Talk:League of Communists of Yugoslavia

Kosovo and Vojvodina

What was actually the status of the League of Communists of Kosovo and the League of Communists of Vojvodina? Were they parts of the Serbian branch or separate bodies? --Soman 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Opća enciklopedija (Zagreb, 1981, vol. VII pg. 307), they were parts of both SKY and SKS. It might have been different before, but it was so in 1981. Nikola 13:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Red Army

The part regarding Second World War is at least incomplete, if not incorrect. Yugoslav National Army liberated Yugoslavia with big help from Soviet Red Army.

RE: Pure lie. The red army came only in Belgrade and parts of Vojvodina, which all makes just a small percent of the Yugoslav teritory. and not only that, but Tito allowed only temporary stay of those Red army troops (yes, Tito could allow or not allow things as he wanted, unlike in EASTERN BLOC COUNTRIES like POland, Czech republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia and rest of today's EU where Soviet troops stayed for half a century. Yugoslavia was liberated 99,103% with it's own forces and all that was recognized by the Allies (for example Sir Fitzroy Maclaine was in the british missions etc.)--Vbb-sk-mk 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Does this article really need 6 different images of the flag?

Changes are needed

QUOTE: The party, which was led by Josip Broz Tito from 1937 to 1980, followed the common communist policy as directed by the Soviet Union as a member of the Comintern and later the Cominform.

RE: Not true. Maybe it did during a short time in the interwar period (Stalin did make a purge in the Yu party as he did elswehere) but it is absolutely not a sort of "trademark" to be mentioned like this in "the first plan". You all know very well that Yugoslav party led by Tito was the only who had guts to oppose Stalin. Change this (Actually I will change it).

Fair use rationale for Image:Skjslov.gif

Image:Skjslov.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Skjmace.gif

Image:Skjmace.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Skjitaly.gif

Image:Skjitaly.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Skjhung.gif

Image:Skjhung.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Skjcroat.gif

Image:Skjcroat.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Skjalb.gif

Image:Skjalb.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

O.K.?

I'm asking about it was anything wrong with Tito's republic. After all (most) things I've heard, it was not as worst.

Can someone come with good/bad things? (also those subjective) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.168.251 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ideology in infobox

The ideological aspects listed are relevant, Stalinism and Titoism were significantly different, yet both still forms of Communism. Informbiro vs Yugoslavism? Saying that a communist organisation has a communist ideology may well be redundant, but describing its position on the spectrum of the left (as described in reliable sources) is entirely relevant. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Just one question: are we sure CPY is far-left? It may have been far-left at the beggining, but seems much more moderate in the overall. FkpCascais (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928053218/http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/incs/home/data/pdf/INCS_18_ONLINE.pdf to http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/incs/home/data/pdf/INCS_18_ONLINE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Too many section

The article in to be clean up. Too many stuff doesn't categorized to simply history, need bot for this. Firman.Nst (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent ideological additions

So I've looked at some of the recent additions to the infobox regarding ideology, and my question is this, aren't Socialist self-management, Market socialism and Yugoslav federalism just elements of Titoism? Also, can we really say for sure that Third-Worldism and military neutrality were actually part of their primary ideological line, as opposed to just general policies? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right regarding the socialist self-management and third-worldism being parts of Titoism. I don't think market socialism and military neutrality are even ideologies per se, likely only aspects of Titoism in the context of Yugoslavia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

They should only be listed as ideologies IF reliable sources call them that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker67.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker67 too on that. Vacant0 (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list of what I've found - perhaps others could append it and/or comment there:

