commission. That way the readers will know it was never a real issue, but only a part of that time's propaganda, as the source presented in the previous section states. The Croatian War of Independence article already summerized it. Here it is: "On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution, which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution". I would just add the following statement: "Although highly emphasised by Serbian media at that time, the question of Serbian constitutive status was not brought in front of Badinter's commission, nor any other relevant body.". This way we know the impact those claims had, and the impact on the present day. There is no impact to the present state, and the this is just another on long forgotten propaganda claims of the 90'. Even then it did not have any impact, since it was emphasised only in media.141.136.211.26 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that you all don't see that this user is the same sock-puppet. -.- --Tuvixer (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That is crystal clear. Indef-blocked user evading block. FkpCascais (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here User_talk:Shokatz#Hello the IP admitted he is Asdisis. FkpCascais (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Refarding the issue, this has nothing to do with Serbia vs Croatia, but with well sourced statement being opposed by wikiloyering and nothing else. FkpCascais (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

1. The paragraph within the article is contentious, one-sided and above all goes against itself...in first sentence it states one thing and in the next two goes directly against the first sentence. 2. The supposed RS's (which are plenty) posted here supporting the supposed "constitutional status" of Serbs in SR Croatia is nowhere to be found in the actual primary source which is the Constitution of SR Croatia. 3. We don't have a definition of what this "constitutional nation" even means since, again, it was not mentioned or defined by the Constitution itself. These are the main issues here I was trying to raise here which users like Tuvixer and FkpCascais outright blatantly refuse to address. I urge you to go read the paragraph and tell me honesty that it satisfies the quality standards we are trying to achieve here. It's ridiculous. Shokatz (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Shokatz Are you a lawyer? Are you a professor of law, or maybe a judge? Please, you have no idea how to read a constitution, and you are here presenting as a source your understanding of the constitution, which is by all means false. That statement is backed up with a lot of sources presented here. You are basically saying "ignore the sources, I know, I am the best, those sources are invalid just because I say so!" That is not how Wikipedia or any normal discussion works. ;) You have no authority in this, when you present viable secondary sources then the discussion can continue, this now is ludicrous. You don't know how to read a document of law, or even worse, you are trying to push for a change by trolling this talk page. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No one needs to be a lawyer to see that the first group of sources does not reference the primary source in any way, nor that it defined the term "constitutional nation". That can all be seen from the secondary sources. I don't think Shokatz is interpreting the primary source, since he had presented secondary source and all he said comes from that source. He is not interpreting the primary source, but he is repeating the interpretations of the primary source given by the secondary source he presented. It is listed in the top of this RfC. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that there is nothing about "constitutional nations" in the Consitution. Stop repeating the same crap over and over again. It makes you look stupid. And please you are the last person to lecture me how Wikipedia works. Get a grip on reality. Shokatz (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say otherwise. Bring sources or shut up. Stop disrupting the discussion and being offensive and uncivil towards other editors. It is obvious that this aggressive behavior of yours is due to the fact that you have no arguments or sources but all you can do is this that you are doing. I really hope admins will pay attention and block you or at least topic ban you, because your attitude is not appropriate at all. FkpCascais (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources cite a primary source. Bring me a reliable source and I will shut up. I was the one who started this discussion in first place and it is you and Tuvixer who are disrupting it...need I remind you that you both outright dismissed everything I posted including the direct paragraphs from a primary source. And yes I may seem annoyed indeed...what should I be when I am stuck in a loop with brain-dead individual like yourself. Shokatz (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations are a perfect mirror of yourself. If you are unable to participate in this project without being uncivil and without expressing all your frustration and, as you called it yourself, your "sickness", this encyclopedic project isn't for you. There are numerous other projects on the internet, I hope you will find some in which you will feel comfortable. This project, Wikpedia, is not about personal beliefs and opinions, but about gathering reliable sources in order to apply Wikipedia:Verifiability and adding in the articles what the reliable sources say. You are so lost by now that you don't even understand that you are angry with me, but I am nobody just a wp editor, you should be mad with the authors that wrote things that go contrary to your imagination. I just gathered what neutral reliable sources say, so you have no right whatsoever to attack me. You surely don't expect me to ignore all those sources just because of your personal attacks and forum-like chat, don't you? Please reflect about this and change your attitude. FkpCascais (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Update, IP blocked. Here is the report. FkpCascais (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If I recall from my own research into this some years back, the pre-1990 Croatian constitution mentioned Serbs. Then, in 1990, the HDZ government drafted a new constitution that did not mention Serbs. Even though said mention did not grant any kind of special status prior to 1990, and the category of "constituent nation" was/is a legally non-existent one, this was seen by Croatian Serbs as a degradation in their status, from "constituent nation" to "national minority"... even though no change in legal status actually occurred. Though it was definitely a slight and seemed to confirm fears that the Serbs would be marginalized as second-class citizens (though many of the more stupid Krajina peasants might have actually thought they'd be slaughtered or whatnot).

As I see it, this entire issue revolves around the term "constituent nation" and its actual definition. One ("Croatian") side sees the term as indicating a formal, legal category, and emphasizes the fact that its no such thing - whereas the other ("Serbian side") sees the term as simply referring to a nation mentioned in the constitution. Sources should be brought forward, not on whether the Serbs were a "constituent nation" pre-1990, but what the term actually means in this context. And we must be clear on what the sources that use the term actually mean by it.

And as an aside, lets be sure not to pretend for one second that the Milosevich regime in Begrade wasn't hostile to the HDZ regime in Croatia, and did not do its best to capitalize on Tudjman's stupid, probably-meaningless change in terms of inflaming unrest and starting the damn rebellion. -- Director (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Serbs were mentioned in the 1990 constitution, the only change that actually occurred were the terms "narod" and "narodnost" (nation and nationality?) into "national minority". For example the 1974 Constitution stated "SR Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and all other nations and nationalities", the 1990s constitution said: "Republic of Croatia is constituted as a national state of Croats and national minorities: Serbs, Hungarians, Czechs, Italians, ..." etc. Currently the only source which actually discusses the issue of the "constitutional nation" is the one by Bonacci-Skenderovic and Jareb which the user FkpCascais proclaimed to be a "right-wing nationalist"....for whatever reason known only to him. My opinion (which may or may not be relevant) is that the "controversy" occurred due to the fact Serbs were a "constitutional nation" within Yugoslavia and as such had the same status all over the former state (as did all other "constitutional nations in other republics), however by the constitution of Croatia the only "constitutional nation" would be Croats and since Croatia went independent they would be "degraded" in that sense. This is a complicated issue that needs reasonable discussion and consensus on how to proceed, something the above mentioned user has shown he is not capable of. Shokatz (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this ought to be pretty simple: the only issue I can see is whether Serbs had any special legal status granted by the 1974 SR Croatia constitution (specifically, not the federal constitution). If not, regardless of what exactly is meant by the term, I think its obvious it would be misleading to unequivocally refer to any revocation of "constituent nation" status. A source simply talking about "constituent nations", should not be used as evidence to the above effect, as it may well only refer to the (virtually meaniingless) change in phrasing - interpreted by Serbs as a loss of "constituent nation status". I stress: unequivocally. It is justified to represent the Serbian view. -- Director (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources I provided are enough than clear. If anyone wants to go deeper into the exact meaning and consequences of it, he is welcome to find secondary sources regarding the issue. Now, regarding the statement that Serbs lost the constituent nation status, that is already well sourced. FkpCascais (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No. They are not... You need to define the "constituent nation status". What does that mean? Is it an actual legal status? Or does the phrase merely refer to prominent mention in the constitution? Because if its the latter, to use the formulation without qualification is misleading - as it implies the former.

