Talk:Vojvodina/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Political status and the table

Igor, you say: "Executive Council president is not a head of 'state', Vojvodina is not even a state, so no need for president". How then do you propose that we say who is the senior government official in Vojvodina? http://www.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/Engleski/Vece/predsednik.htm calls Djukic the "President", so I'm only going by what the region's government says. -- ChrisO 01:21, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No it does not, the page clearly says that he is the President of the Executive Council. There is not senior government official in Vojvodina not any more than a senior government official in the Istarska ?upanija, there were no presidential elections in Vojvodina, Djukic was never directly elected by the people. I repeat, Vojvodina is not a state and hence needs no person to be presented as its head of state. The very fact that I am tolerating this table and your treating of Vojvodina as a quasi-independent subject is my way of avoiding a useless editing war. Vojvodina's status within Serbia is yet to be resolved, the new Serbian constitution will sort it out. --Igor
Okay. The article doesn't have any information on Vojvodina's political status (the restoration of autonomy, etc), so maybe you could add something? BTW, I've also done a summary table for Kosovo which is under discussion at Talk:Kosovo and Metohia (it's only on that page at the moment) - I'd welcome your comments. -- ChrisO 01:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's not at issue, the issue is whether or not these table formats are even warranted for? Vojvodina is not a state and therefore should not and can not have a table that ressembles that of an independent country. --Igor
The summary table is a fairly standard template for subnational entities. Just to give you a few random examples, see Limburg (Netherlands), Southern Finland or Pas-de-Calais, France. If such tables are used for Vojvodina and Kosovo, that would simply bring these Serbian provinces into line with the way that subnational divisions are covered in articles on many other European countries. It has nothing to do with whether they are states or not. In fact, Wales probably has less political independence than Vojvodina does now, but it also has a summary table. -- ChrisO 02:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Name of Vojvodina?

Shouldn't we add that ethnic Vojvodina Hungarians refer to their region as Vajdaság? --Muhamedmesic 16:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If it's one of the official names for the region, yes. What about the other ethnic minorities? The article lists Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian, Ruthenian and Croatian as the official languages so presumably there must be (five?) variants of the name? -- ChrisO 16:50, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's actually Vájdaság, but I doubt it's official (and will check out asap). Slovaks would use Vojvodina, as well as the Croats (the lovely Serbo-croatian language is my mother tongue!), whereas Romanians tend to use 'Voivodina'. Ruthenians? Gotta ask my ex. She's one. Muhamedmesic 19:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just to derive a bit, the amount of Hungarians showed in the list of population seems be a bit low (and the amount of Serbians somehow too high). From where was taken that figure? Is that an objective source? --Alessandro Riolo 21:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Data is official data from 2002 census. In census, everyone can freely declare nationality, even a non-existant one. Nikola 06:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The link to the source is right there at the bottom of the article. --Shallot

The language mentioned is not Slovak, it's Slovenian. 158.193.85.212 13:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not Slovenian, it is Slovak. --Joy [shallot] 18:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Languages

Boraczek, do you have a reference to a statute saying that they're all equal everywhere? As far as I know, Croatian is only used in a couple of municipalities, as are several others, only Hungarian comes close to Serbian when it comes to distribution. --Shallot 11:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Shallot! Well, the article 6 of the Statute of AP Vojvodina says:
U Autonomnoj Pokrajini Vojvodini su, u ravnopravnoj službenoj upotrebi srpski, mađarski, hrvatski, slovački, rumunski, i rusinski jezik i pisma.
You're probably right that most of the municipalities don't use Croatian, but I think that's not the point. The point is that Croatian is legally established as an official language of whole Vojvodina and as equal (ravnopravna upotreba) to Serbian. Do you agree? Kind regards. Boraczek 16:42, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm talking off the top of my head here, but I think this may mean that these are the official languages of the provincial government. They are not necessarily officila for local business in all municipalities. Zocky 03:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A local person contacted us recently on hr:Talk:Hrvatski jezik and explained that this is simply a possibility of equality in official municipality documents, not actual use everywhere. Hence I don't think the current phrasing is correct and I'll amend it. --Joy [shallot] 13:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disputed

As a reminder, from Wikipedia: How to edit a page; Tips on editing:

  • "Please use a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia is not a place to promote points of view."
  • "Please cite your sources so others can check and extend your work."

Let's show some respect for each others work, shall we?

Changes ar OK, but let’s discuss it here. Use arguments and sources. Provide data, not opinions. Look at it from different perspectives, not an exclusive one.

I made the following changes in the "history" section: (I don't mention minor spelling and grammar changes such as deleting the word "latter" used inapropriately)

  • Added Vojvodina’s geological location in the Pannonian Plain, with it’s alternative names.
  • Removed Dacia. This is covered by Roman Empire, of which D. was a province.
  • Regnum Gepidorum > Gepid Kingdom. There is no point in using the Latin form, all other entities are mentioned in their English form.
  • Bulgarian Empire > Bulgar Empire. In the period in question, the early 10th century, the Bulgars were still a Turkic people. The name Bulgarian is normally reserved for the period after they became slavicized.
  • Included Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which was the official name of the country before it was renamed Yugoslavia in 1929.
  • Removed ...has been inhabited continuously since the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods... because there is no evidence for continuous habitation, but it is also not very relevant and the the Neolithic period followed the paleolithic, which makes mentioning it rather superfluous...
  • Removed Thracian, as there is no evidence of any substantial such population.
  • Removed Illyrian uprising AD 6, because of limited relevance.
  • Deleted capital city of Roman Pannonia and one of four capital cities of Roman Empire. The capital of Pannonia was Aquincum, and later when P. was split, the capital of P. Superior was Carnuntum, while Aquincum remained the capital of P. Inferior.
  • Added Gepids in the 5th century.
  • Deleted the specification Severans, Abodrites, Branicevci and Serbs, as this is uncertain at best.
  • Removed the reference to the Bulgaric Duke Salan (and map) since he was not a major historical figure (neither by length nor importance of his reign).
  • Removed the reference to Dragutin, because
  1. He was a Hungarian vasal (see the Wikipedia entry under his name) and
  2. He ruled only over Srem, the smallest of Vojvodina’s 3 constituent parts
  • Removed the reference to a Serbian majority of 200.000 as early as the 14th century as this is highly disputed. The 2 Hungarian references are … ? According to Encyclopedia Brittanica People > Serbia > Ethnic groups: “After Ottoman armies overran this region in the 14th century, many Serb families fled the southern basins and found shelter northward in the hills of Šumadija.” Which makes it rather unlikely that Serbs were already the majority of the population ever further north.
  • Pointed out that Serbs arrived in (still) free Hungary where they received land in exchange for millitary services.
  • Removed the reference to ”Emperor Jovan” with map. The reference to a “Serbian Empire” that lasted one whole year is rather preposterous.
  • Added for the sake of completeness that Srem and Backa were ruled by the Turks from Buda.
  • Removed the reference to 12th century monasteries, as it may or may not be true (haven’t checked), but chronologically it has no place here.
  • Made a distinction between colonization before 1779 (no Hungarians and Jews) and thereafter. According to Johann Jakob Ehrler in his 1774 report on Banat there were only 2.400 Hungarians & Bulgarians (0,64%) and 340 Jews (0,09%).
  • Added that the Matica Srpska moved to Novi Sad from Budapest.
  • Added the information that the Hungarian revolution was inspired by the Hungary’s aspirations for independence from Austria, which is important because it is the action that caused the reaction by Austria and their aides, Hungary’s minorities.
  • Clarified that the emphasis of the revolution was at first on liberation of the peasantry, which was supported by the nationalitied, and only after most of it’s goals were reached (the major one being the abolition of serfdom), it became a struggle for power between the Hungarians and the minorities.
  • Deleted the portion starting with The Hungarian government replied, as it has a very one-sided Serb perspective. Besides, the notion that Austria initially supported the Hungarian uprising only to oppose it at a later stage is nonsense.
  • Addition concerning the industrial, commercial development in the 2nd half of the 19th century.
  • Replaced the text concerning the “Serbian assembly”, which as it’s name indicates consisted of mainly Serbs, a few Germans and exactly one (1) Hungarian, with a reference to the Treaty of Trianon, which sealed the transfer of the region from Hungary to the Kingdom of S. C. & S.
  • Specified the status of the three parts of Vojvodina during WW II