• Yugoslav socialist patriotism - Ramet does not describe it as ideology, but as a "broad concept" and "notion" (Social Currents in Eastern Europe: The Sources and Consequences of the Great Transformation, p. 207, cited in the article)--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yugoslavism (in the context of post-WWII Yugoslavia) - Ramet does not mention it in the above reference, but does on pp.216-217 of The Three Yugoslavias (referenced in the article), and Connor talks about it on pp.436-439 of The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy (referenced in the article). None of them say it is an ideology in this context. Both talk of it as a "campaign" (exactly the same word in both).--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Ethnic federalism (piped link as "Yugoslav federalism" in the box) is mentioned by Rusinow in the 2007 work referenced in the article, but he does not speak about it as an "ideology", rather as a Communist Party's solution for the national question of Yugoslavia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Key sources for the ideology of the Yugoslav communists include: Lampe and Mazower (2004), Johnson & Griffith (1972), Malesevic (2013), etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I have access to Lampe & Mazower and to Malešević. Can you tell me the title of the Johnson & Griffith source?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The Transformation of Communist Ideology: The Yugoslav Case, 1945-1953. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What ideologies/political stances should be removed from the infobox then? Vacant0 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still going through the above and a few other books, so I'd rather say when I'm done with them. I'll post here on the matter asap.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay great, keep it up! Vacant0 (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the above and those used in the article Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism (although this seems a bit redundant) are certainly supported by the sources as KPJ/SKJ ideologies. Titoism is a bit strange as some authorities (including Tito) went on record to say it is not an ideology, but other did. I'd include it anyway (and I'll add a bit on that in the article in the context of Tito's death). Others, I'd say no. Those are either not ideologies per se (one could say some of them are policies) and should be omitted in the infobox and dealt with appropriately in the article (if relevant). For instance "self-governing socialism" is listed and linked to Socialist self-management - article which does not describe the phenomenon as an "ideology", but the article covers the topic. Similar applies to "market socialism". Yugoslavism as ideology certainly exists, but in the context of formation of (the kingdom of) Yugoslavia as also reflected in the Yugoslavism article. There was a Yugoslavism campaign in socialist Yugoslavia, but sources dealing with the matter do not describe that as an ideology, but a "campaign". The KPJ/SKJ article deals with the topic accordingly. Federalism and neutrality are certainly not described by any reliable source as ideologies. Sure they're policies, and the KPJ/SKJ article deals with federalism in that way. Neutrality should be (i think) dealt with through the non-aligned movement aspect. At any rate, militay neutrality certainly does not appear to be pursued from WW2 until mid-1950s (first obviously as the WWII went on, and then presence of Soviet advisers until 1948, and then alignment with Greece/Turkey). I could not see how neutrality would work in pre-1941 context. Anti-fascism is described by the corresponding article as an "official ideology in the Soviet bloc". Now, this means it could be mentioned, except I saw no particular source saying "KPJ adopted the ideology of anti-fascism", but since the anti-fascism (without explicitly saying it is a ideology or a policy) is amply sourced in the article, I would not be entirely opposed to listing it under the ideologies section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So to sum up, Communism, Marxism-Leninism and Titoism should stay? Vacant0 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say so, yes. If something else is sourced later, it can always be added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, changed. Thank you!! Vacant0 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the recent addition (removed since) of national communism - it is incorrect to add this as an ideology since the source offered (also available here [1]) never says it is an ideology. Neither the national communism wiki article claims it to be an ideology.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

On a more general note - per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - the point of the infobox is to list key elements summarising the referenced material in the article prose. The ideology section should list only the key ones, not catalogue every short-term change occurring over the KPJ/SKJ's history. For addition, it would therefore be advisable for an item to be actually an ideology, espoused by the KPJ/SKJ, significant in the context of the party's entire history, and of course properly supported by reliable sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, infobox should only list key ideologies of a party, other cited ideologies can be instead added in different sections of an article. Vacant0 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Seats held (infobox)

I'm wondering what is the purpose of having the diagrams depciting seats held 1920 Constitutional Assembly of the Kingdom of SCS and the seats held in the Federal Assembly of SFR Yugoslavia in the infobox as presented there. I find the following issues problematic:

1. I believe these diagrams are meant to present performance of active political parties, i.e. seats currently held forex in European Parliament, national legislature, number of country 1st level division heads out of the total number, number of mayors out of the total number in a given country etc. - none of which would apply here. Granted, the template documentation says nothing on this, but it just seems strange to have a bar chart depict SKJ holding 354 seats in anything now. But this is less important.
2. The lower graph (354 seats) is incorrect for several reasons: the 1945 assembly had more seats - there were 354 in one chamber, and I believe (not sure right now) about 150 in another. Furthermore, not all of those were formally SKJ seats, at least some 50-ish were won by HRSS. The problem with ascertaining the number for 1945 elections is that the SKJ kept its membership secret until 1948 and it would be really impossible to determine SKJ share with any confidence except to say it was a great majority.
3. The number of seats in the post-1945 assembly changed a lot. At one time, the assembly had five chambers, at other times a single chamber or two or three. Having a chart for each iteration would serve no purpose which could not be served in a hypothetical or actual article on given elections if there are such sources.
4. The bar chart on the 1920 assembly is factually correct, but it seems out of place, at least to me per above and decorative at best.

In short, I'd like to remove those infobox fields if there's no particular reason to keep them.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tomobe03: I don't know who added them but in my opinion, they can be removed since they're meant to represent the seats of modern-day parties. The number of seats in the Federal Assembly did change over time (I think) and you did give your explanation why they should be removed, so if you want to, you can remove them. Vacant0 (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

National communism.

In my opinion, it is worth adding national communism to the ideology of this party. There are sources that confirm that it was one of the most important elements. For example, this source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/abs/origins-of-national-communism-in-yugoslavia/EDAED1ED8EE3880DEECB7A2A63DD894E Adijos08 (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Vacant0 has already pointed out that the national communism is an aspect of Titoism which is already noted in the infobox. I have read the paper (it is used as a source of the wiki article and available through JSTOR), and I did not get the impression he was wrong or that your claim is confirmed by the paper. Could you point me to the exact page/passage directly confirming that this was one of the most important elements of KPJ ideology without WP:SYNTH?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I already posted one source but found one more: https://www.britannica.com/topic/National-Communism Adijos08 (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And I have already responded that the source you offered is used in the article as a source. And Vacant0 and I have also noted that this is a part of Titoism.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

On a further note, Adijos08, you have not provided the exact page/passage in the first (or the second source) directly confirming that this was one of the most important elements of KPJ ideology without WP:SYNTH.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox represents a summary of elements, Titoism like Marxism–Leninism is made up of numerous ideologies and political stances, and those political stances are already mentioned on both of those pages respectively. Adding them here in the infobox is going to create more clutter and confusion for readers, if they are interested enough to learn more about Titoism they would go and read the page instead. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Far-left claim

@Tomobe03: I tried finding a source for the far-left position but I wasn't able to find any, were you able to find it? --Vacant0 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Vacant0, I'm sure it shouldn't be problematic to find some source claiming KPJ/SKJ was far left - reliable sources might be a different thing. I have noted occassional additions to the infobox of the "far left" appelation. For the sake of anyone adding this, I wish they could add a source - at least in plain text here in talk page if unsure how else. I'd love to include any relevant information reliably sourced - I'm not cheering for a particular version of the article. I'll take a look though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

On further reflection, It is meaningless to explain if the KPJ is left or far left in e.g. 1955 by asking "left of what in a single party system?" What would it be then further to the left from? Alternatively, there could be a reliable source assigning all communist parties to the far-left category regardless of specificities (i.e. equally to the French CP and the Cambodian one). We could try that maybe? It wouldn't be very informative, but the article would be more stable in that respect.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

At the peril of this becoming my musings: The situation is very complex to say the least. The picture was hardly uniform and it changed over time. For example, Banac, With Stalin Against Tito has a chart showing who's left, who's ultraleft, and who's centrist to varying degrees in 1933-1939 (p.66). According to Banac, ultraleftists are Marić, Kusovac, Miletić, Đilas and Ranković (at least in 1938-1939), leftists are Tito, Kardelj, Leskošek, Marinko, Kraš, Žaja, Petrović, but also Đilas and Ranković (until 1938), Centrists are Hebrang, Gorkić and Pijade, while Žujović and Čolaković are someplace between left and centre. It is concievable to add a sentence sourced to this reference saying that various KPJ members were at various times leftifst to varying degrees and that the divisions changed over time.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It seems like an editor added a citation regarding that claim although I myself wasn't able to find the quotation for "far-left" or "extreme left". I've added the rq tag for now and if it isn't in the text then we can remove it. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

