Talk:Vojvodina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Serbia
 Serbia Portal
Vojvodina is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Archived discussion

Talk:Vojvodina/Archive01

[edit] New comments and questions

[edit] Croatian language - 6th?

According to the Serbian government, Vojvodina has 5 official languages (Croatian language not mentioned as official). --PaxEquilibrium 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Croatian is official as of 2001, but its not fully been implemented, like other languages in Vojvodina .... we all now Serbian politics... "official just in paper" lol --Göran Smith 08:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any source? --PaxEquilibrium 18:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, i am speaking from personal experience. There are no official documents on Croatian, if you see government buildings, eg national bank of Serbia, other Serbia's ministry offices in Vojvodina and local post offices (even renovated post offices) which still do not have names in Croatian or Latin alphabet. They all have on their stamps and signs on buildings in Serbian Cyrillic, Russian, Slovak and Hungarian. No one has on Latin alphabet or Croatian. I think Subotica municipality is only one (?) --Göran Smith 22:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You mixing official languages on provincial level and those official on municipal level. Official languages on provincial level means that all provincial institutions use these languages, but not local ones. As for sources, here is the official source of Vojvodinian government: http://www.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/ On page named "Upoznajte APV" you have this: "Statutom AP Vojvodine, kao najvišim pravnim aktom u Pokrajini, utvrđeno je da su u službenoj upotrebi istovremeno sa srpskim jezikom još i mađarski, hrvatski, slovački, rumunski i rusinski jezik." PANONIAN (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ne mešam, sve republičke institucije u Vojvodini koriste na pečatima i na tablama na zgradama Mađ, Slovački, Rus i srpksi ćirilicu, kao i pošte na šalterima (baš sam video renoviranu poštu na spensu da nisu stavili hr, a ostale jesu). Kao što u SUPu bilo koje opštine možeš dobiti ličnu kartu na svim jezicima samo ne možeš na hrvatskome, a ni na latinici. I dalje postoji neka blaga diskriminacija hr jezika, a pošto je hr službeni od 2000, a znamo da treba proći dosta vremena dok se zakon i primeni u praxi, ipak je vojvodina Srbija lol :))) --Göran Smith 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia the official language was serbo-croatian (1989-2006). So how it was possible for local-level institutions to confer the Constitution?

[edit] Rusyn IS Ukrainian.

Please change Rusyn to Ukrainian.

No, that is only your personal opinion. In Vojvodina, both, Rusyn and Ukrainian are spoken. Rusyn is official and Ukrainian is not, but Ukrainian too is used by the Radio Television of Vojvodina. Also, The Pannonian Rusyn language belong to group of west Slavic languages and it is closer to Slovak than to Ukrainian. It is very different from Rusyn spoken in Ukraine. PANONIAN (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic violence in Vojvodina