--Najroda 22:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For Najroda:

"Please use a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia is not a place to promote points of view."

Original article was neutral, and then you come here and changed this. I retrieved original article and put more facts there. Second thing: your point of view is NOT NEUTRAL but largely ANTI-SERB and ANTI-VOJVODINIAN. You deleting all political history of Serbs and political history of Vojvodina and I will not allow this. Vojvodina is part of Serbia and every attempt to delete political history of Serbs in this region is vandalism.

"Please cite your sources so others can check and extend your work."

I will do this.

"Let's show some respect for each others work, shall we?"

You first show respect for political history of Serbs and political history of Vojvodina, and then we will discuss other things.

"Added Vojvodina’s geological location in the Pannonian Plain, with it’s alternative names"

Ok.

"Removed Dacia. This is covered by Roman Empire, of which D. was a province"

Vojvodina was part of independent Dacia before Roman Empire conquered it.

"Regnum Gepidorum > Gepid Kingdom. There is no point in using the Latin form, all other entities are mentioned in their English form"

I will change this. Original name in my source was: Regnum Gepidorum.

"Bulgarian Empire > Bulgar Empire. In the period in question, the early 10th century, the Bulgars were still a Turkic people. The name Bulgarian is normally reserved for the period after they became slavicized"

In maps I have from this time period, it is: Bulgaria. So, I will change this.

"Included Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which was the official name of the country before it was renamed Yugoslavia in 1929"

Still, it was only different name of same country; there is no reason to include both names. But, if you insist, I will do this.

"Removed ...has been inhabited continuously since the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods... because there is no evidence for continuous habitation, but it is also not very relevant and the the Neolithic period followed the paleolithic, which makes mentioning it rather superfluous..."

Ok.

"Removed Thracian, as there is no evidence of any substantial such population"

Dacians were Thracian tribe, and they lived in Banat.

"Removed Illyrian uprising AD 6, because of limited relevance"

I do not agree. It has big relevance, because it shows that people in this region fought for their freedom in that time.

"Deleted capital city of Roman Pannonia and one of four capital cities of Roman Empire. The capital of Pannonia was Aquincum, and later when P. was split, the capital of P. Superior was Carnuntum, while Aquincum remained the capital of P. Inferior"

I argue about this with you before, and I proved that you are wrong. Pannonia had several capitals, and one of them was Sirmium.

"Added Gepids in the 5th century"

No big relevance for this.

"Deleted the specification Severans, Abodrites, Branicevci and Serbs, as this is uncertain at best"

In the end of article I will post my sources, where I found this facts.

"Removed the reference to the Bulgaric Duke Salan (and map) since he was not a major historical figure (neither by length nor importance of his reign)"

He is very important figure for political history of Vojvodina. We can search for origins of political subjectivity of Vojvodina in Dukedom of Salan. Every political creation whose capital city was located in Vojvodina is very important for history of Vojvodina.

"Removed the reference to Dragutin, because He was a Hungarian vasal (see the Wikipedia entry under his name) and He ruled only over Srem, the smallest of Vojvodina’s 3 constituent parts"

My sources say that he was independent ruler (at least during one part of his rule), and that he ruled large territory. And, again, this is very relevant for political history of Vojvodina. I know what you trying to do here: you want to present that Vojvodina do not have any political history at all (which is not true), so you deleting everything about political history of Vojvodina and you want to present your own personal view about history, to show that Vojvodina only belonged to Hungary in history.

"Removed the reference to a Serbian majority of 200.000 as early as the 14th century as this is highly disputed. The 2 Hungarian references are … ? According to Encyclopedia Brittanica People > Serbia > Ethnic groups: “After Ottoman armies overran this region in the 14th century, many Serb families fled the southern basins and found shelter northward in the hills of Šumadija.” Which makes it rather unlikely that Serbs were already the majority of the population ever further north"

I didn’t post this part about Serbs, but my sources confirming this. There were 200,000 Serbs settlers in all of Hungary (not only in Vojvodina). So, I will change this. Second, this part does not say that there were Serbian majority in that time, but that Serbs were about (or almost) half of population, which is close to truth. First historical sources, which mention Vojvodina under name Rascia (Serbia), are from XV century.

"Pointed out that Serbs arrived in (still) free Hungary where they received land in exchange for millitary services"

There is part of text where is mentioned that Hungary ruled in Vojvodina until the XVI century. There is no reason to repeat this. And you deleted part about Serbian despots who ruled in Vojvodina as vassals of Hungarian kings. Why?