More importantly, page number is missing making it difficult to verify. BastianMAT could you please specify? Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

These labels are, without proper context absolutely meaningless. If we where to accept the notion that communism = far left by default (which is a wrong assessment), then why include the label at all? --Soman (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Soman I agree completely. Another problem is that the party changed its ideological positions over its 70-year history wildly - except for the "communist" appelation - in response to circumstances. It was the closest ally to the USSR and its sworn enemy, it professed Yugoslav unitarism, federalism, advocated breakup of Yugoslavia and its preservation, attempted to reinterpret Marxism, "invented" variously defined Titoism for which Tito said it never existed, not to mention policies pushed by factions (Rankovićism, Đilasism etc.). Cramming all this into the infobox would defeat the purpose of the infobox and, as you said without context it is meaningless. I think ideologies prevailing from time to time should be noted in the prose only (at appropriate places in the timeline to give readers context), and only those most significant and nearly universally applicable presented in the lede and the infobox. IMO, ideologies adopted by the party but having little or no significant impact on the overall issue of the party history should not be given undue weight and should be presented in branching articles on specific events, periods etc. Needless to say, everything must be referenced to reliable sources. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Left and right are metaphoric ends of the political spectrum in a multi-party democracy. In single-party states the entire political spectrum resides within the same party - the one which is by definition perennially in power. If you have a communist party in a multi-party democracy such as France or Germany then yeah, within that context these would have to be defined as left. But in an actual communist state the label is pointless - if it is left, then what is it left of? As far as Yugoslavia is concerned, lefties in the West traditionally saw the country as the least totalitarian version of communism available, especially compared to the Soviet Union and other countries behind the Iron Curtain. Paradoxically, they judged these societies by applying the criteria that liberal democracies use for themselves, i.e. by the level of personal freedoms enjoyed. And using that metric Yugoslavia was indeed the least lefty of them all. Timbouctou (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100% - I wrote the same thing back on 4 Aug above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Language templates

Considering there is potential for four existing plus Serbo-Croatian language templates to add masses of text to the prose for no benefit to readers, the topic name in all relevant languages were added as a linked note to the foot of the article. There is zero benefit in recent addition of the lang template(s) to all various terms throughout eg. SH template for Independent State of Croatia, so - removing per no consensus to change the existing state of matter in the article. - Tomobe03 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tomobe03 please see the second paragraph of MOS:FOREIGNITALIC and MOS:OTHERLANG. -Vipz (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seen them and they do not support addition of lang templates everywhere. MOS:OTHERLANG concerns use of the lang template for foreign language words used in the prose alone (i.e. without English forms), MOS:FOREIGNITALIC specifies those should be italicised if in Latin script.

The naming note serves quite well to specify the native names of the article topic in native languages. One should consider readability of the article which is long as-is and avoid unnecessary template creep per WP:TCREEP and avoid inclusion of lang names where 3, 4 or 5 native versions exist and place such info in notes for the benefit of the user. In cases such as League of Communists of Slovenia (Zveza komunistov Slovenije, ZKS), the one native name should be provided as convenience to inform of the origin of the acronym. Otherwise, native names in such instances (in prose) serve no purpose in this article. On the other hand any and all native names of the People's Front of Yugoslavia should be included in the NFJ article, but only "(Narodni front Jugoslavije, NFJ)" for acronym explanation purposes and none at all in this article if no acronyim is used in the article itself.

While other Wikipedia articles are no source, this is quite a common practice in articles reviewed by the community at the level of Featured Articles (see for example Croatian Spring).--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the edits such as [2] are not in line with WP:BRD, i.e. that's edit warring per WP:BRR. Please self-revert and discuss.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

These guidelines support encasing foreign language phrases and words whereever they appear, whether they should appear as often as they appear in this article is a separate issue which you are free to act upon. -Vipz (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Marxism–Leninism in the ideology section on the federal and party branch articles

