Talk:Syrmia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] old merge

I put all the Srem and Srijem articles (there were 4!) into this one. My only grounds for putting it under Srem rather than Srijem is that the former seems easier to pronounce in English. I tried googling, and Srem does seem to come up more often, even the search for "Baranja Srem" returnes more hits than "Baranja Srijem", but not overwhelmingly more. Any thoughts? Zocky 01:04, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm in trying to make a whole lot of sense of this, but there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that as soon as Igor comes back, he'll just vandalize it all over again. Read the page histories, they are there for a reason. --Shallot 10:41, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian bias

Hm. I would like to know from where did you get informations, that in 1790 serb population have made 47% of slavonia, and Croatians just 45?

  • I get that information from this book: Istorija Mađara (Peter Rokai, Zoltan Đere, Tibor Pal, Aleksandar Kasaš, Beograd, 2002). The authors of the book are 4 Hungarian historians, and the numbers are from official census from 1790. User:PANONIAN

A lot of informations in this article are incorect, and I am afraid that just by merging a lot of (bad) articles you can not get a good one. This article almost totaly ignores history of the croats in srijem.

  • Can you specify here what informations are not correct? As for history of Croats, I do not know much about it, so I did not write history of Croats. User:PANONIAN

It speaks about "srem kingdom" which was made of northern serbian Macva province, and which king was hungarian administrator of two croatian provinces in Bosnia, in a 20 year's period, but it ignores periods in which srijem was in croats hands.

  • Can you write here what exact time periods you have in your mind? There is mention that Srem was part of Croatia-Slavonia in the article. User:PANONIAN

Also from 13th century (with the exception of otoman rule) Srijem was part of croatia, and only after ww2 (and the expuligion of germans) and serbian colonization did it get serbian majority.

  • Both claims are wrong. I have historical maps from the 13th century, and Srem was part of proper Hungary in that time, divided between 2 counties: Srem and Valko. Same thing on the map from the 15th century. It was part of Croatia in the 18th century (confirmed by the map). Besides that, Srem was part of Croatia only in certain historical periods, while in other historical periods it was part of other political units. We can specify all these historical periods in the article. As for Serbs, Serbs are majority in Srem since the 15th century (by the data from 1437). In 1910 census, Serbs also were largest ethnic group in Srem. That is if we talk about entire Srem. The western part of Srem was inhabited with more Croats, I think. User:PANONIAN

Fact that there are more serbian articles of this topic on the net, doesn't make there version of history true. Serbs are known for their "exagirations" of history eg. "equator is a line that divides little Serbia in two equal parts":) Have fun

  • You want to say that ethnicity is what make somebody to speak or not to speak the truth? As for the "versions of history", it is fact that certain political structures in both, Hungary and Croatia, would like to occupy parts of Vojvodina and to attach its territory to its "historical owner" (By the way Isn’t the "historical ownership" a Nazi idea?). So, Vojvodina (including Srem, Banat and Bačka) is part of Serbia and it is mainly inhabited by ethnic Serbs since the 16th century (In the case of Srem, it is the 15th century). The fact that Habsburg Empire, Ottoman Empire, Hungary or Croatia ruled over these lands in certain historical periods does not give right to any of them to claim that they are "rightfull historical owners" of these lands. You can come here and you can include history of Croats or Hungarians in the article, and if the things you wrote are correct, it is ok by me. But if you come here only to delete history of the Serbs, then we have a problem. User:PANONIAN

[edit] To call this article "Srem" is a violation of NPOV

Only those with a specialized knowledge of the region can measure the extent to which the issue is charged.

All right, I moved it to Srem/Srijem now, this should be a decent compromise. --Joy [shallot] 13:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And only he would also recognize immediately that most of the article was written by a Serb, not only because it is for the most part a translation of the Wikipedia article in Serbian, not only because it is not too familiar with the uses of the definite article in English, but also because it ignores the Croatian side of the story, in a typically Serb denial of the Croatian nation.

  • This is ridiculous. I did write most of this article, and I am Serb, so, if my ethnic origin disturb you, then you have big problem with your political attitude. As for the history of Croats, I do not have appropriate literature to write about that. User:PANONIAN

As it stands, this article is in violation of NPOV rules, and should not appear without a warning to that effect.