"Removed the reference to ”Emperor Jovan” with map. The reference to a “Serbian Empire” that lasted one whole year is rather preposterous"

Ok, he was not real Emperor, but he called himself Emperor, and he is mentioned in history only under this title, which was false of course. But, fact is that he was independent ruler at least during a part of his rule. You can’t delete this, because this is historical fact. There are streets named after him in cities in Serbia, and there is also his monument in Subotica.

"Added for the sake of completeness that Srem and Backa were ruled by the Turks from Buda"

I do not see relevance of this. I will add here that Sandzak of Srem and Sandzak of Segedin existed in territory of Vojvodina (That would be more relevant).

"Removed the reference to 12th century monasteries, as it may or may not be true (haven’t checked), but chronologically it has no place here"

I said that only oldest Serbian monastery was built in XII century (Which is truth). This is Privina Glava monastery. In history about this monastery is clearly stated that it was build in XII century.

"Made a distinction between colonization before 1779 (no Hungarians and Jews) and thereafter. According to Johann Jakob Ehrler in his 1774 report on Banat there were only 2.400 Hungarians & Bulgarians (0,64%) and 340 Jews (0,09%)"

I read that Hungarian colonisation began after 1718. And you already said that there were 2.400 Hungarians in 1774 (They obviously migrated after 1718).

"Added that the Matica Srpska moved to Novi Sad from Budapest"

Ok.

"Added the information that the Hungarian revolution was inspired by the Hungary’s aspirations for independence from Austria, which is important because it is the action that caused the reaction by Austria and their aides, Hungary’s minorities"

You added that Vienna court turned the Serb settlers and border guards against the Hungarians, which is not truth. Hungarians wanted independence for Hungary, but they didn’t recognised rights of other nationalities (Hungarians were only minority of 37 % in Hungary, according to 1840 data). So, Serbs, Croats and others fought for their rights, which were not recognised by the Hungarians.

"Clarified that the emphasis of the revolution was at first on liberation of the peasantry, which was supported by the nationalitied, and only after most of it’s goals were reached (the major one being the abolition of serfdom), it became a struggle for power between the Hungarians and the minorities"

No relevance for this. Hungary and Vojvodina were enemies in that time, and that is only Hungarian point of view. Serbs fought for their national freedom in that time. Since this is history of Vojvodina, and not history of Hungary, there is no reason to post the view of Vojvodina`s enemy in that time.

"Deleted the portion starting with The Hungarian government replied, as it has a very one-sided Serb perspective. Besides, the notion that Austria initially supported the Hungarian uprising only to oppose it at a later stage is nonsense"

As I said, this is history of Vojvodina and this is official history, which is thought in schools in Vojvodina and Serbia. History of Vojvodina is part of history of Serbia and this history should to stand here.

"Addition concerning the industrial, commercial development in the 2nd half of the 19th century"

Ok.

"Replaced the text concerning the “Serbian assembly”, which as it’s name indicates consisted of mainly Serbs, a few Germans and exactly one (1) Hungarian, with a reference to the Treaty of Trianon, which sealed the transfer of the region from Hungary to the Kingdom of S. C. & S"

You statement about Trianon is false. Vojvodina united with Serbia in 1918, and Trianon in 1920 only defined exact borders between Vojvodina and Hungary. So, Trianon is not relevant at all for this subject.

"Specified the status of the three parts of Vojvodina during WW II"

You didn’t. You didn’t state that Vojvodina was OCCUPIED by Hungary and Croatia. Axis occupation of Yugoslavia (and Vojvodina) was illegal. Yugoslavia was legally internationally recognised as sovereign independent state during the Axis occupation. I will not allow here that somebody defend Axis point of view, because we all know where that can lead.

PANONIAN

One more thing: you playing dirty: you protected your own page. You have to protect page as it was before you changed it, because your page is DISPUTED. I want to hear what other members of Wikipedia think about this.

PANONIAN

Now, I am willing to discuss what history would be accepted by both of us and what changes should to happen in this original page before any of us come here. Your opinion?

PANONIAN

Panonian, you may argue that the original article (I assume that by that you mean the last version before I edited it) was neutral, but it wasn't. It was very one-sided from a Serb perspective. Even in it's wording it is highly pejorative. For example in one paragraph it said "The Hungarian government replied by the use of force" and "the Serbian army fought courageously". Neither the content nor the form were neutral.
Do not mistake the fact that I do not subscribe to your one-sided Serb perspective, rather to a more accurate and balanced account, for "anti-serbness". Yes, I deleted some details, because they created the false impression that there has been a political continuity in the territory we today call Vojvodina for the last 2000 years. This simply is not true. I do not deny that there is a Serb political history in the region, but presenting it while omiting or twisting the political history of other nations is not acceptable. About your accusation that I do not show respect for the history of the Serbs, I believe I have shown much more respect for it than you have ever shown for Hungarian history. That's probably because I realize that Vojvodina's history is not Serb history or Hungarian history, but common history. (but also Austrian, Croatian, Turkish, Slovak, Romanian, etc. history, of course).
About your mentioning of the Illyrian uprising AD 6, well, every nation has fought for it's freedom at one point in time. If you believe it's necessary to mention you should give some more details. But you don't even find the Hungarian freedom fight of just 160 years ago worth mentioning, (except picturing them as aggressors against Serbs) so...
About Duke Salan, you argue that you can "search for origins of autonomy in Vojvodina". I hate to disappoint you, but there was no Vojvodina at that time, as ther would not be for almost another millenium. If there was an overlap in territory with the Vojvodina of today than that's rather coincidental. Otherwise there is no connection, politically, ethnically, or in any other way. Any historian can tell you that you should never write history in retrospect.
I don't think you are serious about your accusation that I intend to show Vojvodina as only having belonged to Hungary, as the opposite should become clear instantly when reading my additions to the article. Remember that the history section before I edited it, started with "Vojvodina is the Serbian name for the territory of Northern Serbia, which belonged to Austria-Hungary before World War I." I believe that list is subtstantially longer now.
I don't know where you get the idea from that I am a supporter of Greater Hungary. You must be mistaking me for someone else. Or your simply projecting your own sentiments on me.
I am glad though that you agree with the large majority of my amendments, as for the few that you don't agree with, this is only because you fail to see that Vojvodina's history is (at least) as much Hungarian as Serbian. With statements such as "Since this is history of Vojvodina, and not history of Hungary, there is no reason to post the view of Vojvodina`s enemy in that time." and "As I said, this is history of Vojvodina and this is official history, which is thought in schools in Vojvodina and Serbia. You go to Wikipedia article about Hungary and wrote there this Hungarian point of view. But history of Vojvodina is part of history of Serbia and official Serbian history should to stand here.", you disqualify yourself from this discussion. --Najroda 01:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, here's the idea. I'll strip the article to those parts that are not disputed. I'll leave out or only mention in very general and neutral terms those events of which the relevance, accuracy or both are disputed, like the 1848-1849 revolutionary years. I suggest no one should include disputed subjects, before we discuss them here and reach some form of consensus. I have requested for comment on [[1]] to get more input and a better quality of consensus. --Najroda 08:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For Najroda:

"Yes, I deleted some details, because they created the false impression that there has been a political continuity in the territory we today call Vojvodina for the last 2000 years"

I do not agree that this creating false impression about political continuity. This only shows that this region had some political meaning in some parts of history. For example, Dukedom of Salan have no political continuity with present day Vojvodina, but this fact showing that this region was important in that time. To say that territory of Vojvodina was part of some countries (Turkey, Hungary or Roman Empire) is more history of these countries then history of Vojvodina. Only autochthon political creations, which had political centre in territory of present day Vojvodina are really important for its history. If you, for example, wrote about history of Bulgaria, you will not wrote that Bulgaria was part of Turkey or Byzantium Empire, but you will wrote about time periods when Bulgaria was independent or autonomous. There is clearly no political continuity between medieval and modern Bulgaria, but medieval Bulgaria is part of history of modern Bulgaria. In the same way, Roman Pannonia, Dukedom of Salan and "Empire" of Jovan Nenad are parts of history of modern Vojvodina and we should to include this here.

"I do not deny that there is a Serb political history in the region, but presenting it while omiting or twisting the political history of other nations is not acceptable"

Can we do this: I will write about political history of Serbs and you write about political history of Hungarians, and we will put both things in text. I want to put only these things: Dukedom of Salan (including map), King Dragutin, Serbian despots and Jovan Nenad. As for war in 1848/1849, let find some neutral view about this. Now, what would you write about history of Hungarians?

"I am glad though that you agree with the large majority of my amendments, as for the few that you don't agree with, this is only because you fail to see that Vojvodina's history is (at least) as much Hungarian as Serbian"

But you wrote these things in non-neutral way. Change the way in which you saying that, and I will not object.

"you disqualify yourself from this discussion"

I only defend official history instead of the alternative one. But I will accept all your reasonable arguments against official version of history.

"OK, here's the idea. I'll strip the article to those parts that are not disputed. I'll leave out or only mention in very general and neutral terms those events of which the relevance, accuracy or both are disputed, like the 1848-1849 revolutionary years. I suggest no one should include disputed subjects, before we discuss them here and reach some form of consensus"

I agree.

"I have requested for comment on [[1] ] to get more input and a better quality of consensus"

Let try first to find consensus between us, and if this doesn’t work, then ask for help (I am really get tired of this revert war between us).

PANONIAN

I think that the current version is as complete as possible, without the disputed parts. I'm sure we can find consensus on the rest too. --Najroda 21:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a note: the same stuff about empire of Jovan and whatnot is at Backa. --Joy [shallot] 22:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still have objections. Seems that you didn’t modified original page, but your own. There are still too much disputed statements that I have to edit this page again. I will try to make this page to be neutral now, and you are free to say if it is not. As for Backa, we will discuss that latter (But original article about Backa was not neutral, that is why I changed it).

PANONIAN

What is the "original" page? Your own? You have very pecualiar idea about neutrality. I will tackle your "neautral" changes one by one below. Besides that, your "original" version is packed with serious grammatical and/or spelling errors and so are most of your changes, which cause extra work for others to correct.

  • You changed the region became and integral part of Hungary into The region was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, which ruled over it until the 16th century. Which suggests that Vojvodina was already a political entity between the 9th and 16th century, occupied by Hungary ("rule over"), which is simply not true.
  • You deleted the background of the Serb immigration from the 14th century onward. Why?
  • You deleted the reference to the separation of the military frontiers from Hungary. I'm starting to wonder if you consider any reference to Hungary not neutral? If you're serious about that, we should delete all references to Serbia too. Shall I?
  • You changed Vojvodina and the Banat were reintegrated into Hungary into these territories were incorporated into Hungary, as if they had not been part of Hungary for centuries...
  • I wonder why you deleted the ethnic break-down of Vojvodina in 1920.

If I were as childish as you I guess I should be shouting "stop vandalism and anti-Hungarian propaganda"... --Najroda 10:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For Najroda:

"What is the "original" page? Your own? You have very pecualiar idea about neutrality"

I can say same thing for you, because your "neutral" page is totally pro-Hungarian (You put word "Hungary" in almost every sentence, where it was not necessary to mention it).

"You changed the region became and integral part of Hungary into The region was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, which ruled over it until the 16th century. Which suggests that Vojvodina was already a political entity between the 9th and 16th century, occupied by Hungary ("rule over"), which is simply not true"

It is true that Hungary ruled over it, because, original inhabitants of this region were Slavs, Bulgarians and Vlachs, who fought against Hungarian rule. Hungary enslaved them and ruled over their land. So, it was not integral part of Hungary, but it was more a colony.

"You deleted the background of the Serb immigration from the 14th century onward. Why?"

It was not true.

"You deleted the reference to the separation of the military frontiers from Hungary. I'm starting to wonder if you consider any reference to Hungary not neutral? If you're serious about that, we should delete all references to Serbia too. Shall I?"

It was not separated from Hungary. You objected that original article was pro-Serb. Well, you make it to be pro-Hungarian.

"You changed Vojvodina and the Banat were reintegrated into Hungary into these territories were incorporated into Hungary, as if they had not been part of Hungary for centuries..."

It is more political then historical statement. Vojvodina only was ruled by Hungary, not part of it.

"I wonder why you deleted the ethnic break-down of Vojvodina in 1920"

Because it creates a false impression that Vojvodina existed with present day borders in 1920, which is not true. It was ethnic breakdown of non-existing territory. I will also delete ethnic map from 1910 because of same reason, and because this map is inaccurate.

"If I were as childish as you I guess I should be shouting "stop vandalism and anti- Hungarian propaganda"."

I agree with you to make this article really neutral (not pro-Serb), but I didn’t agree to make it pro-Hungarian. Let work more in this direction. By the way, I accepted large majority of your arguments. You do not expect from me to accept all, do you? Did you hear for the word compromise?

PANONIAN

I hate to bring you the news, but your "contributions" do this article little good. For example the line "Serbs started to settling in this region in large number from the 14th century onward." contains no less than 3 grammatical errors...