So what was the legal status of Serbs in Croatia under the 1974 constitution as opposed to the 1990 constitution? What rights/privileges did they (or I should say you) enjoy under "constituent nation status" that they lost 1990? Source that. Because if the answers are "exactly the same" and "none" respectively - we can not imply otherwise by using such "TV Belgrade" terminology without qualification.. -- Director (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the sources I brought. Don't just look at them, but actually go to the page and read them. The statement is more than well sourced. Please stop wikiloyering. If you want to expand or contradict the statement, please provide secondary sources. FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't wikilawyering. I did read the sources. I'll ask you again: what does it mean to lose "constituent nation status"? What rights or privileges does it grant? -- Director (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not up to us editors to decide. We are here to add in the article what the majority of reliable sources say, and the absolute total of reliable sources is backing the statement. Do you have any, preferably English-language, sources contradicting the statement? FkpCascais (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that you are discussing in good faith when several editors asked you to define the term you are trying to introduce and you refuse, and continue pushing it in the article. Your sources nor define the term, nor reference the primary source, and there is a source that does both of those things, so it is unclear why are you suggesting there are none sources opposing it. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

When providing over 10 sources clearly saying A is B the case is clear. I will add more sources:

• Croatia by Piers Letcher, page 20, it says: "The HDZ also put Crotias 600,000 Serbs on the defensive by changing their status from "constituent nation" in Croatia, to "national minority" and many Serbs in government lost their jobs." I will continue bringing more, one by one. FkpCascais (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fkp. If there is no change in legal status, it is misleading to state, without explanation, that Serbs "lost the status of a constituent nation". Serbs weren't fired because of any requirement in the 1990 constitution (and your source doesn't say that), they were fired because the HDZ government was an (ultra)nationalist government. -- Director (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Direktor, please, all these sources are clear (I am bringing more). You are a smart veteran editor, you know what the situation here is. You will certainly not get the statement excluded by just saying that the change was irrelevant iin your view. Meanwile, another source:

• Living Together After Ethnic Killing: Exploring the Chaim Kaufman Argument by Roy Licklider and Mia Bloom, page 158, says: "Indeed, the Draft Constitution referred to the Croatian nation (Hrvatski narod) but it n longer referred to Serbs in the same respect. Previously, a constituent nation in the Republic of Croatia, ..." FkpCascais (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This source is speaking about the change in the phrasing and not the change in any rights. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

They are "clear", they just don't justify what you want. Fkp, budimo realni, as the Purgers say. You can't imply there was a change in legal status if there was no change in legal status. Nobody will contest there was massive-scale discrimination against Serbs at that time, but to pretend that this is because of some requirement in the constitution is ludicrous. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, such actions (discrimination on an ethnic basis) were unconstitutional according to the 1990 constitution.. or any modern constitution.

Its fine imo if you want to use that phrasing, as it is used by sources, but unless you can show that the constitution actually changed the legal status of Serbs, legally i.e. constitutionally, then we must make it clear there was no real change in the status of Serbs (i.e. that they constitutionally enjoyed no more or less rights/privileges than under the 1974 constitution). -- Director (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This was never a legal question. The phrasing had changes in the new constitution but no change in anyone's status had happened. Of course, Serb leaders used that change in the phrasing to further extend their rebellion. If it was a legal question then it would be put before the Badinter's commission, but it never left the media and the propaganda circles controlled by Serbia. I think you asked a great question. What are the concrete rights the Serbs lost that the previous constitution guaranteed them. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop re-posting this, please... -- Director (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Asdisis, get a life. @Direktor, do you see me "wanting" anything else but what the vast majority of sources says regarding this issue? Yes, or no? FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop calling me Asdissis, you are obviously obsessed. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. You wish to be misleading by omission. You want to imply there was some kind of constitutional change in the legal rights/privileges of Croatian Serbs, when you have not shown anything of the sort. -- Director (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That's right. We can include a sentence that works just fine in the Croatian War of Independence article that the Serbs perceived that they lost some rights by the new constitution, but he is trying to push a very undefined term that suggests that Serbs lost some rights. The term itself is undefined by any of his sources, while he refuses even to admit that there are sources that oppose his opinion. Not only the term is undefined, but it suggests that Serbs lost some rights that they had before, without naming a single right they lost. He was asked to define the term by several editors, but he refuses. He was asked by you and me to name the rights that the Serbs lost, so we can include that to the article, and not some undefined term, but he refuses to discuss in good faith. He is deleting my comment, calling me a sock. He had reported another user that doesn't agree with him. I don't think he will report you since you are obviously more experienced than him, but I think it is obvious he is not discussing in good faith.54.157.243.172 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording at that article with be changed in order to reflect what the majority of reliable sources say. You were blocked, please go to your talk-page and deal with your block. You will be ignored till you do that. Have a nice day. FkpCascais (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Mediterranean Europe by Duncan Garwood, page 119, says: "On 22 December 1990 a new Croatian constitution was promulgated, changing the status of Serbs in Croatia from that of a constituent nation to a national minority." FkpCascais (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have 14 (and bringing more) sources backing it. Are you saying all those sources are wrong? Based on what? FkpCascais (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This source goes into the constitutional changes in detail: Historical Dictionary of Croatia by Robert Stallaerts, page 53, regarding the 1971 constitutional amendments says: "It stated that Croatia was the state of Croats and Serbs." Please see the entire page. Its 15 sources, some very strong ones, supporting the statement. By now, saying these sources are all wrong without presenting any sources o back it up is pure disruption. FkpCascais (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The constitution says that "Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of Croatian people, state of Serbian people in Croatia and state of all other nationalities [national minorities in essence] who live within it". That is in no way speaking of "constitutional status". Read the source which gives an extensive explanation on this matter. You are completely ignoring the sources that go against you. This source obviously gives a wrong impression. It neglects to say that SR Croatia is a national state of the Croatian people and it neglects to say that it is a state of all other nationalities. That is a very important info. It is suggest this sentence is speaking of the "constitutive status" and that is not possible if you don't omit "other nationalities". The new constitution said that Croatia is a "national state of Croatian people and a state of members of other nations and minorities, which are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks". The only difference between this two definitions (which do not speak of any constitutive status) is that Serbs were not mentioned explicitly but them were listed with other minorities. Just to note that Serbs were mentioned explicitly in the SR Croatia's constitution because of their extensive participation in antifascist struggle. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If we take the usual definition of the constitutive nation, that would be the nation that constituted a state. Both Yugoslav and SR Croatia's constitution define who constituted it. Yugoslav constitution defines that Yugoslavia was constituted by all Yugoslav nations, while SR Croatia's constitution defines solely the Croatian people as a constituent nation. 54.157.243.172 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And here we go again, you should be topic banned for WP:UNDUE and obvious one-sided POV-pushing. You just inserted a paragraph completely omitting the 1974 final version of the constitution which clearly stated that "SR Croatia was national state of Croatian people" and then and only then a state of Serbs in Croatia and all other nations and nationalities. You should be topic banned...seriously. Shokatz (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What other side? There is no UNDUE or other side, all sources point out the fact I added. There are no sides here from what I see. If there are, can you please bring here the sources? Sources we can verify please. Report me if you really think so. FkpCascais (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This really is indeed the point, Fkp.. Serbs were mentioned in a significantly less prominent position in the constitution, and they were now called a "national minority" as they were not before. This is true, and very noteworthy, and since many sources do, imo you can even call it a loss of "constituent nation status" if you like. But you can not imply there was any change in their legal status, or any loss in rights and privileges as compared to 1974. There wasn't, not in the constitution at least. If you use that wording, we have to make that clear. -- Director (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with the wording; it is not me calling it loss of constitutional status, but it is the authors of the sources I brought doing it, and, unless proven on contrary, it is the view shared by the vast majority of sources regarding the issue. If you want to add anything else, it needs to be well sourced and cant enter in contradiction with what the majority of sources say. FkpCascais (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Director. I fully agree that the Serbs had not lost any rights nor any status they had. FkpCascais had not presented a single source that defines the so called "constitutional status" nor any source that speaks of any rights the Serbs lost with the new constitution. There is a source that does all that, but he even denies its existence so he repeats that there are none sources that oppose his view. However, Director you said something wrong. Serbs were not called a national minority in the new constitution. The secondary source listed above speaks of that, but here's again the sentence from the new constitution: "Croatia is a national state of Croatian people and a state of members of other nations and minorities, which are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks". As the secondary source explains the difference is only that now we have explicitly listed other nations and minorities, wile the old constitution just said "other nationalities". The source gives an extensive explanation of that.89.164.106.38 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fkp. The issue is not whether Serbs "lost constituent nation status". The issue is that the formulation misleadingly implies a loss of legal rights and privileges - which did not occur and which you have not sourced. You can be deliberately obtuse all you like, but unless you source it, the text won't imply it. That is, you can write "lost cn status" if you like, but it must be followed with an explicit clarification of what that phrase means (or rather, what it doesn't mean). -- Director (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Direktor, I added near verbatim what sources say. Whatever you are saying that I am implying in my edit, it is not me implying it, but the sources, and if they do it, they certainly have a reason to. Do you have any sources saying what you claim, which is that Serbs didn't lost any status or privileges with the constitutional changes? If you don't, then thee wording expressed in the majority of sources which I carefuly added in the article, is correct. FkpCascais (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are you editing article without a consensus and with this RfC opened???141.138.21.230 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Director,I agree. I know my word doesn't mean much since I'm an ip but I think the valid arguments always count, even if they come from an ip. I personally think it is unreasonable to introduce the term that is undefined and that implies that Serbs lost some rights, without even naming a single right they lost, when there is a source that gives an extensive overview on the whole question. I also don't know why FkpCascais is insinuating there are no sources that say the opposite. In my opinion, the best source is the one which both defines the term constitutional nation, and references the primary source, while his sources simply state the fact without any kind of explanation or definition of the term or any kind of reference to the primary source. As I said this is very interesting issue from the Wiki-policy point of view. I'm not to familiar with Wiki policy , but I'm thinking with my own head objectively. Maybe everyone's wrong except FkpCascais, but I think that we all at least discuss in good faith. 141.138.21.230 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fkp. No, I can't prove a negative, nor do I have to. I already explained that this issue revolves over what "losing constituent nation status" actually means. And if you can't show it means anything more than a change in wording (i.e. Serbs being called a "national minority"), then your entry must be followed by that being explained.