  • Can you specify what exactly in the article is violation of NPOV rules? So far you only specify that my ethnic origin is a violation of these rules. User:PANONIAN

[edit] Name

A good solution to one of the NPOV issues would be to call the article by the region's English exonym, Syrmia. LuiKhuntek 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

We already agreed to use both names, Serbian and Croatian one. Also, Syrmia is not English but Latin name, thus I do not see why we should to use this archaic name, since names Srem and Srijem are mostly used by local people, and these names are not new, but very old ones. PANONIAN (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Syrmia is English as well as a Latin form. (Another Latin form, Sirmium, is used by the United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium.)

And Syrmia is not archaic. It is used on a map of "Yugoslavia since 1991" in the 2002 Historical Atlas of Central Europe (Paul Magocsi), a definitive work on the subject, as well as numerous other contemporary sources.

English Wikipedia should reflect English rather than local usage (e.g., Dalmatia, Slavonia, Styria, Tyrol) and this is even more appropriate when there is disagreement over multiple local forms.

LuiKhuntek 07:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the English name for this region simply does not exist. The English language could to use all these forms (Latin, German, Serbian, Croatian, etc.), depends from which source is name taken. PANONIAN (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, up to 90% of English vocabulary is not English since it was borrowed from languages other than Anglo-Saxon. (Including words such as "logic," "vocabulary," and "language"). I just cited an English-language atlas with a map of "Yugoslavia since 1991" that uses neither the Croat nor Serb form. If there objectively exists an English language, that would have to qualify.

LuiKhuntek 06:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that Syrmia is English name for this region, but I changed name of the article into "Syrmia" because I think that previous solution where we had one article with two names was not the best one. We can try this new solution for now. PANONIAN (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally we've came to my solution from few months before. I didn't wanted to push it by force and editwars. Pannonian, in German language, Srijem/Srem is called Syrmien. If you know grammar of German, english/latin analogy of this would be Syrmia. Sirmium should be the city of Mitrovica (see older former-yu schoolmaps).Kubura 02:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

How to read Syrmia and Sirmium in Latin?--Fitzwilliam 13:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verification for Sanjak of Syrmia

Old histirical maps with Ottoman provinces in the region would be a good verification. Here is one:

PANONIAN (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last edits

I just want to say something about last edits of user:Ceha. Despite the fact that user who wrote in the "History of Vojvodina" article that "some historians quoted Croatian historical rights on Syrmia" cannot be considered as an serious editor, I just want to say why his edits are wrong:

  • The part about Ljudevit Posavski seems correct, but on the historical maps I saw, his Pannonian Croatia included only western part of Syrmia, not entire region.
  • As for Stefan Dragutin, in the time when he ruled, the central power in Hungary collapsed, thus despite the fact that he was vassal of the Hungarian king in the beginning, after this collapse of central power, both Stefan Dragutin and Ugrin Čak were de facto independent rulers.
  • I see no reason to delete a data from 1790 about number of Serbs and Croats in the Kingdom of Slavonia.
  • Šid certainly was not "annexed from Croatia to Vojvodina", since it belonged to Dunavska banovina in 1929. In 1939, it was annexed to Croatia and returned to Vojvodina in 1945.

PANONIAN (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replay to Crap

First thing, that edit was made from NPOV and it is true isn't it? There were some historians who talked about Syrmia only in Croatian contex denying any other point of view. Second thing you have right to say your opinion but you don't have right to insult anybody (keep that in mind, please:) As for your commentaries:

  • On majority of the maps Pannonian Croatia is shown in the borders at the time which it had while it was under Frankish vasalage. Ljudevit's state was much larger and (as I wrote you in history of Vojvodina discussion) it even ebraced some parts of todays 'Uža' Serbija (Timocani were also included in rebellion).
  • There was a weakening of central power in Hungary at that time (Croatian noble Pavao Subic had brought Anjou king from Naples and there was a civil war) and many regiones were de facto independent, but not de jure and when new king established itself he took that power away to them (also Croatian analogy with weaking of Subic family and growth of Nelipcici). No matter for their titles they were all his vassals. When you are trying to speak about some kingdom it is good practice to say something about it begining and end isn't it? I only noted that after the deth of Dragans son lands under his jurisdiction went into the hands of another vassal of the Hungarian king, which is also true.
  • I'm sorry because I deleted your census, but I don't see it as true. I asked you for sources?
  • Wasn't Šid part of Drina Banovina then? In 1939 was a greater compromise of Croatian and Serbian politicians than in 1929(kings dictatoriship?). Borders were changed constatly (to Croatian historians Syrmia was 1918 part of Croatia) and if you wish you can describe it with some other (neutral) words.