  • "You put word "Hungary" in many places, where it was not necessary to mention it." Not necessary or unwanted from a Serb point of view?
  • "It is true that Hungary ruled over it, because, original inhabitants of this region were Slavs, Bulgarians and Vlachs". So what? That happened all the time. This argument has zero relevance, especially if you consider that we are discussing the era of the great migrations. Besides, if you look at it now, Slavs were also relative newcomers, which makes your argument even more ridiculous.
  • "who fought against Hungarian occupation". You just say this, but don't know it. Or come up with some sources. The border of proof is on you and I ask you not to revert this section.
  • "Hungary enslaved them and ruled over their land. So, it was not integral part of Hungary, but it was more a colony." Same here. Don't just make wild claims, but back them up. BTW if the Slavs had such a terrible time in Hungary, how come the Slavic Serbs came to Hungary in such large numbers? Again, burden of proof, don't revert unless backed by facts.
  • "It was not true." Again, easy to say. The migration of the a large Serb population is very relevant to the history of Vojvodina. I gave one, and you simply deny, without even giving an alternative view. That makes the article incomplete. This is what RADOS LJUSIC says in "The History of Serbian Culture" (featured on the website of the Serb unity Congress): "The Turkish conquest of the Balkans and Danube basin were preceded and followed by migrations of the Serbian people. As the Turks penetrated into the land the Serbs withdrew. The Serbs migrated ahead of the invading Turks because they did not want to live under the Turkish rule, and they sought protection in the neighbouring Christian states who welcomed them to settle along the deserted borderlands... and the Serbs participated in their wars."
  • "It was not separated from Hungary." It was a part of Hungary before the Turkish occupation. Even you don't deny this. Yet, after the Turkish conquest when Hungary was admninistrativelyb restored (even if ruled by Vienna), certain parts, like the military frontier, Banat, Transylvania were not ruled from Budapest but directly from Vienna. How do you call this if not seperated?
  • "It (reintegrated into Hungary) is more political then historical statement. Vojvodina only was occupied by Hungary, not part of it." Yet you say "After World War II Vojvodina was restored as a province of Serbia". but of course that's a neutral remark, right? Sorry pal, but you're measuring with double standards!
  • "Because it creates a false impression that Vojvodina existed with present day borders in 1920, which is not true. It was ethnic breakdown of non-existing territory." You speak about Vojvodina, even in a medieval context, but of course only when it suits you... But of course the fact that only 1/3 of the population at the time was Serb is anti-Serb propaganda, right?"
  • "You do not expect from me to accept all, do you?" I expect you to accept them if they are backed by facts, and reliable sources. So far yo keep reverting, but haven't named one reliable source yet... --Najroda 18:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I won't go into discussions about content here, as I don't presume to know enough about the history of Vojvodina. But, I would like to ask both Najroda and PANONIAN to take a deep breath and count to 10. Then, please read this. Then, please consider stopping the tit-for-tat point-by-point exchange. Try to establish what facts you both agree on, and then try to provide a balanced representation of sources for things that you don't agree on. That should make a decent article. Zocky 18:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zocky,

I deleted now all disputed parts, and I expect that Najroda not put anything in this article, if there is no consensus about that. And I read your link: "One country's days of glory can be another country's age of foreign occupation".

I agree with this statement. For Serbs, Hungarian rule was only foreign occupation. PANONIAN

Panonian, you're an idiot. You have crossed a line now. I never rehabilitated fascists (quote where you think I did that!). My father was a forced labourer in Nazi Germany and he nearly died there of pleurisy. Nevertheless I don't equate Germans with Nazis. In your simplistic mind though Hungarians equal Fascists and occupiers.

Have you ever considered that Hungarians may consider Serbs (at least ones like you) as occupiers? Doesn't it bother you that Serbs were granted asylum in Hungary when they were fleeing from the Turks? And now they're behaving as if God gave it them exclusively? Doesn't it bother you that prior to WW II Vojvodina never had a Serb majority, and that it now has only because of ethnical cleansing?

Of course it does. Otherwise you would not frantically delete every bit of information that discloses these facts.--Najroda 20:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is that a new record? Revereted in 2 minutes. Congratulations! You know what? You can have your fucking Vojvodina page. Ruin it if you like with your simplistic schoolbook history (Nota Bene you probably don't realize you grew up in one of Europe's most nationalistic countries and that history books aren't exactly conisdered reliable there to put it mildly) and your terrible English. You even manage to deny facts that are confirmed by Serb historians. You've pretty much disclosed yourself with your nonsense about national pride. Here's one for your nationalistic pride: Sayonara stupid balkanic donkey. You must have an awful lot of friends. No one has been able to piss me off like his in years. Puke. --Najroda 21:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"You can have your Vojvodina page"

Thanks.

PANONIAN

Errr, maybe you should both go do something else for a while and come back to this article next year. Zocky 01:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Najroda,

"Serbs started to settling in this region in large number from the 14th century onward." contains no less than 3 grammatical errors"

Then change the errors, but not change the statement, because your statement about this is false. You say that Serbs started to settle here in 14 century and that is not truth, because Serbs live in Vojvodina in smaller numbers since 7th century. They only started to come here in large numbers in 14th century.

"You put word "Hungary" in many places, where it was not necessary to mention it." Not necessary or unwanted from a Serb point of view?"

You deleted mention of Serbian Vojvodina in 1848/1849 and everything else about political history of Vojvodina and political history of Serbs. Unwanted from your point of view?

"Again, easy to say"

Statement that Serbs were only peasants serving to Hungary is false. Serbs also were Despots and Dukes, and majority of Serbs settled in Vojvodina because those Despots and Dukes invited them to come here.

"Yet, after the Turkish conquest when Hungary was admninistrativelyb restored (even if ruled by Vienna)"

That is the point; it was not Hungary, but Austria.

"But of course the fact that only 1/3 of the population at the time was Serb is anti-Serb propaganda, right?"

If this territory didn’t existed in that time, then it is anti-Serb propaganda. However, Hungary existed as province of Austria in XIX century, but Hungarians in that Hungary were only minority of 37 %. Why you didn’t write this?

"I expect you to accept them if they are backed by facts, and reliable sources. So far yo keep reverting, but haven't named one reliable source yet"

My sources are posted in the end of the article.

"In your simplistic mind though Hungarians equal Fascists and occupiers"

I have nothing against Hungarians, but what can I think about those Hungarians who deleting everything about political history of Vojvodina and Serbs?

"Doesn't it bother you that prior to WW II Vojvodina never had a Serb majority"

During Turkish rule, Serbian population was about 90% of inhabitants of Vojvodina. It is truth that Serbs were not absolute majority in Vojvodina during Austrian rule, but still, they were relative majority (largest ethnic group).