@Thiscouldbeauser consensus was reached here to keep Marxism–Leninism listed on this article, because first of all, Titoism did not exist until the 1948 Tito-Stalin split and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ) existed since 1919. I'd argue it should also stay on the party branches not because they were also formed before the same split, but because Titoism is just a characterization of policies as implemented by Tito from 1948 thereon, coined by his Soviet opposition, but the party and its branches can safely be reported to have been guided by Marxism–Leninism throughout their whole existence. So I'd like consensus to be made in favor of removing them from the party branch articles and Organization of the League of Communists in the Yugoslav People's Army. Posting this here to have a central and visible place for discussion. -Vipz (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism was the Soviet-style ideology with characteristics such as communism, state atheism, etc. Titoism has many differences, such as neutrality, socialism, the co-existence of foreign relations between communist and democratic states, etc. I think it should be something like this (without the stuff in brackets, they're just notes):

Before 1948:

• Communism
• Marxism-Leninism

1948-1989:

• Socialism
• Titoism

1989-1992:

• Democratic socialism (Croatian and Slovenian branches)
• Serbian nationalism (Serbian branch; see Greater Serbia and Slobodan Milošević)

Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Thiscouldbeauser separating the ideology section into timespans could be beneficial, but the above seems to be oversimplified and exclusionary. It may have gradually weakened throughout time, but LCY never excluded ML from the party line (the 1970 photograph in this article may be implicit, but I admit weak evidence, and needs actual WP:RS to back up), let alone the idea of establishing a communist society by its own means/paths, at least until Tito's death. There is definitely room for improvement, though. -Vipz (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The photo doesn't necessarily suggest that Tito or most of his party were at that conference in Sarajevo. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Thiscouldbeauser: According to a chronology fact from this article on another Wikipedia, which is cited to pages 260–261 from Jugoslavija 1941-1981 by Milan Bajec and Ivan Dolničar, this congress took place between 5th and 8th May 1971 (the photo shows 1950-1970 and the caption mistook the latter as the year when it happened) and that "3,301 delegates participated, 29 resolutions were passed, some of them will be used in the adoption of the 1974 constitution, Tito says that the congress is the most impressive gathering since the Fifth Congress of the KPJ in 1948". I cannot find a freely available version of this book online, at least not one with the 260th page so I cannot confirm that at this time. Nonetheless, I did say the photo is only implicit and direct RS are needed to back up this claim. To be fair, I put that in brackets, that was not the main point of my message. -Vipz (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Anyway, looking at your user page and the "needed articles" section, I noticed "Yugoslav Australians" (yes, they are quite a large community here in Australia, I can confirm this, there are even soccer clubs in Australia such as Wollongong Macedonia). In case you're interested, you may find some info on articles such as Serbian Australians, Croatian Australians, Macedonian Australians, etc. I know that's a bit off-topic but I just wanted to let you know. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Thiscouldbeauser thank you, I will keep this in mind! I'm going to leave this section open to further collaboration. You are free to judge the state of facts as they are right now and do your proposed changes and I'll try to find firm sources for ML in LCY (though I still think communism should stay throughout both first and second period, as we're talking about ideology, not the phase the country was going through at the time). -Vipz (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The consensus should remain how it is, though I agree that we need WP:RS to back these claims up.

• Communism – here we have a source that talks about the party and "Yugoslav Communism"; this is also an interesting one
• Marxism–Leninism p.94 – citation that states that LCY still operated under Marxism–Leninism. Here is an another one and one more.
• And for Titoism: 1, 2, 3 Vacant0 (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm also not sure whether leaving the "political position" in the infobox is the best idea; far-left is unsourced, left-wing is sourced, though I don't think that the left–right political spectrum could be applied to this party and its branches. Vacant0 (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vacant0: I'd agree the political spectrum cannot be applied on its branches, but the federal party existed in a multi-party spectrum of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and for a short while in the FPRY. I'm in disbelief that it is this difficult to find a single source that states a communist party is far-left. Thanks for coming up with these sources, by the way. -Vipz (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I was able to find some sources for the "far-left".

• Creating a Communist Yugoslavia in the Second World War p.251 – there's a mention "the far left of the party leadership"; this source rather directly mentions that CPY was far-left, I'll add it now. Vacant0 (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)