I know what you're doing. You have quotes that, when quoted directly, imply something other than what they actually say. Namely that Serbs were in some way constitutionally disenfranchised - when they were not. So all you'll do here on out is just be deliberately obtuse, and repeat "I'm following sources", "this is sourced", etc. perhaps spamming citations in the text and edit-warring like a maniac, talking about how "its sourced" etc, etc. You know full well you're avoiding the issue, which is not WHETHER the Serbs "lost constituent nation status" as such - but WHAT THAT MEANS. So do me a favor, and focus on what's actually being discussed. And no, you can't just enter the phrase without explaining it, since its misleading in and of itself. -- Director (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Direktor, are you challenging the fact that Serbs lost their constitutional nation status in 1990, a fact which is agreed by all 15 sources I provided, yes or no? If you are, you are doing it based on what? FkpCascais (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Define "constitutional status" any maybe that could be answered. Or at least define the concrete rights drawn from that status that the Serbs lost. 141.138.36.84 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. I disagree with entering that phrase into the article without explaining what it actually means. So far it seems that all it means is that Serbs were referred to as a "national minority" - and absolutely nothing else. That needs to be made clear.

Lets be frank. I know you deliberately want to keep things vague.. but no dice. If its implied Serbs were constitutionally disenfranchised in some way - it makes the rebellion of your guys seem more justified. And that misleading implication is transparently your goal. -- Director (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I even added the word "controversial" in the sentence, despite being referred in only one source (Licklider & Bloom), and the status of constitutional nation is explained even with exemples by Trifunovska. Direktor, I don't care what you think, I am here being opposed by a group of Croatian editors in what seems to be a deliberate defense of the Croatian POV and having no consideration whatsoever to the fact that this is an Encyclopedia with rules. Please revert yourself, I provided 15 sources clearly backing up a clear statement with zero sources opposing it. If you don't know what constituent nation status means, and what it means the change of status, that is your problem, not Wikipedias. FkpCascais (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Must be explained what loss of cn status is. Discrimination in the period is not an "example" of anything, nor was it caused or mandated by the constitution (the idea is laughable) - and the sources naturally don't say any of that. Not gonna imply Serbs were constitutionally disenfranchised.

I think its particularly obvious at this point Fkp is not here to improve an article, but to push a nationalist political POV. If he were out to expand the place - why would he object to/ignore calls for explaining what the phrase actually means in this context? If not because it ruins his goal of misleading the reader into thinking there was actual constitutional disenfranchisement of some sort (hence justifying the Serb revolt)?

Its not going to fly, Fkp. Might as well switch to a POV-pusher's next recourse - edit war. And NO. You do not have any sources that support what you're trying to push into this article: namely that ethnic Serbs suffered any loss whatsoever of rights or privileges under Croatian law. -- Director (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont care what you or I think of eachother or about the subject, I care about sourced content. I see you preparing your propagandistic speach for ANI, its up to you. You are removing a perfectly sourced statement without any single source opposing it (there are none, I researched) and just because you don't like it. I really hope you are smart enough not to go with the path indef-blcked users went. If you want to challenge a 15 sources backed statement, you should not edit-war and revert sourced material, but search for sources which would back your claim. Even in comments here you made claims that when I asked you for, you couldn't provide a source to back it up. Don't doubt I will do my best for Wikipedia principles and guidelines to be respected. I am going to add what it means from the sources I told you (since you seem not to have read them, cause its there), and if you remove it, as it will be perfectly sourced against no sources whatsoever opposing it since you are unable to present them, it will be a clear case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. FkpCascais (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I also care about sourced content. And you have ZERO sources for what your text implies - namely that Serbs suffered any loss of privileges or rights under law. Your addition is, very typically, overrun by citations - but is actually unsourced in its main thrust. You don't have support in sources for that implication.

I answered your "yes or no" trap questions, so please answer mine: do you oppose explaining what loss of constituent status actually means? If so, why? -- Director (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I told you already that I am going to add those explanations which are mentioned in the sources. I hope once I add them that you will be satisfied. FkpCascais (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

By "explanation" I mean explanation, an elaboration on what that actually means, legally. Not random events unrelated to the constitution. Discrimination against Serbs was not caused or mandated by the constitution in any way, and none of your sources say that. (It was of course caused by Milosevich's subversion of Tito's 1974 federal constitution, and his takeover by coup of half the votes in the Yugoslav collective Presidency in the previous year; or in other words: an attempt by Serbia to take over the country on a wave of Serbian nationalist fervor.)