PANONIAN

Zocky,

"Errr, maybe you should both go do something else for a while and come back to this article next year"

I was willing to find compromise, and that is why I deleted all disputed parts until consensus about them was found, but Najroda reverted again disputed parts and claimed that his version of page is neutral (and it was not). So, what can I say more? Since he called me a donkey and give up, I was free to change article in way I think it is the best (But I still accepted many reasonable arguments of Najroda). P.S. If my English is so bad, you people are free to change grammatical errors in text.

PANONIAN

Jovan Nenad

This "emperor" has a fair bit of space for such a small and relatively insignificant person. Just because he called himself emperor that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention him like just another local noble, and note the "imperial" status just as a curiosity... Other, more important things should have descriptive maps instead. --Joy [shallot] 22:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let discuss this. I mean, what is important for history of one region such is Vojvodina if not parts of history when that region was autonomous or independent? If we search in history for political entities, which existed in the territory of Vojvodina in the past, we can’t miss to mention the Empire of Jovan Nenad or Dukedom of Salan (Those are important parts of autochthon regional history). For example, this book is important source about Jovan Nenad: Dr Aleksa Ivic, Srbi u Vojvodini, Novi Sad, 1929. Author of this book wrote that Jovan Nenad was architect (začetnik) of present day Vojvodina. It was first Serbian political creation in history, which originally existed in the territory of Vojvodina. That is why this is important. But fact is that there is not much text about him here (only two sentences and map). You said that other more important things should to have descriptive maps here. What things? What are your suggestions? My intention with those maps was to show all autochthon political creations, which existed in the territory of Vojvodina in history. For example, here is map of modern Vojvodina, then map of Serbian Vojvodina in 1849, then map of Empire of Jovan Nenad and map of Dukedom of Salan. Ok, I didn’t upload map of Dunavska Banovina or map of Vojvodina as it was in 1848 (very different borders then those in 1849), but it would be too many maps here if I done this. My thought was that those 4 maps are the most important. PANONIAN

A map of king Dragutin's areas would be useful, because he's an actual Serbian king recognized in the lineage and one that lasted for 32 years. Maps of Vojvodina inbetween those periods of independence/autonomy should also be provided, because they were notable too. A map of the Turkish provinces, a map closing up on the parts of the Military Frontier in Vojvodina, and that one that has the 1867 comitatuses too. All these things lasted much longer than Jovan Nenad so it's not painting a neutral picture of history to concentrate on one and not the other. --Joy [shallot] 11:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let see, you want to put some other maps here. Fair enough, but that doesn’t mean that we should to remove map, which show empire of Jovan Nenad. I can upload more maps here, but tell me, how would article look like in esthetical sense if there is 9-10 maps in it? It is pretty good now in esthetical point of view (5 maps and 3 pictures). Of course, somebody may not agree with this. So, you suggest uploading more maps, right? Other thing, I do not like that map I posted in article about Srem, which shows territory ruled by king Dragutin, because it shows only a part of his territory (I want to upload another map, which shows all of territory ruled by him).

Now about Jovan Nenad. Your argument here was that he was unimportant person. Well, that might not be correct. He is partially controversial historical figure, but he is not so insignificant as you think. I will show you some quotes about him (Those quotes are in Serbo-Croatian, but since you are from Croatia, you will be able to read them, and I do not have time to translate them into English). I already posted some English quotes about him in talk page about Backa and I will not repeat those, but post some other.

http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-bl/istorija/corovic/istorija/6_1_l.html Za Zapolju se izjasnio i "car" Jovan Nenad, jedna neobicna i jos uvek misteriozna licnost, koja se pojavila u ovaj mah medju Srbima. On je izbio na povrsinu posle turskog povlacenja, koje je u juznim oblastima ostavilo pravu pustos. On se sam izdavao za potomka srpskih i vizantiskih vladara i uzeo je naziv cara. Ime Jovan kao da je dodao iz bugarske vladarske tradicije. Turske cete i posede, koje su se nalazile u Backoj, nisu bile mnogoborojne i Jovan Nenad nije imao mnogo muke da ih savlada i protera. Ali to mu je diglo ugled i raznelo glas. Za svoju prestonicu izabrao je Suboticu, koju je njen gospodar bezeci ispred Turaka, bio napustio. Tu je stvorio svoj dvor; organizovao svoju telesnu strazu od 600 mladica, koje je prozvao janicarima; i ponasao se kao pravi vladar. Iz Backe on je potom prosirio svoju akciju i na Srem.

http://www.visitvojvodina.com/engine.php/Srpski/Osnovne%20informacije/Istorija U vreme kada se vodila borba za ugarski presto, u Banatu je Jovan Nenad 1526. godine poveo oslobodilacku borbu srpskog naroda. Osvojivsi veci deo (juzne) Ugarske, proglasio se carem u Subotici, stvorivsi srpsko narodno jezgro, koje je, pod udarima ugarskog plemstva, nepunu godinu kasnije unisteno.

http://www.homolje.co.yu/srbrumun.htm U dramaticnim okolnostima, posle mohacke katastrofe, na podrucju Lipove na Morisu 1526. godine izrastao je oslobodilacki pokret srpskog naroda, kojem je na celo stao Jovan Nenad. Imajuci u to vreme najmocniju vojnu silu na panonskom prostoru sa 15.000 naoruzanih ljudi, za kratko vreme osvojivsi teritoriju istocnog i juznog dela Panonske nizije, stvorio je snazno srpsko etnicko jezgro. Na vrhuncu moci, pozivajuci se na vizantijske i srpske tradicije, Jovan Nenad se, u svojoj prestonici Subotici, proglasio carem. Da bi uspesno vladao sirokim prostranstvom, ustanovio je i drugu prestonicu - Comu na Tamisu u blizini Temisvara. Nepunu godinu dana kasnije, 1527. godine, oslobodilacki pokret srpskog naroda u Panonskoj niziji, pod vodstvom cara Jovana Nenada, udruzenim snagama ugarskog plemstva u krvi je ugusen. Jovan Nenad je mucki ubijen.

http://www.zarez.hr/59/z_putopis.htm za Srbe je on dalekovidni preteca sjevernog protezanja njihove danasnje drzave

http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.co.yu/arhiva/2001/03/05/pisma/srpski/pisma.shtml Car Jovan Nenad Crni ostvario je obnovu srpskog carstva na panonskim prostorima, a u Subotici je podigao dvorac, te Suboticu proglasio prestonim gradom srpske carevine. Ilarion Ruvarac, istoricar, je o njemu zapisao "da je najznacajnija istorijska figura svog doba". Hiljadu petsto dvadeset sedme godine Madjari su ubili cara Jovana Nenada Crnog, odsekli mu glavu i poslali je u Budim. S obzirom na istorijski znacaj licnosti cara Jovana Nenada po oslobodjenju ovih krajeva, podignut mu je spomenik, na gradskom trgu u Subotici 1927. godine.