(moved from User talk:Istvan) Now, let see: if you want to write about ethnic violence in Vojvodina, you should start with the years 1703-1711 when Hungarian rebels commited genocide against Serb civilians in Vojvodina, then to continue with 1848-1849 when Hungarian rebels commited another genocide against Serbs civilians in Vojvodina, then to continue with 1867-1918 when Hungarian ultra-nationalists attacked Serb civilians and beated them only for speaking Serbian in public, then to continue with 1941-1944 when Hungarian fascists commited genocide against Serb, Jewish and Roma civilians, and only after all this we can come to modern events. PANONIAN (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The above, properly referenced, may fit into the History of Vojvodina article. The events of the 21st century are by any standard, current and thus belong in Vojvodina. BTW the references are not just Serb-Hungarian violence but events involving many different ethnicities as documented by both Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament. They are notable not just for the violence but even moreso for the conspicuous lack of police and official response to it, even full denial of the problem. This, as Europe has learned time and again, always leads to bigger problems. You may not believe it, Panonian but I do not dislike Serbs - I like Serbs I have Serb friends and even a few Serb relatives - I find it sad the almost pariah condition the events of 1990s have led to quite good and innocent Serbs in UK and USA virtually always self-identifying as "Yugoslavians". I object when properly referenced edits made in good faith[1] and rightfully upheld by disinterested editors [2] are dismissed as nationalist POV when a careful reading of the references themselves reveal that the reverted text is quite a genteel and muted description of harsh reality. I took your specific objections under consideration[3], specifically the criminal code against hate crimes (which HRW calls unenforced), allegations of nationalist bias, and took your advise "If you want to have real story about those events, then please read the official report of European investigators" and found the corresponding resolution passed by the European Parliament. Its fair play.
However, I am still sensitive to your concern about "polluting" a page with dirty laundry (after all, the Ronald Reagan page doesnt have a picture of colon polyps) and that nobody in Europe is whiter than snow (but at least most of us are off to a good start in this millenium). But what is happening in Serb Vojvodina is a real problem with the police and certainly belongs in the wikipedia to inform those who want to know more about Vojvodina. Having "repaired" the text as per your objections, and having reverted twice I will certainly step aside for now and let the community decide on the proper treatment of this issue. István 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There is only one solution for this problem: all ethnic violence, historical and modern should be moved to Ethnic groups of Vojvodina article. This is minimum of compromise that I ask for and if you still want to push your POV here be ready for long term high scale revert war (I will notify other users from Serbian Wikipedia about problems that I have here with you). Have a nice day... PANONIAN (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
O yes, we can also create new article named Ethnic violence in Vojvodina and move all this shit there. Which of the two options you prefer? PANONIAN (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, what is POV in the passage I added? Ive taken references from two reputable and independent organisations: Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament and summarised them accurately. I'm now copying this to Talk:Vojvodina as it has become important for that page. See more there. István 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Your POV is that you posted part how Serbs attack Hungarians but also DELETED part where Hungarians attack Serbs. One cannot understand recent ethnic conflict without its historical background because negative attitude of some Serbs towards Hungarians come exactly from the fact that Serbs in the past were victims of Hungarians. You insisted that we tell this story here, but if we tell it, we must tell the whole story, not only its part. However, I still believe that this story does not belong here at all because much of this modern ethnic-conflict story are just alleged events and there are much more important issues in Vojvodina like unemployment therefore, this whole story should be moved to Ethnic groups of Vojvodina article, but if you insist that it remain here, then we cannot left here only one part of the story. PANONIAN (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ive not deleted any material, as stated in the edit summary, the historical material was MOVED to the historical article (and redundancies removed). This material was also available to both Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament prior to their reports. Moreover, Serb victims of ethnic violence is also mentioned in the HRW report therefore there is no double-standard, neither real nor implied; simply a weighed consideration of much evidence (experts having gone down that he-said/she-said road) and issued (in both cases) their final reports: Its a police apathy problem which enables more ethnic violence. The historical context belongs in the historical article (though it should be linked). Perhaps if James Michener were still alive he could write the novel "Vojvodina" and lay out the entire sordid story but that is far beyond what is appropriate for the mainspace article.István 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The added passage is NPOV by any standard - it is properly summarised material from published, reputable and unbiased sources, both of which are experts in their respective fields. The passage is important - it identifies a noteworthy lack of official attention to the problem of ethnic violence; i.e. a problem of police apathy more than of blockheaded toughs. The passage is not nationalistic at all: as the (thoroughly) cited victims are of many many nationalities/ethnicities and neither source takes the side of any one of them. The passage deals with modern Vojvodina, hence its placement here.

Your "move" of the material is exactly POV problem because you "moved" material that you do not want to see on this page and left material that you want to see. PANONIAN (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the POV? What specifically do you mean when you write "...I will notify other users from Serbian Wikipedia about problems that I have here with you." To what ends? Is that some kind of threat? I don't claim to be perfect, if I have misinterpreted the cited references or taken something out of context, I am very open to correction (but not to bullying). And looking above I cannot find any ad hominem bearing my signature. Im playing fair with you.