If you have any real commentary please send it to me. If you don't understand something I'll gladly make it clear for you:) Ceha 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC) BTW: Do you have any informations about that census in electronical form? Ceha 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"On mayority of the maps Pannonian Croatia is showen in the borderies at the time"

Ok, but show me just ONE map (or any other Internet source) which show that ENTIRE Syrmia was part of the Pannonian Croatia. I can show you one which show different thing (and by the way, Croats draw that map):

"and many regiones were de facto independent, but not de jure"

Actually, I read little more about that than you. In the Medieval Ages there was no difference between "de facto" and "de jure" rules. If one ruler de facto ruled over some land, then he was also its de jure ruler, no matter if some neighbouring ruler claimed that he is "de jure" ruler of that land (That was only his point of view, and nothing more).

"I'm sorry because I deleted your census, but I don't see it as true. I asked you for sources?"

My source is this book: Peter Rokai, Zoltan Djere, Tibor Pal, Aleksandar Kasas, Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002. Since the book is written by Hungarian historians, not by Serbian, I do not see why you would not believe that it is true.

"Wasn't Šid part of Drina Banovina then?"

Šid was part of Danube Banovina in 1929 when banovinas were formed. See the map:

As for syrmia, it was part of Croatia-Slavonia until 1918, then it became part of the State of Slovenes, Croazs and Serbs, then seceded from it and became part of Serbia, then became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, etc...

PANONIAN (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • "Ok, but show me just ONE map (or any other Internet source) which show that ENTIRE Syrmia was part of the Pannonian Croatia."

Times Atlas of world history (I'dont have map in electronical form) newest edition shows Ljudevit's state with whole Syrmia. Even Timocani (and the river Timok is on the eastern border of Serbia were part of it's state), as I said earlier. Abbove mentioned map doesn't shows that part of region as part of P. Croatia but stopes at in before the place of today's Beograd ('na ušću save i Dunava'). Map you are mentioning is official (if we can call it that way:) map of Pannonian Croatia. Ljudevit's state lasted only 3 years and it is labeled as temporary so on majority of the maps traditional border of Pannonian Croatia are shown. May I ask how old are you? Such thing were taught in elementary school in old Jugoslavia:) Ljudevit's Ustanak ('rebelion') from Alp's to Timok?

  • "In the Medieval Ages there was no difference between "de facto" and "de jure" rules."

Yes it was. Why do you think that first of the Nemanjici asked pope for its crown? Many of "de facto" rulers later became "de jure" rulers (history of Portugal is good example) when they obtained international recogniton. And I didn't wrote nothing which was not true. After death of Dragans son his lands was divided by other vassals of Hungarian king (I think there was a brief period of strong Hungarian goverment? Anjou and its kingdom from Baltic to Adriatic, wars with Venice, Peace in Zarra 1358?)

  • "My source is this book: Peter Rokai, Zoltan Djere, Tibor Pal, Aleksandar Kasas, Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002. Since the book is written by Hungarian historians, not by Serbian, I do not see why you would not believe that it is true."

Book was printed in Beograd, by citizents of Serbian state:) Ok, I'll try to look for that information on the net. Information about census should not be noted in just one book.

  • "Šid was part of Danube Banovina in 1929 when banovinas were formed."

Borders of Banovinas fluctuated. Part of Syrmia (part of left bank of river Sava)was in Drina Banovina (I think from 1929-1934, but I'm not sure). I think that apropriate formulation of this would be "Although there was previous fluctuations of the border, final revision definitly annexed Šid to Vojvodina and Ilok to Croatia" (or you can put SR before Croatia). That is neutral formulation, don't you think so? Ceha 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, listen this: here is good example why "de jure Medieval rules" are for most most part irrelevant. It is because almost all medieval rulers were vassals of somebody. All Catholic rulers were vassals of Pope. So, were they independent according to you, or were they all "de jure" part of one great state led by Pope. Most of the other non-Catholic rulers were also vassals of somebody. The rulers who were supreme power were a rare thing. As for Šid, it is simply wrong that it was "annexed" from Croatia to Vojvodina. I do not have information that it belonged to Drina Banovina in one time period (it is possible), but I am sure that it belonged to Danube Banovina (the predecessor of Vojvodina), before it belonged to Banovina of Croatia in 1939. Thus we could only write that borders in 1945 were "defined", not that somebody "annexed" something. PANONIAN (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All Catholic rulers were wassals of pope, but only after 10th or 11th century (before that many of the rulers particiapate in election of the pope (battle for 'investura' and naming of the bishopies'). Power of pope was something whath you could call international recogniton. If pope said you were independent, you were (again example of Portugal:) Pope is seen as high arbitar, you can make some kind of paralel with UN today merged with USA, and with other great powers not existent. There are some states which are recognized and which are not, and yet some unrecognized states have more power than recognised (for example, Taiwan wich is unrecognized have more power than Somalia (which is recognized, but curently in civil war)).