P.s. In spite of what you apparently think, I'm actually trying my best to be as fair and objective as possible. I think you may know I have no great sympathies either way. You can't do what you want to do, though: you can't imply a meaningless provocation in wording actually meant something in terms of legal rights of the Serbian population. That's objectively not fair. -- Director (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I would really appreaciate if you provided less opinion and more sourced sources. I honesty don't know what you want neither why you objected a 15-sources backed statement. You wanted more explanation, a simplified version wasn't enough, that is OK, here it is: expanded version. Every word is sourced and anyone can check all sources because I provided links for easy verifiability. Also, I will like to point out that I was careful to bring only English-language sources, none Serbian, so you cant cry "Oh Serbo-propaganda TV Belgrade blabla". All sources deal with the constitutive aspect. Is it OK now? If you object, please do it with reliable sources to back up your objections. FkpCascais (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "talk" you wish to dismiss is that pointing out that you have no sources. Not really, not for what you want.. You can babble on repetitively 'til kingdom come, and ignore talkpage arguments and questions - it won't get you anywhere. Take this wherever you like, bringing down your position couldn't be more trivial: deliberately-misleading attempt to imply non-existent constitutional disenfranchisement of the Serbian minority - through out-of-context quotation and without any support whatsoever. Bye. -- Director (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I read your posts here and all you provided is your personal opinion. While all I did was adding what sources say. Major difference. FkpCascais (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I said is a statement of opinion. My point is insistence on clarification. You quoted sources literally - hoping nobody would go into what the terms they use actually mean, and when its put forward that the point be clarified, you start being evasive. You of course know full well there was no change whatsoever in the legal standing of Serbs, you have no sources to show otherwise, and are in essence refusing to clarify that point for fear of undermining your "Serbs victims" narrative... Being deliberately obtuse to that end.

Its a very old show you're putting on, and its not doing much for the audience. Like I said, its trivial to point out what you're doing and why you're not supported. -- Director (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If 15 authors (and there are more) are saying clearly that Serbs lost their constitutive nation status in 1990, and you cant provide a single one saying they didn't, can you please explain why should we believe you and not them? You are still insisting there was no change despite 15 of them saying there was. It is not me saying anything, it is the sources. You are challenging the sources without any backing, just with forum-like chat.

Now, angry because this doesn't fit the denialism that seems some circles in Croatia have been promoting, you start saying it is Serbian propaganda, Belgrade TV, etc. despite ignoring that none of this sources is Serbian and that this is the predominant point of view regarding the events in English-language sources. You accuse me of making "Serbs victims narrative" just because I gathered neutral sources and prefer to use them than believing in your baseless objections? You claim you are Croatian but not a nationalist, but if you want people to believe you can mantain neutrality in Serbian-Croatian disputes you will have to do muuuch better than this. Needless to say who is victimizing here.

Everyone can see what the sources say and what am I doing. You talk about support, I don't need no ones support when I have the overwhelming majority on my side and I am adding exactly what they say, neither was I expecting any support since I was the only Serbian editor here while all other are Croatian. By the way, besides the indef-blocked IP, whose support do you have? Also, I will like to point out that there was some shamefull uncivil behavior on behalve of some users here, and opposing a 15 reliable sources backed statement with just talking, personal attacks and orginal research, should not be allowed and should be sanctioned immediately. FkpCascais (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you oppose explaining what the "loss of constituent nation status" actually means? Are you prepared to clarify that it refers to a change in wording (who "Croatia is a state of.."), and that there was no loss of political rights or privileges as compared to the 1974 constitution? (Snezana Trifunovska is obviously Macedonian and very much local.. a Communist functionary in the SR Macedonian government, and a graduate of Belgrade University. Forget about that, unless you want a couple dozen Croatian books from the '90s..) -- Director (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that constitutions formulated that way are making a distinction between nations with nation-wide supreme importance and the others. Being top-level, constituent nation in this case, indicates that your culture, language, costumes, etc. will be the ones representative of the nation. If it is so irrelevant as you claim, why is that Croatian nationalists as soon as got to power, changed it? The implications of having more than one nation considered constituent in one country may be considerable. You wanting to disregard Trifunovska for being Macedonian is unacceptable in my view. Also, you can bring Croatian authors, but you know that if at the end the only ones challenging this are them, it will have to explicitely mentioned. Now, I prefer not being me explaining it, couse I am just an editor collecting reliable sources, but I would prefer if you read the pages 23 and 24 of Trifunovska. FkpCascais (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see that this source says: "Croatian constitution did not really change the position of the Serbs in Croatia...however in the view of the Serbs this was exactly what had happened...". How do you explain that even your sources are contrary to your stand? I thin we all agree that this is the sentence that should be included in the article. This is the sentence that had worked for a long time in Croatian War of Independence article. The Serbs had viewed it that was but it had not really happened, and to avoid the confusion we can explain why the Serbs viewed it that way. There is a source that extensively explains how Milosevic's regime and all of Serbian controlled media used that in their propaganda to further ignite the rebellion. I think we reached a consensus, since I think we all except you agree that this sentence should be included in the article and now you strongly emphasis this source which has the exact sentence that functions well in Croatian War of Independence article and that Joy had suggested a long time ago, along with a source from Croatian War of Independence article. What's your opinion on this sentence suggested by Joy, Director? 141.138.16.172 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't be a cheater, why did you selected only one part of the sentence clearly altering the meaning? The sentence says the following: "Some would certainly argue that the provision contained in the 1990 Croatian Constitution did not really change the position of the Serbs in Croatia..." and then explains further the issue. You really think senior Wikipedia editors are stupid and don't check everything? Editors like you trying to manipulate get blocked for tendentious editing. FkpCascais (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To repeat:"however in the view of the Serbs this was exactly what had happened", not "this is exactly what had happened". 178.167.108.103 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Director could you explain this thought that the Serbs were called a national minority in the new constitution? I'm focused on the primary source and I can't see that. 141.138.36.84 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We should be able to discuss the primary source openly and with arguments that the secondary sources back up. However, I can only see here a battle with secondary sources that don't even define the term nor they reference the primary source, when there is a source that both explains the term and references the primary source. I don't think this discussion is in good faith, and it's obvious who's not willing to discuss in good faith. 141.138.16.172 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"It is obvious that constitutions formulated that way are making a distinction between nations with nation-wide supreme importance and the others. Being top-level, constituent nation in this case, indicates that your culture, language, costumes, etc. will be the ones representative of the nation. If it is so irrelevant as you claim, why is that Croatian nationalists as soon as got to power, changed it? The implications of having more than one nation considered constituent in one country may be considerable."

I agree with everything there. Its not irrelevant at all. Like I said, its a significant, very notable change in the wording of the constitution, which now mentions Serbs in a less prominent position than before, right among other national minorities. As you say, it has a lot of symbolic significance, it implies this is now a Croat nation state, makes a distinction between Croats and Serbs as a minority - and that's a lot - but its nothing beyond that. Its kinda like a collective "fuck you" to Serbs: its there, it degrades, its a brazen provocation - but its not more than that. It doesn't mean Serbs had any less of a legal standing than before. And I can't agree to your implying that. Do you understand? Make it clear the change had no such concrete effect.

"Constituent nation status" is a purely symbolic position, a position of "honour", shall we say, in the constitution, which has been revoked. It clearly has been revoked, but you can't imply there's anything beyond the symbolic that occurred here.