This is not threat - you done the same by calling your "friend" Bendeguz to help you have more than 3 reverts, why I cannot do the same then? At least, I have no bad faith towards the subject of this article. PANONIAN (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ive not communicated with Bendeguz; I assume he is acting out of common sense. Ive not implied you have bad faith toward Vojvodina. István 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
But I imply that you have. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF works until you meet a disguised egg like Panonian whose quasi-NPOV edits catch one`s eyes. So much for his neutrality, and AGF.--Bendeguz 08:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from false accusations. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As for "compromise" - we should compromise precisely to the standards of Wikipedia. Creating Ethnic violence in Vojvodina would, in this context, violate WP:POVFORK, and be misnomer to boot: Police Apathy towards ethnic violence in Vojvodina is more to the point, however any article text would likely not add more than the title itself, and should be nonetheless referenced from the main article. As stated before, its up to the Wikipedia community to settle the issue. István 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I will deal latter with the content of sources presented by you as well as exact look of the paragraph about recent ethnic violence. There are two issues to be discussed first: 1. in which article to post this stuff, and 2. whether to post historical and modern ethnic violance together. The best place where this should be posted is Ethnic groups of Vojvodina article because there is no reason to polute main Vojvodina article with this stuff. Second thing is that both, historical and modern ethnic violence should be on the same place because one cannot understand modern violence without historical one. PANONIAN (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Back to the point of the references: What historical context excuses/mitigates/justifies present (post-2003) police apathy toward ethnic violence? Human Rights Watch and The European Parliament are pointing out that this is a problem of lack of law enforcement, which they state will lead to even more widespread violence. How can any historical record alter/shade/excuse this very real and important problem? István 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
But that is not the source of the problem. They claim that this is source of the problem because they know nothing about history of the region. If the know something about it, they would not claim that. PANONIAN (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
One more important point: if you claim that source of this problem is "lack of law enforcement" then I do not see relevance of this in the Vojvodina article. Two facts: 1. police is not under jurisdiction of provincial authorities, and 2. attacks against minorities happen in Central Serbia too, not only in Vojvodina. Therefore, I do not see why Vojvodina should be pulled out of the whole-country context, thus the proper article for such things would be Human rights in Serbia article. PANONIAN (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, now we might be having a serious discussion (down here, not up there). Yes, lack of law enforcement is identified by Human Rights Watch in their report on Vojvodina as enabling/abetting the rapid rise in ethnic violence. They state that this will likely lead to further increases. This is an important distinction from garden-variety "ethnic violence": Most people are not suprised to read that there is ethnic violence in the Balkans, that it comes from just about every group, and that it has a looooong history. However, most readers would equally assume that such violence is illegal and the Police will try to stop it, regardless of its source - yet according to both Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament, this is not the case. In fact, they have done very deep research (just read the HRW report) and made the conclusion that there is a special problem in Vojvodina of the police ignoring ethnically motivated attacks on virtually all ethnic minorities in the province. This conclusion is made taking into context the history of the region, and focuses on Vojvodina specifically. It is they (HRW, EU), not we, who may define the problem, frame its context, and set its scope at Vojvodina and not Serbia. Human rights in Vojvodina would be a better place to put this material, and it should be linked from the main article. István 14:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoran Petrović

Does the Kurir reference support the entire paragraph? I have left the names of the victim and convicted intact assuming that there was an actual conviction (but if not then they should be removed as per WP:BLP). Does the Kurir source conclude, with evidence (i.e. not editorial) that the attack on Petrović was ethnic and not drug-related? It would be helpful to have fresh eyes review this section and address POV issues in the text. István 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This mainspace passage is moved to Human Rights in Vojvodina so discussion should follow there. István 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