Main difference is that much of the unrecognized states disapear in time or become recognized (in that case they are legal, in oposite they are not). That is the whole differnce. If Dragans descendands have made the country strong and ressistant, and made most of europe known of their strenght and independence (and lived after that:) than it would be an independent country, and not vassal state. Croatia thing with Hungarians is that they had one ruler. Croatian nobles even 1527 selected another king. Croatia had "de jure" independence, and if need be (or positive circumstations it could reassarted it again). Kings Dragan's state was just one in the row. It had power, but lacked prestige (this sounds funny:) but it did not act as independent state, it was just a very powerfull vassalage, which was at some times "de facto" independent).

For example at that time in southern Croatia and Bosnia Subic familly ruled as "Ban of Croatia and Gospodar of Bosne, Huma itd". They even brought new Croato-Hungarian king from Naples (Anjou) 1300, but they ruled that territory in the name of the king, and that new king as soon he consolidated his right to trone (it took him 15-20years) he tooked actions against their "de facto" independence. Nowbody calls that period of time Croatian independence, cause it was just "de facto". It wasn't internationally (this too souns funny:) recognized. Subic familly after that became Zrinski (he took them few forts, acted against them militery and gave them Zrin in compensation). You can't have independent state which nowbody recognizes (in the west that is Pope, in the east Patriarh of Constantinople?) Do you understand now? Temporal power is not evrything:) --Ceha 0:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to give you a short answer: You can notice that I wrote that Stefan Dragutin and Ugrin Čak were "de facto independent", not "independent", thus everything is correct there. I just think that we should not to write that they "de jure" were vassals of the Hungarian king, since in the article about Hungarian king, we did not wrote that he was "de jure" vassal of Pope. For this article, it is important that they ruled over this region as independent rulers, no matter was it de facto or de jure. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You got a point there. But I don't see what is the harm of saying what was nominal ownership of territory. That speaks of region's conection and relationship with its neighbors and about the status of the region. Your comparation with pope has also one small error:) Pope did recognize hungarian king as king & hungarian king did not recognize non of his (breakaway?:) vassals as kings (of corse:). That are only small things, but to make some artikle a NPOV they should be noted (they talk about history, of making and breaking contracts and connections betwen the people). Nomen est omen?:)('Lat. Name is a sign ili Ime je znak':) That is just a small touch which is missing. --Ceha 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, problem is that Stefan Dragutin was recognized as a king, thus the nominal ownership over his territory is questionable. PANONIAN (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1990s

Also I noticed just now portion of text speaking about the 90-ies. I'll add so-called " to Krajina because it was not internationally recognised and sententece that this events were part of croatian Homeland war. --Ceha 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Made few more changes, " " to unrecognized territories:) and recaptured to western part of "Krajina" cause at the begining of the war most of it was controled by Croatian police forces.

--Ceha 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What I will change here is that Serbs "tried to establish their autonomous region". They did not only tried, but they did established such region. PANONIAN (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I puted tried as in most of the cases establishment of autonomy must be regulated by civil laws of the state to which that territory belongs. Also from begining it was not clear witch territories do belong to that region (borders of the region were battle lines), and in mentioned territory Croats had relative majority(prewar-census). Perhaps proclaimed would be a better formulation?