Sorry if this text is too large, but I tried to be as brief as possible. I have also 3 historical books with much more information about Jovan Nenad. I posted only 2 sentences about him in the article, but that is because most sources about him are in Serbo-Croatian and I do not have time to translate those into English at this time (I will do that in the latter time and I will open separate article about Jovan Nenad and post more information there, including map and picture of his statue in Subotica).

I will not comment much my quotes above (you can read them for yourself). I will only note that Jovan Nenad appeared in the time when Zapolja and Ferdinand (2 pretenders to Hungarian crown) fought each other. Jovan Nenad was loyal to Zapolja at first, but latter he refused to obey him, and declared himself independent ruler (Emperor). He defeated army sent by Zapolja against him. So, at one point of time, he got larger army then Zapolja and Ferdinand. That can show how important Jovan Nenad actually was in that time.

Your argument was that he ruled for only small period of time and that he is not important because of that. But many historians in Vojvodina and Serbia consider him to be architect of present day Vojvodina. There is inscription on his statue in Subotica, which says: "Your idea has won" (His idea is present day Vojvodina). That is why he is so important for history of Vojvodina. You may argue that king Dragutin actually was first Serbian ruler, who ruled here, but residence of king Dragutin was Debrc (in Macva) and latter moved to Belgrade (And Belgrade is current capital of Serbia). So, territory of king Dragutin is more political ancestor of Serbia as a whole, then political ancestor of Vojvodina.

Of course, I do not insist that map of Empire of Jovan Nenad should to stand in this article. I will open new article about him and post this map there. Just to explain what was my intention in this article. My thought was that it would be non-esthetical if I post both, map and picture, about one specific historical question. For example, I posted pictures of Roman Emperor Traian, king Dragutin and Stevan Supljikac. I also could to post map of Pannonia, map of Kingdom of Srem and map of Serbian Vojvodina in 1848 instead of this (But my thought was that article would be better if there are no maps together with pictures of same question). I also could to post picture of statue of Jovan Nenad instead of map. Ok, tell me your opinion what to post where? Where should be better to be picture of ruler and where should be better to be a map? PANONIAN

time zone

Isn't Vojvodina under CET, thus UTC+1?

History

I realize this is a delicate issue, but the history section needs a more NPOV. I don't see the relevance of the reference to several local rulers, as it is not made clear why they are more relevant to the history of the region than others, except for the fact that they were Serbs in a period when most rulers (and the majority of the population) were not. In some cases, like Dragutin, the territory he ruled doesn't even coincide or only minimally (Srem) with present day Vojvodina, and since he ruled from Belgrade, it is more appropriate to mention him under Serb history. I see there is already consensus that the self-proclaimed "emperor" Jovan Nenad moves to an entirely seperate section. I also suggest to ommit references to the region's demographic make-up, as there already is a seperate section dedicated to it. A reference to Illyrian and Serb uprisings against the Roman and Turkish rule, respectively, is fine, but does not that need some context? I suggest to remove those references untill further elaboration. The dealing with the 1848 revolution seems very pro-Serb biased, this urgently needs to be written NPOV or balanced with alternate (Austrian, Hungarian, Croatian) POV's. --SteveZ 00:43, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

For Steven Zonderman: first one question: are you Najroda who come under different nickname? I bet that you are. Second: I regard every deleting of history of Serbs in Vojvodina as vandalism; so if you want to improve this article, try to do that with no deleting history of Serbs. You see no relevance of the reference to several local rulers because you probably do not understand meaning of the words: regionalism and regional history. This is local history and that is why reference to local rulers is important. Every region in this World has two histories: autochthon history and imposed history. Autochthon history is history of region in the time periods when this region was independent or autonomous (or ruled by local rulers). Imposed history is history of the region in the time periods when region was under foreign rule or not ruled by local rulers. Only autochthon history is a true history of every region of this Earth. Also, it is not truth that majority of the population were not Serbs when these local Serb rulers ruled. All territories where they ruled had Serbian ethnic majority in that time. As for king Dragutin, it is important to mention him because his state was called Kingdom of Srem, and Srem is one of three regions of present day Vojvodina. Also, there is separate section about Jovan Nenad, but there should be also mention of him here because he is one of the most important persons from history of Vojvodina (Perhaps he was the most important person of all). I do not see a reason to omit references about demographic make up of the region. People who read the article could find that interesting and it does not comprise much space that we should to remove it because of that. As for context of Illyrian and Serbian uprising, it would not be bad that this had wider context, but since it has not, it should stand here in the way it stand now until wider context is written. And what exact is biased in 1848 events? Serbs were the one who created Vojvodina in 1848 (not Hungarians). Hungarians fought against it in that time. If you didn’t noticed, this is article about Vojvodina, not about Hungary. I am open to hear your proposals how to improve this article, but only if this does not include deleting history of Serbs or deleting autochthon history of the region. User:PANONIAN

Historical sources

For anonymous user (65.208.210.97): I originally posted only few most important sources for history of Vojvodina (I could to post more than 50 books in this list, but my thought was that only most important sources should be mentioned here). So, I do not want to argue are sources posted by you important or not, but since you posted them, at least provide all 4 bibliographical references for them (name of author, name of book, place of publishing, year of publishing). If possible, please provide these references. User:PANONIAN