Why Mr PANONIAN does not recognize facts. All of the historical lands, Backa, Baranja, Banat and Syrmia populated by Slav majority, now partly parts of Wojwodina, were part of that State before they opted for Serbia. Imbris 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that are not facts. Only Syrmia was part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, while Banat, Bačka, and Baranja (three lands also known as Vojvodina in that time) were for short time de facto independent before they joined Serbia. Just read this article: Banat, Bačka and Baranja. PANONIAN (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
They were de facto occupied by the Serbians royal army. And de iure part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong: the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs de jure did not even existed and was not recognized by anybody and therefore the claim that something de jure belonged to this state is ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Fact No. 1 Syrmia was part of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.
Wrong: the Triune Kingdom was a fictional (non-existing) union of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia, which both de jure and de facto were completelly separate Habsburg crownlands. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia was de iure official name in Zagreb. But you are stating a fact it was only a name which designated two sepparate entities Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia. Croatian Parliament in Zagreb called the Kingdom - Triune Kingdom because it had every right to do so. And because the promisses of Habsburg dinasty to Croatian people in 1527. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
Triune Kingdom was just unofficial name used only in Zagreb and nowhere else - Triune Kingdom was never officially recognized as political entity in the Habsburg Monarchy, no matter of imagine "rights" that Croats spoke of, but nobody in the Habsburg Monarchy never recognized those "rights". In fact, I do not care if you use name "Triune Kingdom" in the Croatia-related articles, but in Serbia-related articles there is no place for that crap. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Fact No. 2 Bačka, Banat i Baranja (alphabeticaly) were at the time lands of the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. And they were not independent (in 1918) but at most self governed, autonomous part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.
Banat, Bačka and Baranja was official name no matter of alphabetical order and it indeed was de facto independent territory under protection of Serbian army until it officially proclaimed its unification with Serbia. It had its own government and had no any connection with the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not the truth. They were unlawfully occupied territories of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
By whose law? By the law ow WW1 allies, Serbian army was legally on those territories. Opposite to this, the existence of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was completelly illegal by all laws, including Allie laws and Habsburg laws. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Fact No. 3 By the Statutes of the People's council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, dated 1918-10-06 and verified 1918-10-08. People's council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is the political representative of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, which live in Croatia and Slavonia with Rijeka, in Dalmatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Istria, Trieste, Carniola (Kranjsko), Friuli Venezia Giulia (Goričko and Kras), Styria (Štajersko), Carinthia (Koroško), Bačka, Banat, Baranya, Medjimurje and in the rest of southwestern Hungary.
The government of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs claimed that its aim is to rule over Banat, Bačka and Baranja, but it never established its control over those lands because Serbian National Board in Novi Sad had all authority over Banat, Bačka and Baranja and it was not subordinated to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Also, the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was not never internationally recognized as a state, so it had neither de facto neither de jure control over Banat, Bačka and Baranja. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
A state can have de iure controll of a territory even if not recognized by international community. And it was National council not board. They just opted for Serbia sooner. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, if state de jure does not exist (and exactly that was the case with the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs) then it cannot have de jure control over anything. Also, it was Serbian National Board at first, but after region officially joined to Serbia it was transformed into real provincial government. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Fact No. 4 The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was the short form for The State of the People's council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and was proclaimed in accordance to the Statutes 1918-10-08
What this has to do with Vojvodina? PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Every textbook said that Bačka, Banat and Baranya were parts of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in accordance to its Statutes. It has everything to do with Vojvodina. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Every textbook? Where? In Croatia? Should I laugh to this or something else? I already told you: de jure the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs did not existed and therefore it de jure did not controled anything beyond its de facto borders, while de facto the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs never controled Banat, Bačka and Baranja. So the only thing that could have connection with Vojvodina here is history twisting with the purpose of justification of modern Greater Croatian political aspirations. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Fact No. 5 At the meeting in Geneve 1918-11-09 there was an understanding between President of the government and minister of foreign affairs of the Kingdom of Serbia, and President of People's council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and President of the Yugoslav commitee from London. In the Conclusions of the meeting it was decided by the Government of the Kingdom of Serbia to recognize People's council in Zagreb as a reprezentative of the people and Government of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. At that meeting there were dozens of people present, parliament members, presidents of parliaments, members of the press etc.
What this has to do with Vojvodina? PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not a comment, but ignoring the truth. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The truth is not same as the "truth" - when you see a difference between the two you will realize that I am right. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Fact No 6 Why would Kingdom of Serbia recognize claim of Bačka, Banat and Baranya to the State of People's council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs? So some PANONIAN would defer the idea. I don't think so!