Events of 1991-95 are known as Homeland war in most of literature (myself would prefere naming it War for indepence, but:)

Ceha 14:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
They are known as Homeland War, only in Croatia. Nobody else, except for Croatian officials, refers to the 1991-1995 events by that name. User:Zvonko 00:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Try googling:) Also I don't think that words others can be used in encyclopedia. If you wish I think that apropriate formulation would be; These events were part of Croatian Homeland war, which is also known as War in Croatia or Croatian conflict. Perhaps before the end of the sentence you should use () and write mostly in Serbian media:) Have fun:)
Ceha 4:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I do not care for the terminology here, but I agree that most of the English readers have no idea what "Croatian Homeland War" means, thus if you already writting this term somewhere, at list create a link to the "Croatian Homeland War" article that English readers could see what that is. PANONIAN (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

added:) Thanks

Ceha 18:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I did google, and the only mention of the Homeland war comes from Croatian media. Every other western media outlet uses War in Croatia or some variation of those words. It’s fine if you want to make readers aware of the fact Croatians have their own term for the 1991-1995 War, but other terms should be mentioned too, especially when everybody else uses them. And it is definitely not only the Serbian media that uses a different term.Zvonko 18:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
When you try googling with homeland war +bbc +croatia you get cca 74 000 answers(in 0.34 sec:)

And that is just one information agency:) Perhaps you tried to google with just homeland war +croatia? It is normally then first of the articles would be from that state... I don't have anything against that you mention other names of this war, but this formulation isn't fiting for that:) If you use 'what Croatians call their' you are not naming just citizens of the state but also members of a nation, and then that looks like tribal war:( Also word 'others'. How can you tell that everbody else call that war like that? See (this is a little bit harsh, but:) from that formulation, it seems that some tribe called that war in its own way, but everbody else (whole of international community) called it as something else. Also word conflict amplifies that opinion. War was also known as 'Croatian Independence war' for much of 1991. I changed the formulation. This should be ok? Ceha 17:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

so called "RSK" or "Krajina" should always have prefix before it, because it was not internationaly recognised and because territories which it ocupied were internationaly recognised Croatian ones (and in Croatian continuum, as when SFR Yugoslavia broke, R Croatia became sucesor of it's part, SR Croatia, which controled that territory). If you have problems whith the name Independent state of Croatia, I sugest to you that you also use " " and so called, because that state was dependent upon axis on it's survayval (but it was internationaly recognised, at least in part of the world, by USSR, Germany, Italy, Japon, etc.) Ceha 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we should not use double standards here. If NDH is not mentioned as "NDH" here, then RSK should not be "RSK". So, we either should mention both as "so called" either none. So, what we should do? The usage of this term "so called" is always based on some POV. From the point of view of Serbs who lived in RSK it was not "so called", so you obviously want to impose here only one point of view. If article about RSK is named "Republic of Serb Krajina" not "so called Republic of Serb Krajina", then why we should use word "so called" here? This is not article about RSK, but about Syrmia, and RSK is only briefly mentioned here, so this is not place where the nature of RSK should be explained, but RSK article. Please go to that article and explain there your point of view about international recognition of Croatia and RSK and other related things. PANONIAN (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is in naming. In that area only one state was internationaly recognized in that time area (S)RH. There was no other else. So when we talk about that time we should mention that... Ceha 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

But that is where you wrong: in the time when RSK was formed, Croatia simply was not internationally recognized as independent. The entire area was in that time internationally recognized as part of Yugoslavia and it was exactly Croatia that attacked the constitutional system of Yugoslavia, thus Croatia simply was an outlaw entity before its international recognition. PANONIAN (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
How am I wrong? RH is legaly sucessor of SRH. By study of Bauidailare comission SFRJ broke apart and SR H was one of its sucessors. Croatia was not an outlow entity, it existed in that teritory.

Ceha 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Read what I wrote in section below. PANONIAN (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afrika paprika