And keep to neutral sources. No locals, you know the drill.. Trifunovska is a Yugoslav source, Belgrade Law Faculty. If not, if we reject that "filter", we're going to be using Croatian sources too, and I myself then certainly won't acknowledge any weaselly objections based on their nation of origin. -- Director (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Every subject is in the equal position in that sentence, and that sentence does not define any constitutive status to anyone. If we take the usual definition of the word "constitutive", they SR Croatia's constitution is defining solely Croatians as a nation that constituted SR Croatia in it's first sentence. However the constitution does not hold any definition or mentioning of any constitutional status. I'm also puzzled in how the Serbs are mentioned in a less prominent position. They are explicitly mentioned in that sentence. The fact that some of the "others" from SR Croatia's constitution are now also explicitly mentioned does not diminish anyone's position. The Serbs viewed it as so, I agree, but we have to explain why. I obviously don't matter here, but I'm glad I can leave a trace of arguments here, so at least it can be viewed that someone put them to the table. 141.138.16.172 (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

But why all the alarm? No one is wanting to add anything else beyond what is found in the sources. Are you challenging any part of the text I added and why? FkpCascais (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think he explained that several times. Why are you reluctant to have a discussion in good faith? You simply want to war with sources by neglecting the other side's sources and the flaws in your sources. 141.138.16.172 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree you're not discussing in good faith. What you're doing is called a red herring. I explained several times that you actually DO NOT have support for what you want. Its not a matter of challenging anything you brought forward, but challenging its introduction alone - without clarification as to the terms used therein.

Are you going to parrot your "sources song" again? If so, how many times? I'd like to spare myself the trouble of reading any more of that transparent playacting. -- Director (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I added in the article exactly what sources say, but you dislike what they say because you believe otherwise. So you accuse me of wanting to add something I don't have support for, but unfortunately for you, it is not me wanting to add anything, but the sources actually saying it. You are unable to provide any sources to back-up your claims or to challenge mine, so you are doing endless unfounded objections here hoping some miracle will happend. I cant change the text to something unsourced or something opposite to what sources say. All I can do is give you an advice to search for sources that say what you believe. Seems there are none, so I cant help you more than that. FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that what you are doing is saying "Sources are saying it, but we need to add an explanation that they are not really meaning it and things were not like that". That is what you mean by "clarification". No chance. You need to recognize that what you call "you want" is not me wanting, but sources clearly saying (all of them), and what you actually want is to add the opposite of the sources claiming, and I cant see how you expect that to happened. Can you be objective and recognize that the case is closed?FkpCascais (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are asking for a clarification, right? Just write here then the clarification you believe is missing there. FkpCascais (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

All the sources say it that the Serbs viewed it that way, because of Milosevic's propaganda aimed to start a war in Croatia and to create greater-Serbia. We are going in circles because you are not willing to discuss in good faith. The bottom line is that you claim the Serbs had and lost constitutive status without being able to define the term or to point to the primary source to sustain your suggestion. The other side on the other hand had both defined the term and referenced the primary source. Since you aren't willing to discuss in good faith and since you provided no new arguments during this RfC I suggest we collect the arguments and the sources like in the 1st post and let other experienced editors decide. It's impossible to reach a consensus with someone who is not discussing in good faith. And you pretty much deferred all other editors from this RfC except for me and Director. If he had not shown up, it would end up your way just because of your disruptive behavior that makes people don't care what the article says, just that they don't have to deal with you. You posted a lot of comments without a single new argument and you are trying to push your way against the sources. Your behavior was so disruptive behavior that people rather left the discussion and left the article says 2 conflicting statements in 2 consecutive sentences, than to discuss with you. And this is not your fist time as I can see. I'm looking at your contributions and almost every discussion involving you ends up with a RfC and you constant disruptive behavior. You are constantly trying to ban other people that don't agree with you. There's a written trace to your behavior and it's a shame no one reviewed it. No wonder Wikipedia in not considered a credible source with people like you editing it. 178.167.108.103 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop posting. The previous IPs you used at this discussion were blocked, and now you are using this one, you are evading block, and everyone knows that. That is why you are being ignored by everyone. Anyway, this discussion is near over, and it is only Direktor and me still participating. You desperately called for Joys help but he didn't gave it to you cause Joy is an administrator here and a senior editor who knows to recognize the situation. Gregor is in my view the finest Croatian editor, initially seems he didn't knew about my sources, but after seeing them he left the discussion by saying that the change in the constitution should be mentioned. Then Tuvixer who was the editor who first started opposing the denial that was being made by an already senior, but well known as nationalist, editor Shokatz. And now there is Direktor, my well known college from discussions, the two of us have already discussed here on talk-pages during almost a decade more lines than probably all the books you read in your life. Direktor isn't indeed a Croatian nationalist, and he is participating here because of 2 reasons: he saw here a great opportunity of having a challenging discussion in which he could make use of his argumentative skills which are excellent, and because despite not being a nationalist, he does have some strong pro-Croatian views in the matters of Serbian-Croatian disputes. He also knows how Serbian arguments about the 1990s are usually weak in sources, not because they may be right or wrong, but because the West backed up quite strongly the anti-Serb rhetoric and, as we are at English Wiki preferably working with English-language sources, that rhetoric ends up usually being easily found. However, this case is different and the situation was noticed by some editors which know the danger of opposing sources without anything substantial. You obviously seem not to care about your reputation, otherwise you wouldn't lie as you are doing in this last comments. Not long ago, you criticized the fact that senior editors have more weight that newcomers (you). That may seem an unfair situation, but it really isn't, and I will explain you why. This is an online encyclopedic project. This is not an online fighting video game as you seem to view it, although confrontations and discussions are obviously an every-day reality here. However, the winner here is not the one who wins more fights and gets his will and POV included in articles, but the one who knows to be objective and neutral. Usually those are the ones that become veteran editors. Experience tell us that no one is absolutely neutral and objective in all issues and absolutely everybody has a dose of POV inside, but the winners here are the ones doing their best to work here always maximally applying the Wikipedia rules and principles which are written in a way to make you become objective and neutral. Veteran editors also often learn a lesson that trout always ends up having its way. So, what were you thinking when you tried to lie about one of my sources when you said it says something that if you read the entire sentence you clearly knew it was not saying it the way you said here? What are you thinking now by saying that "All the sources say it that the Serbs viewed it that way" when besides one, all others are clearly not making that distinction and are saying things happened that way? Do you really think people here are stupid and are not going to see the sources and check what they exactly say and are just going to tell you "Oh, well, you are right then.", really? Do you see how childish is to lie just showing that you are desperate in wanting to do things your way? You did the same at Nikola Tesla, that is what got you blocked, people just hate that kind of attitude, it is all that an encyclopedia doesn't need. Why don't you stop, think, and go to your talk-page, and honestly ask for unblocking? Since you want this much to participate here, that is the only way you can do it, cause what you are doing now, being an evading-block IP is just a loss of time. Also, a personal question: do you really think that hiding the fact that Serbs lost their constituent nation status in Croatia is going to do any good to you or Croatia? Whoever is studying this case, he will read the books which all say this. There is no good in hiding obvious facts. FkpCascais (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