It never recognized such claims. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It did 1918-11-09. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it did not. Serbia recognized State on of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs on the territories that they de facto controled, which did not included Banat, Bačka and Baranja. If you do not trust to me, trust to this: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/193818BK.GIF PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
All was arranged for Union between State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with Kingdom of Serbia. That is why. They signed a Declaration of 1918-11-09 that promoted the idea.
What this has to do with Vojvodina? PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Vojvodinian quick answer to the proposals of hastened unification (without autonomy) which were proposals of the Serbian monarchy (with no plans for the future) pushed the rest of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in the unification (with autonomy). It has everything to do with that sittuation. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As I told you, Vojvodina was not part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and therefore unification of Vojvodina with Serbia had nothing to do with the unification of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with Serbia, they were separate entities: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/193818BK.GIF . And by the way, Vojvodina did united with Serbia as autonous entity (read again Banat, Bačka and Baranja article), but Serbian government did not regognized autonomy of Vojvodina in this time. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Fact No 7 1918-11-24. People's council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs proclaims the union with Kingdom of Serbia, and Kingdom of Montenegro (de facto occupied by Serbia, and thus forced to union with it).
State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs proclaimed its union with Serbia on 28.11. i.e., after Vojvodina (25.11.) and Srem (24.11.). PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Not true. After the debates of 23. - 24. 11. 1918. Central comitee of the People's council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs accepted the conclusion of the Presidency of Central comitee (inner circle, comitee of eight) which stated the unification with Kingdom of Serbia and Kingdom of Montenegro, not with "Serbian National Board in Novi Sad". Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You simply mixing everything here now. Just read and learn: on 24.11. Syrmia united with Serbia, on 25.11. Banat, Bačka and Baranja united with Serbia, on 26.11. Montenegro united with Serbia and on 28.11. State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs united with Serbia. Those are dates that could be found even in my history book for school so please do not mix date of conclusion of the presidency and date of unification. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
At that same day (1918-11-24) Vojvodina proclaims union with Kingdom of Serbia. What was that I wonder? Did they leave the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs just to find them selves in union with the same State.
As I said it was not on the same day, and as I said, it did not leave State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs because it never was its part. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh you were late a day. I don't think so. But for the sake of curiosity. Vojvodina that was part of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs after that State joined Serbia and Montenegro seceded from the State to join it again od (by PANONIAN's datum) 1918-11-25. Imbris
Vojvodina WAS NOT part of the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, no matter how many times you repeat this lie. I already explained problems with de jure/de facto control and problems with dates, so just read my previous posts again. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Two days latter Kingdom of Montenegro joined by force to the newly formed Kingdom "of" what.
Two days latter of what? Kingdom of Montenegro joined Serbia on 26.11. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes two days latter of 1918-11-24. Kingdom of Montenegro was forced to unite. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You still did not said later of what? PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Fact No 8 Address (or better said speeach of the vice-president of the People's council to the regent King at which the King answers with a Proclamation of Union.
What this has to do with Vojvodina? PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Serbian king Karadjordjevic misused the Serbian constitution when declared the creation of the Kingdom. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no connection with Vojvodina again. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Then the Constitution of 1921. when the Kingdom receves it's legal and constitutional name. Imbris 04:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What this has to do with Vojvodina? PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You are a hard core xerb and anti-vojvodiner. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I cannot be anti-Vojvodinian because I am native Vojvodinian and I support autonomy of Vojvodina within Serbia unlike you who obviously support Greater Croatia and destruction of Vojvodina and many my cousins from Srem were killed in the name of Greater Croatian idea. And yes, I am Serb (like 65% of the citizens of Vojvodina), do you have problem with that or what? PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What that's got to do with anything? I have never said anything about broadhening the borders of Slavonia. You deliberately ofence me. Imbris 02:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I ofence you??? And do you think that you do not offence me with claim that I am "anti-vojvodiner"? I am only anti-separatist, and separatism is a true enemy of Vojvodina. Of course, there are only 5% separatists in Vojvodina and even they are not pro-Vojvodinian, but their false separatism is in fact connected with irredentism in their native country, which in 99% cases is either Hungary either Croatia. So, please stop your attempts of imposing here one wrecked idea that cannot gain more than 5% support of the citizens of Vojvodina and please stop insulting the majority of the Vojvodinians who equally love both, their province and their country. PANONIAN (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Normally when your sources are only the Serb ones.
Dr Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjiga 3, Novi Sad, 1990.
Sima M. Ćirković, Srbi među evropskim narodima, Beograd, 2004.
Lazo M. Kostić, Srpska Vojvodina i njene manjine, Novi Sad, 1999.
Drago Njegovan, Prisajedinjenje Vojvodine Srbiji, Novi Sad, 2004.
Dejan Mikavica, Srpska Vojvodina u Habsburškoj Monarhiji 1690-1920, Novi Sad, 2005.