Although there is no use to discuss with you because you are clear vandal and troll, but let me give you an example of your own POV here. I will now write about NDH in the same manner as you write about RSK: "In 1941 Syrmia was occupied by the World War II Axis powers and its entire territory was attached to the genocidal and fascist so called "Independent State of Croatia". During the occupation, the Croatian fascists known as "Ustaše" killed 9,805 (mostly ethnic Serb) civilians, of whom 6,825 were men, 1,479 women, 846 old people, and 655 children. 9,683 more people were sent to concentration camps, 491 to forced labour, and 1,618 were forcibly mobilized. 6,602 members of the anti-fascist resistance movement were also killed, thus the total number of victims of the Croatian fascist regime in Syrmia was 28,199. Also, numerous Serb villages were burned and Serb civilians were expelled from the region. In 1944, the region was liberated from this Croatian fascist rule." So, Afrika paprika, tell me please your opinion about this text. Do you like it? It is same POV wording that you want to impose about RSK. We cannot write about both, NDH and RSK with Croatian POV view. Of course, the Wikipedia policy of neutrality demand that we do not use POV when we write about both of them. PANONIAN (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparing NDH(Independent State of Croatia) which was a nazi-puppet state in WW2 and the rebel terrorist occuppied territories of Croatia known as "RSK" in 1990s is fundamentally wrong and is ridiculous. The arguments have already been made by others before yet you continue to enforce your nationalistic views, Wikipedia is not your greater serbian propaganda site you know. Afrika paprika 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You should prove that my views are nationalistic before you say that. I can say that you are not human but donkey, but can I prove it? Second thing, in 1990 and 1991 Croatia was not internationally recognized as independent, thus Croatia in fact was rebel state here, not RSK. PANONIAN (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Croatian Republic (RH) is a legal succesor of Socialistic Croatian Republic (SR H) which (whith other socialistic republics) made Socialistic Federal Republic Yugoslavia (SFRJ). By study of Baudilaire Comision SFRJ broke apart and every of its parts became independent. Republic of Croatia exist in unbroken continuum in that time ('90ies). So caled RSK is parastate which existed in & ocupated territory of another souveren nation (RH). I dindn't see that Afrika Paprika used words such as fashists, but only liberated, which seems to me perfecly all right, as only internationaly recognized state in that area was (S)RH.
Ceha 22:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Word "liberated" is always POV, and how interesting that it were Hungarian and Croatian users that insisted that word "liberated" should not be used in history sections in the articles about cities in Vojvodina (about events after WWII when partisans liberated these cities from Hungarian and Croatian fascists), and now you insist to use that word here when area was "liberated" from Serbs. So, according to you, only Croats have "right" to "liberate" land and Serbs are always "occupants", right? Well, I do not think so, if the words used in the history of the cities of Vojvodina are not insulting for Hungarians and Croats, then words used here should not be insulting for Serbs, so find another word instead of "liberated". And by the way, Croatia as it was in 1990-1991 was something that was outside of the legal Yugoslav system and a clear example of "rebel state". So, between the time when it became de facto independent and time when it was internationally recognized as such, Croatia was not legal independent state and it is no less "so called" than RSK. PANONIAN (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't quite follow your logic with constant comparing of the events in WW2 and 1990s. It's illogical. Also by the time the occuppied territories were liberated(yes they were) Croatia was fully recognized by the international community and was admitted into UN with it's SRH borders. Also even in 1991 it had legality and you can hardly call it a "rebel state". By the 1974 constitution Yugoslavia was made into full federation and the republics got the right to secede if the people says so on the referendum. All conditions were satisfied and you can hardly call it a "rebel state". Afrika Paprika 03:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a deference. Vojvodina at time was part of Yugoslavia (first Yugoslavia was centralistic and in it Serbia did not exist) and did not have absolute Serbian majority. So called Krajina was part of (S)RH from 1945 (when second Yugoslavia was made). As for rebel entity, let me repet you (once more:) that RH is legaly sucessor of SRH. By study of Bauidailare comission SFRJ broke apart and SR H was one of its sucessors. Croatia was not an outlow entity, it existed in that teritory. But I see how could somebody be provoced by word liberation. Reintegrated should be OK. Ceha 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was not talking about Vojvodina in general, but about "certain cities in Vojvodina". Second, please spare me this "legalistic" explanations because such legalism is nothing but a point of view of those who imposing it. The policy of Wikipedia is not to support one point of view, but to present different points of view if they exist. But even if I consider that this legalism is nothing but a piece of crap, I understand it little better than you, so let me explain it: I was not talking about whether Croatia is successor of SRH or not, but was Croatia (before it was recognized as successor or as independent) part of any "legal" system. The answer is one simple no. It was an legalistic vacuum in which was Croatia in 1990 and 1991, and that is time when Krajina was created. But no matter of that "legalism" Krajina certainly was not "so called" for its people. On the other hand, you forgeting that Krajina was created because new (illegal) constitution of Croatia changed status of Serbs in Croatia from nation to national minority. Since Serbs before that were nation in Croatia, from their point of view, the creation of Krajina was completelly legal in that circumstances when their status of nation in Croatia was illegally revoked. So much about legalism and now to repeat again that this is not article about Krajina and that you should present your point of view in some other article. PANONIAN (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
And here you are wrong. Republic of Croatia is succesor of Socialistic Republic of Croatia. That states in report of Baudilaire Comission. Croatian Serbs could have seen that something like that was ilegal, but it was not. That report said that SFRJ broke apart, it's republic was succesors and that its borders were nonchangeble (so it was inpossible to take one peace of the land and connect it to other state (this example would include so caled Krajina and Serbia)). Croatian constitution changed in its parlament by more than 2/3 majority, and that was the only legal way to change it. That what Croatian Serbs taught it was ilegal that is another story, for witch they lake any proves (there is nothing in SFRJ constitution of 1974 that somebody should expecialy ask Croatian Serbs when constitution is changing). This point of view could speak that Vojvodina's Croats had the right to secede from Serbia? Please continue this discussion on my page....
Ceha 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope that current version of the paragraph is acceptable for us all, thus I do not think that we need further discussion about this. I think that User:ChrisO (who is not Serb) already explained to you why words "so-called" are not NPOV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Serb_Krajina#Naming_.22RSK.22 So, you two (Ceha and Afrika) should probably accuse him for Greater Serbian propaganda. LOL :))))) PANONIAN (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's acceptable to me. 've realized it's really irrelevant wheter there will stand "captured", "liberated" or something else...everyone can read the article and come to the same conclusion of the events wheter there are quotation marks or not. Also I must say I am pleasantly surprised by your sudden acquired objectivity so I am agreeing with all your changes you made lately....more-less. :-)) Afrika Paprika 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is all right. Did I ever acused somebody for spreding anybodies propaganda?:) It is allways nice when you can talk with somebody whith arguments and comfirmed facts.
Ceha 21:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Frontier - or not?