To be concise. Your behavior is utterly disruptive because you are trying to push an undefined term to the article although several editors asked you to define its meaning. You refuse to define it. Your sources fail to do so. They fail to reference the primary source in any way. To me that makes them unreliable, no matter of the quantity. Although there is only a single source that tells otherwise, it gives an extensive elaboration on the whole question. It defines the term, references the primary source and gives explanation to the whole situation to why the Serbs viewed it in the way they viewed it. You go ahead and push your POV, but at least there is a written trace that someone objected with valid arguments. How much Serb leaders thought of this as a real issue tells the fact that they haven't put this in front of Badinter's commission. Instead this theses of Serbs loosing their constitutive status appeared only in propaganda along with the claims that Croats are nazis, that Serbs are facing a genocide, that the pope is a nazi...etc..As the source tells, it was used only to ignite the war. I know I'm being ignored for unknown reasons to me, but someone needs to speak up, otherwise nothing will change. 178.167.108.103 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You have to understand one thing: there was a change in the Constitution in the chapter that deals with the constituent nations. Authors consider that change to mean that Serbs lost the constituent nation status they had before. Authors said it all, they are the experts, not you, me or Direktor. They defined it that way. It is not up to you or me to define anything, but experts. Do you understand this? FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. Now I'm going to ask which chapter is that, for you to point it out. You are going to refuse again and so on...You are just proving my point that you are very disruptive. God knows how long you've been doing this but it's surprising you haven't been banned yet. I already gave an explanation that this is false and I'm satisfied with the arguments I gave. Whether Wikipedia's article says one thing or another I really do not case as long as the discussion shows the arguments and the whole issue objectively. If I cared I would open an account and edit the article instead of participating this futile discussion with people who are not discussing in good faith, but instead are pushing POV. I also didn't understand this. You mentioned authors and I saw somewhere around here that someone mentioned that one of the authors of the constitution explained the issue exactly as I explained it. Although I used the secondary source provided in this RfC, he had said the same thing. Also your sources have no expertise value at all when they do not reference the constitution or explain anything. Those sources have 0 scientific value regarding this issue and I hope you don't think that history students will use any of them on any notable university regarding this issue. 178.167.108.103 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that repeating old propaganda lies from the 90' will do any good to anyone? The thing is that Serbia was not defeated, so everyone responsible for the wars in the 90' just kept doing it from Serbia. Imagine if the nazi regime was not defeated, but that the allies negotiated with Germany and left Hitler on power without entering the Germany. Then this kind of discussions would be about whether the holocaust had happened. Now imagine if it weren't for international courts ICTY and ICJ. Then some would certainly deny Serbia is responsible for 4 wars in the 90'. If it weren't for Badinter's commission some would certainly claim that Serbs lost their constitutive status in Croatia. I'm not speaking here about you or some obscure authors, but Serb representatives in Croatia, Serbia as a state, and Serbian officials. Yes you can hear those claims from the people and organisations who participated in the aggression towards Croatia, like Veritas or Seselj, but you will not hear it from anyone relevant. You may even push it to the article but empty words don't mean anything, do they? 178.167.108.103 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what you or I think. We are discussing here the constitutional status Serbs had, I provided sources regarding this issue. They are the experts, they are saying what they are saying. What you or I think is IRRELEVANT. FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You obviously can't distinguish between an argument and an opinion. I provided several arguments in the previous post. The answer that you don't care about them (and classifying them as opinions) just shows that you are not discussing in good faith. You think that this discussion is irrelevant, but only what the article says, but you'd be wrong. In my opinion the discussions are more important that the article. The articles are full of POV while the discussions provide both stands and arguments. And I think that I gave more than plenty of arguments. You on the other hand had gave none, nor have answered any of the valid arguments put to the table. You may push your POV to the article but the discussion is anyways more important, and it will stay as both a testament to POV pushing and the weaknesses of Wikipedia, as well as the answer to the question if Serbs had constitutive status in SR Croatia. If no one spoke out then you would have pushed your POV to the article a long time ago, and there wouldn't be anyone to contest that and expose it as nothing but a POV and a long forgotten Serbian propaganda. I have no doubt that anyone objective not interested in stupid Wikipedia's rules would have any doubts about the answer to this question. Your aim is towards naive people that will see something stated in Wikipedia's article and think that's correct, while my aim is towards the more intelligent people. History students for instance would certainly be more interested in this discussion than in your sources which have the already described flaws. So to answer your earlier comment about "who beats who", I think it's obvious who beat who. You may have your article say whatever, I don't care very much since I already won this discussion. Well it wasn't hard since you weren't really participating pass your flawed sources. 178.167.108.103 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are still not getting it. This discussion with you really doesnt matter for anything, but I am just explaning to you where is that you are wrong. First, you don't have to provide arguments, you need to provide experts arguments. You don't understand that Wikipedia is not a place of forum where people discuss their opinions (unfortunately many indeed do this, that is perhaps why you got the wrong idea), but Wikipedia is a place editors write in the articles what specialists say on certain subject. Everything that you are saying here, is totally irrelevant to the issue here, which is the constitutional status Serbs had. You thinking that Serbs are like Nazis has NOTHING to do with constitutional changes done in 1990 regarding constituent nations. You gave ZERO specialist-backed arguments for the issue discussed here. Everything you said here is totally irrelevant to the subject here, all you did was just exposing your bias and showing how you hate Serbs, and basically you just explained how you are totally unable to contribute objectively and neutrally in this subjects, something many here knew long ago. And you being able to do anything just to punish Serbs because of your personal traumas is what got you blocked in first place. FkpCascais (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hate for Serbs? That's really a low personal attack. To answer the rest, of course it does matter. What doesn't matter are the claims your sources put forward without any explanation past the statement itself and without a single reference to the constitution. As I said, those sources have 0 scientific value. Whether sources with 0 scientific value have some Wikipedia value is really irrelevant, since those sources won't be used in any credible university. So if you think you accomplished something by pushing your POV to the article you are mistaken. As I said, empty words don't mean anything and your sources put only empty words out. Literally empty, since they do not define the term. You somehow thought you accomplished something by pushing empty words to the article. Look at this way. Even Milosevic was smarter than you since he know exactly who he can fool with this wrong claim. Not the Badinter's commission but the naive people. His own people, so he didn't even bother to go with this question in front of the Badinter's commission. Who do you think you will fool by stating it in the article? 178.167.108.103 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you able to understand that we are not talking here about Milosevic or the entire conflict or anything else but just the constitutional change that happened in 1990? Just that! And are you able to understand that when I have a statement backed by 15 sources that is not "my POV" but the statement of those sources? Did you opened and read my sources? Tell me, what do they exactly say regarding Serb status? FkpCascais (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, you say my sources have zero value and are not going to be used by any university. Well, one of them was actually published by an university. The other are all strong sources. Don't you see how ridiculous you are being? Why do you lie? FkpCascais (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I said that your sources have zero scientific value regarding that question which is a difference, since I haven't reviewed them as a whole, but only a part relevant to this discussion. 109.108.237.252 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You deleted the IP's post to get me to reply? What's to reply to? All I see is more disruptive WP:LISTEN bull... I am not making any claim myself - but am challenging your implicit claim of constitutional disenfranchisement. I don't need sources - you do. Refs provided by others above are quite sufficient to shift the burden squarely on you.

I am not challenging any claim you made, I want to add to it. I don't dislike what the sources say, I want to clarify what the sources say so you don't succeed in implying something they DON'T say. Get it? And yes, its obvious you want to do just that; obvious if for no other reason than, if that were not so, you wouldn't mind my demand for clarification.