Imbris 23:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Just read the rest of the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vojvodina#References and you will find many non-Serb sources there. Of course, this is not question of origin of sources but question whether information is correct or not. And please stop now with those provocations. PANONIAN (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Would both of you please calm down and stop insulting each other?! Panonian, not everybody who disagrees with you is a radical Greater Croatia/Hungary/Bulgaria/Uzbekistan nationalist or some sort of fascist. Imbris, you are obviously new here because everyone else knows that Panonian is anything but "anti-Vojvodina". Both of you chill out, read WP:CIVIL, stop flaming each other and stop perpetuating old ethnic hatreds. Do you guys want peace in the Balkans? I am sure you do, like any sane person does, so please do your small part for peace and stop fighting like a pair of bulldogs. Respectfully, K. Lásztocska 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi K. Lásztocska, nice to see you again. :)) Regarding insults - he started them (I was very polite to him until he called me a fascist). And thanks for the advice - he really need it. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you too. :) I honestly don't care who started the insults. You're both acting like little children. Panonian, will you be the man here and be mature enough to not retaliate so harshly when someone insults you? "Turn the other cheek" and all that, set a good example, etc. K. Lásztocska 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, I am not really the person that "turn the other cheek", if somebody insults me, I can retaliate to the death (mine or his, not important). :) just a joke. :) PANONIAN (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you aren't really a Hungarian? You have the fierce fighting spirit of the ancient Magyar warriors. :) (also just a joke.) K. Lásztocska 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha - good one. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This discusion is about historical event that took place allmost 100 years along, someone has deliberately tried to connect this discusion with the present. I have objected to the POV of the author. To which objection the author reacted fiercely, not letting some minor changes (but for the sake of truth very important ones).
I admitt that some harsh wording has been said, but people from former Yugoslavia are like that. I appologize for the pain I have caused, but with no pain there is no gain. I think that "telling" is per definition a chilidren's habbit. Well, I will go on in this debate.
Nevertheless I am new here, I am old enough to know that Wiki is all about facts, if someone doesn't like them, he or she shouldn't participate.
Please if someone would be so kind do set the marking of not NPOV to the maps that are beeing discused.
Imbris 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
But Imbris, you are the one who do not like the facts. Why you do not go to the library and read some of those books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vojvodina#References After reading them, you will see that everithing that I told you is in those books and that nothing was invented by me. The only problem here is your lack of knowledge and too small number of books that you read in your life. PANONIAN (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Books are not the only source of information, documents are more important, and you are not my forth grade teacher to give me lections about the nummber of book I read. Your representation of the content of those book may be a source of problems, I do not belive a man who disregards archives of his own land. Imbris 02:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The one should be professional historian to read the documents properly, therefore the books I mentioned here are the books written by professional historians. And how can I "disregards archives of my own land" when I just told you to read a book of the best Vojvodinian historian D.J. Popović who used documents from the archives and therefore his interpretation of those documents is more relevant than your own - you are simply not competent to contest book written by D.J. Popović. PANONIAN (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have heard from some Montenegrins what they think about such historians, and about the way someone gets a degree in history in Belgrade. Same way is in Banja Luka. And he may be a historian but not an archivist. Have you telephoned to the Archives of Vojvodina, the institution is placed in the very town you live. Imbris 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
D.J. Popović is most well known Vojvodinian historian and his book "Srbi u Vojvodini" written on 1,201 pages is the best and most complete work about history of Vojvodina ever written - so your attempt to discredit such historian could only discredit you. And why should I go to the archive of Vojvodina? D.J. Popović did used those archives and wrotte his book based on them, so for me and you, it is quite enough to read the book. PANONIAN (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I will fax the Achives of Vojvodina and ask of them on the bassis of the Law on the freedom of official information and documentation wrritten confirmation that the mayor name and the official name was Serb Voivodship and Tamiš Banat. Fax will be scaned and posted here for everyone to see. Then they will know that you produce lies. Who lies, steals, and who steals, murders. And go to jail. You will be unmasked and exposed. Your main description page forgoten (BUT ARCHIVED FOR EVERYONE TO SEE). All of the Wiki community will turn you their back side and say GOODBYE. You see what have you caused to yourself. In encyclopaedical world when someone - however he is highly placed in the hierarchy - is discovered to be a liar - IS RECANTED. His works are being diminished to the oblivion. HISTORY will diminish your lies. Imbris 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
By all means, send a fax to the Achives of Vojvodina and prove to yourself that you are wrong. Of course, do not forget to see official site of the Vojvodinian government that use name Vojvodstvo Srbija: http://www.sluzba.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/SEKRETARIJATI-V/MANJINE/manjine-koliko-se-poznajemo/web-tekst/sadrzaj.htm It is time for you to recognize obvious fact that name Vojvodstvo Srbija is used by many sources, which also could be confirmed by yahoo search: http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&cop=mss&p=vojvodstvo+srbija&x=0&y=0 Who ever click this link to yahoo search results will see that I do not lie, so please refrain from personal insults and ridiculous accusations. PANONIAN (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Propaganda by an POV pusher named Panonian. And Bačka, Banat and Baranya were part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Imbris 04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not use personal insults - you have no proof that my posts are propaganda or POV pushing. Also, if Banat, Bačka and Baranja were part of the State of SCS, why they are not showed as such on this map: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/193818BK.GIF PANONIAN (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/j/Talk%7EVojvodina_f964.html"