This map from Military Frontier shows Srem proper being a part of Wojwodowina, rather than the Slavonian Military Frontier... The map was drawn by good German historians, so it must be correct... but no article on wiki points that out. --PaxEquilibrium 12:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no such thing as "Srem proper". North Srem was under civil administration and as such it in different time periods belonged to Vojvodina and Slavonia, while southern Srem was under military administration. PANONIAN (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah - I invented "Srijem proper" to differ it from that under military control. So that map is from the period of 1848-1867, right? --PaxEquilibrium 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The map you showed is from 1849-1860 period. In 1848-1849, the situation was different. See Serbian Vojvodina article. And not to mention that most of Srem was Ottoman sanjak in the 17th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bosnia_17th_century.jpg PANONIAN (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misinterpretation of the Constitution

Someone mentioned how Croatia legally seceded Yugoslavia - it indeed was legitimate, with over 66% voting on a referendum for independence, but certainly not legal. Aside from that. someone mentioned that inner Yugoslav borders were nonchangable - also incorrect. The is not a single official document (such as the Constitution) that contains such borders - borders were never securely defined, exactly because of that - they were predicted to be easily changed, as is evident in changes of borders between Serbia and Croatia and Kosovo-Serbia proper; not to mention the fact that in the early period borders were heavily ambiguous). Additionally, the right of self-determination applied to nations and not constituent republics. What many fail to see (mostly because Yugo broke up) is that Yugoslavia wasn't a Union or similar - it was a country, composed out of 6-8 geopolitical entities which were autonomous. Besides thatm the 1990 Constitution was brought on an illegal way (sort of). --PaxEquilibrium 12:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why you have deleted Ruma and Ilok

Better clarification is needed and Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat as you call it now (before you have called it Voivodship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar) had only two parts of Syrmia that is Ruma and Ilok municipalities. Yhy have you deleted that clarification.

Your article stated before I edited those few facts that Syrmia was devided by the Danube and Sava Banovina for the period of their own existance. It was not true, I corrected it. Why you haven't deleted that correction. You know why - because it was the truth.

Please stop refering to my corrections as disruptive, troling an so forth, because You and Your actions addmit that my corrections are just fine and historicaly based. Imbris 19:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Ruma and Ilok because: 1. according to one historical map that I have, Ilok was not in the Voivodship, and 2. among places that were in the voivodship, Ruma was not the only place, so I see no point to mention just Ruma and not other places. Regarding banovinas, I did not reverted your change there because it is correct, but that does not mean that your other changes are correct or in good faith too. PANONIAN (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Maps are not a source that is given by God. Documents are. In the documents Ilok and Ruma were the only municipalities in the Serb Voivodship and Temeser Bannate. Imbris 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
All depends on the origin of the documents. However, you did not wrote that Ilok and Ruma are municipalities, but places, and other places like Irig and Beočin were part of the voivodship. PANONIAN (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny when someone would rather have ambiguos "northern" instead of factual Ilok and Ruma. Imbris 20:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop insulting me with false description of my intentions - I did not had information what was name of those municipalities, so the question what I would "rather" write is not your concern. PANONIAN (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lands governoment in Zagreb and Provincial governoment in Zagreb