The bottom line here, FkpCascais, is that you won't imply any legal loss of standing, rights or privileges. Which you are trying to do - and have no sources for. Modify your text with that in mind, or I myself oppose it. Not much more to be said. Promjena je simbolicna, vazna u tom smislu - ali ne konkretna, i ti dobro znas da sugeriras ovo zadnje usprkos tome sta to izvori ne govore. Ne zajebaji me.. -- Director (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So, you were making obstructions to a perfectly sourced edit just because you are afraid of what you believe I might want to do in future. I knew it from the very beginning, and I strongly opposed the change, or even removal, of the text just because of that fear. How can your fear be excuse enough for removing sourced facts? I indeed wanted to make that point actually. And there is also another thing which was annoying, which was you talking constantly as if I was already wanting to add the things you are afraid of. First, I presented the sources here, all verifiable, so you were able to see exactly what they were saying about the issue; and second, I never expressed any desire in wanting to add anything else beside what was backed and agreed by the sources.

Why you acted as presuming I wanted something beyond sources, something more radical, was either because that would discredit me (as if I was some POV pusher), or because you really believed I would do that. Either way, by acting that way you failed regarding AGF towards me and it was offensive.

And the last, perhaps most important regarding the issue here, is what you say in your last paragraph, specially in the Serbo-Croatian part. You are saying that the change of the status was symbolic and nothing in concrete. Sorry Direktor, the sources don't say that, they don't describe it neither as symbolic neither as insignificant as you suggest. This is just your opinion which is different from what sources are saying. So you should not zajebaji me. Don't take me wrong, but I certainly trust more academics than you. Next time you know, I am all sources. Best regards! FkpCascais (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If you did not have an ulterior motive here, Fkp, there would be no dispute. You're a Serb-nationalist POV-pusher, and have been since you started on this project. What you're doing here is quoting sources out-of-context, without adequate explanation of the terms they use, in the hopes of misrepresenting them as supporting something they don't - namely that the change in any way legally disenfranchised Serbs. It did not. It is a symbolic change in their constitutional status, one that (while serious in and of itself), does not impinge at all on any of their legal rights and privileges - and none of your sources claim it does. The very fact that you would object to making that clear - to making your own sources clearer (as opposed to misleading to anyone without some grounding in Yugoslav politics of the period) - is all the evidence anyone ought to need for your not being here in good faith... And if you did not object, you'd have no dispute with me.

To be perfectly blunt and honest (as I usually am) - I didn't think you were really, deliberately out to make the constitutional change look like it had real legal implications as to the rights of ethnic Serbs, that it was some kind of disenfranchisement. I did NOT think you were going to stick to that obvious bull. I thought you were very much in the right, that your formulation was basically ok + that small caveat to ensure the reader isn't mislead. Turns out you actually are out to mislead the reader, and hence I'm not sure I'd support you editing this article at all. Not going to waste further words, I think I've made my position clear, bye. -- Director (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are so right about me as you are about the issue discussed here: baseless unfounded accusations with zero value or academic backing. Think whatever you want, just next time remember to bring sources to the table. FkpCascais (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Direktore, you are "zajebaji" us all here. You say that the change in the constitution is symbolic and that it did not legally disenfranchise the Serbs, yet you say it is serious. Quoting yourself: "it implies this is now a Croat nation state, makes a distinction between Croats and Serbs as a minority - and that's a lot" and "Its kinda like a collective 'fuck you' to Serbs: its there, it degrades, its a brazen provocation". You should finally make up your mind and tell us: is it serious or was it just symbolic? If you don't do that, you would look exactly like you describe your opponents: obtuse and only here to make bull...

That is exactly why we rely on reliable sources, and not editors opinions. Editors often talk but have no clue what they are talking about, but want to make themselves look as they know a lot. FkpCascais (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your sources are not reliable. 109.108.237.252 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Some editors have mentioned this article. It is in my point of interest, but I see a closing request has been filed, so I won' participate. It seems the discussion reached a natural end. Relichal1 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to apply the consensus established in the RfC

Please change the part of the sentece from the article "......which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities." to the sentence established by the consensus: "......which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution". Thank you. 193.105.7.67 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe FkpCascais can implement the consensus. 95.110.35.193 (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a 15 sources (I can bring more) backed statement in the article. You want to remove such a strongly sourced statement just because you don't like it and replace it with a convenient for you sentence saying Serbs perceived events that way obviously misusing your source and ignoring the fact that the author says that only because in her book she deals with Serbian perception of the events. The facts are: we have 15 reliable sources saying the sky is blue. You presented zero sources opposing this view. You have one source saying John sees sky as blue. No reason whatsoever to remove the sentence the sky is blue. Besides, you mention some consensus, please see what consensus means first before using that word. FkpCascais (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is established. I just wanted to ask you to implement it in the article so to give you a chance to express your good faith. Instead you had backed up my earlier claim that you are not discussing in good faith. Director could you implement this consensus? I'm sorry I have to bother you, but FkpCascais is impossible to deal with. As, I can see, he's been POV pushing for a while now, and he's really being disruptive everywhere he appears. 89.22.129.45 (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Having all sources in favor and none against is not POV pushing. Actually ignoring the sources is POV pushing and tendentious editing, and that is precisely a description of you in this case. Bye. FkpCascais (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This whole comment illustrates your POV pushing attitude. You are directly lying here although the consensus is established above. I pity the people you managed to discredit/or ban because you are capable to manipulate and I pity the readers that are reading your POV pushing because you are capable to manipulate and push it to the article. This is not the first time, and I hope someone will notice that almost every discussion where you participate is a battle zone where you are trying to block people that doesn't agree with you, where you mention those "bad Croats" that are trying to push their nationalistic stand, where a RfC has to be opened because you are not discussing in good faith, where you are always attacking other's with various accusations...etc...I apologize to other's who had to read this digression, but I had to show that you were not discussing in good faith. You are not here to edit Wikipedia but to push your POV. Go to the top of any talk page and you will see the reason you should have been blocked a long time ago. Let's go trough each bullet:

1. Be polite, and welcoming to new users- no you immediately start accusing everyone of POV pushing and especially new users and especially IP's which are easily banned, to which you have a lot of experience. 2. Assume good faith - good faith? Is it a good faith to refuse to define a term you are trying to introduce in the article. Is it a good faith that even now, when the admin had established a consensus are are lying that there are no sources that oppose your view? I can say much more, but I will stop here. 3. Avoid personal attacks - personal attacks? You even went much further, you are trying to block anyone you find of less experienced in Wikipedia's policies who doesn't agree with you. 4. For disputes, seek dispute resolution - well I haven't seen you tried to seek a dispute resolution. Before I started this RfC you were fine to defer the editor who started the discussion with personal attacks and threats of banning him. You were fine to leave a completely contradictory passage in the article and you were fine to ignore all the sources and valid arguments the other side presented.