They operated because the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes didn't have any administration for the territories of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dalmatia, Bačka/Banat/Baranya etc. so it kept the old governoments from 1918-1920 then it demoted them to historical provinces and gave them Provincial governoments. Oblast was not a province but more a county. Oblasts became functional not until 1924 when some of the Great iupanus (orriginally Veliki župan) were given its administrative role, and Counties self-governoment begun in 1927. You do not know any thing outside of the highschool history book. (That is the only thing that you are copying (disregarding copyright) here and publishing in Wikipedia). Provincial governoments were canceled at some point but functioned until february 1927. Some of their duties were passed to Counties and some to the level of Ministries (that is how important they were). So check this out and then delete it. Do not think that someone is against you. You Serbs allway feel threatened but easily give threats. Imbris 20:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


What you talk about? The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was highly centralized and for example Croats objected to this centralization - if it was not centralized then why Croats objected? And usage of words like "You Serbs" is highly insulting and show your clear racism - how can I trust to somebody who use this word? Sorry, but I simply cannot trust that anything that come from you is truth if I do not find some other confirmation for it, and for this what you speak here there is no independent confirmation, so the only thing that I can believe is that this is just other lie invented by you. PANONIAN (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As I know Serbs and Croats and the vast majority of the Nations of Europe are the members of a white race. You are in big problems, my dear Panonian. Namely you see a provocation everywhere you look. Do you get out of your house, NO; there are so many provocations on which you must retaliate to the death. You have read some few books in highschool and you think you are the smartest one of us all. Well you are not. Look closely at the sentence that I wrote. In it is all the wisdom about YOU. "You allway feel threatened but easily give threats". In the modern world there are no places for you and your chauvinistic crowd. Imbris 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the science proved that all humans are of same race, but word racist is also widely used to designate somebody who dislike the entire group of people just because ethnic origin of that group. Also, I will not respond to childish comments about my personality, but I will show you proofs for my claims - 1. Kingdom of SHS 1918-1922: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:KraljevinaSHS1918.jpg 2. Kingdom of SHS 1922: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:KraljevinaSHS1922.jpg All what you have to know is there... PANONIAN (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Shameful. Not all that is written on the Internet is documented and true. Your inputs are undocumented. History will not permit this. Imbris 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have similar maps in my historical atlas, so who are you to say is that true or not? If you do not believe to your own eyes, to what you will believe? Stop trolling now. PANONIAN (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals of Syrmia

We do not need this article if there is going to be clearly stated where were the capitals of modern day Srymia.

Why we have a sentence His capital city was Debrc (between Belgrade and Šabac). But not a sentence. From 1922-29 Vukovar, 1929-1931 Division between Novi Sad and Sarajevo, 1931-41 Novi Sad, and 1941-44 Vukovar, 1945-now Novi Sad. Until then the sentence His capital city was Debrc (between Belgrade and Šabac). will be deleted.

Imbris 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it will not be deleted. I see no problem that you mention that Vukovar was capital of Syrmia county or that Sremska Mitrovica was capital of the Sanjak of Syrmia during Ottoman times, as well as Debrc was capital of the Kingdom of Syrmia. However, Novi Sad and Sarajevo were not capitals of any territory that had name Syrmia, and therefore I see no reason to mention those cities. PANONIAN (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You have deleted Vukovar oblast from the article about Syrmia. Why. The oblast's were called mostly by the name of the capital, few exceptions were. See Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Imbris 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I deleted it exactly because it was a exception. See: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:KraljevinaSHS1922.jpg I will also correct article about Kingdom of Yugoslavia. PANONIAN (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What were an exception. History is not writen by geographers but by documents. In the documents we have the name Oblast in Vukovar. And in 1929. King's government in Belgrade decided to split Syrmia between Novi Sad and Sarajevo. Write that in your article, write the fact about the position of Syrmia in those times. And you are the only one who is trolling. -- Imbris 04:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What were an exception??? You said yourself here that "there were few exceptions", and I said that Syrmia was an exception. In which documents is named Vukovar oblast? My historical atlas clearly say that it was named "Syrmia Oblast". And also, again: post comments about content of the article, not about users. PANONIAN (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/y/r/Talk%7ESyrmia_33cf.html"