In just one discussion you managed to broke every single of Wikipedia's bulletpoint on how to discuss and edit Wikipedia. And you have been doing that for a long time. There you go, a whole case against you in just one discussion. And there is already another one where you exhibit the very same behavior. This has to stop. Let's see what you already did in another discussion . 1. Be polite, and welcoming to new users- In that discussion you already managed to ban another new editor that started the discussion. As seen from his appeals, he doesn't even understand what has happened. You directly lied to the new editor that his request is rejected, when the editor asked for a consensus to be established. 2. Assume good faith - You already made me open a RfC. You again are not discussing in good faith, and I made that clear in the new discussion. You again refuse to answer crucial questions. 3. Avoid personal attacks - you already reverted another user with the explanation "I know Croats ignore FR Yugoslavia, but it exsted." which is a clear personal attack on behalf of his nationality. 4. For disputes, seek dispute resolution - You again were fine to leave the edit in article that is in contradiction with itself. You again ignored all the valid arguments of the other side. No, you didn't ask for a dispute resolution, but instead went to ban the only person who represented the other side, much like you tried to ban the editor who started this discussion. Thank God I noticed this, because you almost managed to push your POV to this article. Good thing i noticed another discussion trough this one, where you have been doing the same thing. I should go trough your contributions and see how many times before you tried/managed to do the same thing. This has to stop and I will take time to go trough your contributions to revert each and every one of your POV pushing edits. too bad I can't unblock the people you managed to block trough your manipulation. 178.130.41.173 (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

178.130.41.173 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You are not a new user but a disruptive tendentious editor who is indef-blocked and insistently uses socks and IPs for evading block, and there is no dispute here as you have not even one source, only your personal opinion, so go away, go to your master account and deal with your blocked. I am not even reading all of your long comments. FkpCascais (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If this same sock puppet comes back please leave a note on my talk page. They are unable to conceal their obvious style so they are easy to recognize. HighInBC 15:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to apply the consensus established in the RfC

The article is protected so I, as an IP, can't edit it so I'm making this request. Please change the part of the sentence from the article "......which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities." to the sentence established by the consensus from the above RfC: "......which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution". Thank you. 5.144.98.84 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: I don't see consensus. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Stabila711 ,here. To quote: "There is also consensus for the wording used in the Croatian War of Independence article.". Go to the end of the shaded area, where the admin established a consensus and you will see the consensus: "On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution, which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.". 213.5.194.78 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

And what you call consensus got to be discussed and a new consensus enforced by reliable sources was established. So if you want to change it, you need reliable sources, you have 15 clearly against you, you presented none, you have been told this many times but you want to game the sistem using other editors quotes from long time ago and see if you can fool someone. No. FkpCascais (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, "the admin" was not an admin. It was a non-admin-closed RfC. LjL (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of RFC

On my talk page a discussion of an RFC I closed above has taken place.[4] I am going to clarify a few things. During the close, the IP's that had a similar writing style and opinions were counted as one participant. There was a finding of consensus. Even if the IP is removed from the discussion the results are the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) there are NO reliable sources opposing my edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resume for the reviewer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have asked for a review of the RFC

Any editors who are interested and look here. AlbinoFerret

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two points about the RfC

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

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

• My own understanding is that, yes, the Constitution did change in this way, and multiple sources report on that. There was a status change reflected in wording. Even if the Constitution never specifically defined what "constituent nation" meant, it's not our place to suppress valid information based on that (we aren't jurists). --LjL (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly, I think you should keep in mind that building WP:Consensus also means seeking compromise, and perhaps you should consider whether you could be content with having it your way about the "status" part, and conceding on the "rights" part. LjL (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

But Ljl, I dont think that is very correct for an encyclopedic project to build consensus having in mind editors wishes or opinions. I firmly believe consensus should be archieved trough consensus of reliable sources. Also, I dont see this as "my vs theirs" way. I am not Serb of Croatia, I came to this discussion by following the IP who was evading block. I noteced editors firmly making claims, everyone was talking but there was no sign of sources, so I went to see what sources say. I started bringing sources here and, by combining them, I made the edit. At top of this talk-page we have the reminder to follow the article policies of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:VER. I believe you are driven by an idea that they all opposing me by saying there was no change in rights must make them somehow right. The only way to confirm it and solve this objectively is to see what sources say and make at the end an edit that would be agreed by sources and WP:UNDUE. If we see enough sources saying 2 different views, then I support the inclusion of both of them. I am not at all opposed to change the wording of my edit, I even asked for sugestions, I just think that I am not asking much when I say that the changes need to be backed by sources. If we create a solution that is not in accordance with the sources we always face the possibility of tomorrow having a bunch of new editors coming here and reopening the issue again. I allways perceve content disputes that way, never looking to the numbers of user at sides, cause one day one side can be more numerous and another day the other. That is why WP:POLL exists and disputes have to be considered by confronting the RS brought. Sorry for the lenght of my post, but to conclude, I would really favor a more solid solution based on reliable sources, then a solution based on one for you, one for me. Would you opose us at least looking what sources say since we got till here? FkpCascais (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right, consensus shouldn't trump the fact that WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But even reliable sources always need to be read and interpreted by humans, so there has to be consensus about what sources can be considered reliable and what they are and aren't actually saying. We can't escape from that. The "other side" isn't really making claims except that you can't claim that rights were changed and/or constitutional status was changed. My suggestion as to the wording is to go ahead and talk about a change in constitutional status (since, apparently, the constitution did change its wording about Serbs in Croatia), but refrain from getting into the complicated realm of rights, which sources don't back so clearly. LjL (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We can see of course if there are some unreliable sources ammong the listed, and if there are, we will disregard them. Also, I think we have two different issues on this point about the rights; one is about finding out the correct wording regarding the rights considering what sources say; and second, we have sources which instead of refering to the rights, they give exemples of what the constitutional status change meant and how affected Serbs. Later tonight I will cite here the sources refering to the right, so once we see them, along with the two already mentioned above, wwe would have a clearer picture. FkpCascais (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I know there are sources referring to rights; the problem is that we have sources (your own, I don't know what I would find if I searched further!) saying that the rights were, per se, not affected. So, if anything, we need to state there is a conflict of sources, and maybe it's best just not to get into the issue. LjL (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, I am saying, lets see the sources and find out what they say about it, and see between us the best possible wording, and all I see you doing in consecutive posts now is you looking how to avoid seing the sources and how to convince me to "have their way". This project is about sources. I made an effort to provide 20. No one is wanting to see them but people want rather to write what they want and what they think. You insinuate then that my 20 sources may not provide the correct picture cause who knows what you will find in other sources not brought here. Well, you actually found one source contradicting loss of rights ammong mine cause I was not cherry-picking sources to back any specific point but I was bringing them regardless of what they say, for me it just mattered they refered to the contituent status. Some of my 20 may even back you as well, lets see. Can I please ask you to give a chance to the sources? FkpCascais (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sources suggesting "rights" may have been retained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Melanie Greenberg; John H. Barton; Margaret E. McGuiness (2000). Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict. Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 83. The new Croatian constitution promulgated by an overwelming majority of the new parliament, renounced the hitherto protected status of ethnic Serbs as separate constituent nation embedded in the old constitution and defined Croatia as the sovereign state of the Croatian nation. In response, the SDS in Krajina begun building its own national governmental entity in order to preserve the rights that had been stripped away and to enhance the sovereignity of Croatian Serbs. - This source speaks abaut a staus as a right Serbs losr
2. Dale C. Tatum (2010). https://books.google.pt/books?id=8b_HAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&dq=serbs+constituent+nation+croatia+rights&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAWoVChMI9KmG3-vPyAIVgoMaCh1-jg62#v=onepage&q=serbs%20constituent%20nation%20croatia%20rights&f=false. Palgrave MacMillan. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-230-62189-3. The rebellion had taken place, because the Croatian Serbs were not convinced that their individual rights and cultural identity would be protected in Croatia. The original draft of the Croatian constitution did not recognize the Serb minority as constituent nation - a right they had during the days of communism. The final draft of the Croatian constitution {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) FkpCascais (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

So, what does the 1990 Constitution say?

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

A more careful reading of a previously-mentioned source:

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

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

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