History again

I don't want do drag about, but there are some facts in this article that are historcly doubtfull. Perhaps it is better to say that they are not in the right context. For example there is slim mention of the local Croats, and Srijem (wich is one of the three parts of voivodina, other two beeing Backa & Banat) was part of Croat kindom. Perhaps it is important to say that northern Backa was first included in Kingdom SHS because of high percentige of Croats in it(it's capital Subotica had a croat majority then(it was smaller than off course:)) Also, that the part of Backa which is now in Hungary (socalled "Bajski trokut" -Baja triangle)also had a croatian majority, and because of that was left to Hungary, in words of N.Pasic(serbian pm) "We have too much catolics already". Also some of the serbian states in high midlle ages in this territory were serbian only in the fact that theirs ruler was ethnic serb, vasal of the hungarian king, and not because of the population in their soil. Also, there is no mention of rebelion in the early 7th century by croat dux Ljudevit against the Frankish and Bulgarian control of the region(rebelion wasn't strictly ethnic as it included territory from today Austria to Bulgaria(and southern Vojvodina,which is important in this context). I know that primarly aspect of this article is serbian part in history of that region, but I think that is important to underline it ethnic diversity, and historicly serbians had been ethnicly present in significant numbers only after 1690 (great migrations of the serbs) and not necesary a majority (Vojvodina was colonised by many people in the Habsouburg empire, it even had a german minority! (witch was banished after ww2)) So my greatest complaint on this article is that is ethnicly exclusive and that it does not comprehends whole history of this teritory. User:193.198.145.40

I do not see a problem that you include mention of Ljudevit rebellion or mention that Croats were majority in Subotica. However, you are wrong about Serbian population of Vojvodina. Serbs are majority in Vojvodina since 1526 (not since 1690) and there were also many Serbs in Vojvodina before 1526 (especially in Srem). User:PANONIAN

History doubtful or not, this article needs serious rebalancing. "History" section takes about 2/3 of it and IMO it should be moved to a separate article, with just a couple of paragraphs left in for a casual reader. Ditto for other sections (Geography, Politics) -- they need a couple of brief paragraphs to give a reader an idea about it. For example, "Politics" section should definitely mention the broad spectrum of opinions about Province's authonomy, regardless of whether it's mentioned in another articles. Duja 13:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I just moved most of the history section to the new article: History of Vojvodina, and left here the shorter version. As for the opinions about autonomy there is so much different opinions about this, that entire new article should be written to cover them all. User:PANONIAN

I just wrote article Politics of Vojvodina. I hope this will cover the subject. User:PANONIAN

The map is wrong

The map "Dukedom of Salan" is a piece of crap. Since when is Romania part of Bulgaria, and since when is Glad Bulgarian? Glad and Morut were some of the first Romanians to rule that area. Change the map! It should say Romania, or nothing at all, because Romania didn't exist as a state back then, but it also wasn't part of Bulgaria, that's for sure!

--Matei Tache 23:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Quote: "Under the warrior Khan Krum (802-814), also known as Crummus and Keanus Magnus, Bulgaria expanded northwest and southwards, occupying the lands between middle Danube and Moldova, the whole territory of present-day Romania"

Quote: "By the late 9th and the begining of the 10th century Bulgaria extended to Epirus and Thessally in the south, Bosnia in the west and controlled the whole of present-day Romania and eastern Hungary to the north."

Also, you should read the book of Neagu Djuvara, a Romanian historian (O scurta istorie a romanilor, povestita celor tineri de Neagu Djuvara, Bucuresti, 2002). He claim that Glad was a Bulgarian.

I will change map if you show me what else to write instead of Bulgaria (Romania did not existed in that time, and it is not good idea to write nothing). If you have some sources which claim that somebody else ruled over the area, please post these sources here. User:PANONIAN

You seem to have studied this issue a lot. I have to admit that I wasn't really prepared with facts for this discussion. I blame it on the Romanian junior high school history books, which talk about Glad and Morut (and Gelu) as the first Romanians to establish independent states. I also apologize for the harsh language used in my first intervention on this talk page. I think I was having a bad day that time :-) (And I really didn't know that the map was made by you. You are a respected user who has contributed a lot of excellent articles, and I wouldn't even have thought to call your map what I called it. Sorry, and I want to thank you for keeping your calm despite my language.) --Matei Tache 22:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently of the three, only Gelu was Romanian. Back then there were some Bulgarians in what is now Romania and there were some Romanians in what is now Bulgaria. :-) bogdan 23:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For Ragusan

Ok, here is why some of your edits are wrong:

  • "northern-most province of Serbia and Montenegro"

Well, Vojvodina is province of Serbia, not of Serbia-Montenegro, while Serbia have only 2 provinces: the one is northern, and the other is southern, so the word "northern-most" is not appropriate.

  • "six languages which all enjoy officialdom to a varying degree"

All these 6 languages are official on provincial level, so it is wrong to write that they "enjoy officialdom to a varying degree", since they all enjoy officialdom to a SAME degree. Also, to write that "It has no fewer than six languages" is wrong too, since it has many languages, and these 6 are only official ones.

  • "the founder of several newspapers and magazines in Vojvodina's national languages"

The term "national language" is simply not used in Serbia, so please do not change this. PANONIAN (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For Ragusan or Celtmist or who that anonymous user might be

Just to explain difference between official and national language: "National languge" could be a language of nation (country) or language of nation (ethnic group). It is clear that Vojvodina is not a country, while Serbia is not defined as a national country. Officially, Serbia is a state of CITIZENS, not a state of nations, thus official languages of Serbia are OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF CITIZENS, not a "national languages of ethnic groups". PANONIAN (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, here you can see about what I talk:

Ethnologue is interesting web site about languages, so here is the entry for Serbia-Montenegro:

  • National or official languages: Serbian;
  • regional languages: Hungarian, Gheg Albanian, Slovak.

You can clearly see that only Serbian is a national language here, since it is a state language of nation (Serbia-Montenegro). Those languages of Vojvodina are listed here as REGIONAL languages, not national.

Now, here is entry for Hungarian language:

Read this part: Serbia and Montenegro - Official regional status in Vojvodine.

Here is entry for Slovak:

Read: Serbia and Montenegro - Official regional status in Vojvodine.

So, it is clear that those languages are OFFICIAL, and NOT national. PANONIAN (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Second Paragraph Ammendment

I have had a go at editing the second paragraph so that it reflects the dispute. I hope you prefer this one Pannonian. But the Anon is right in referring to national languages and not official. Personally, I researched the data you displayed but people CAN get things wrong if they are unaware. In our country, there is but one official language, they call it Serbian - personally, I don't because I speak it and I am not a Serb. Anyhow, my neighbours were a family of Erkels (ethnic Hungarian) who speak a strange dialect of Hungarian. IF you call these people Hungarian AND their language Hungarian, then that is their national language, as is so whether or not it is recognized. For it to be official, the national constitution MUST be written in the language (not translated) but written...and it is also conventional practice that before a citizen learns a foreign language in university, he MUST speak all official languages of the country...in Switzerland, that means THREE. In Sweden, how many does it mean? NONE...because Sweden has no codified constitution amounting to NO official language, but the courts, professors and newsreaders have to speak in SOMETHING - that is the NATIONAL language. The status of Hungarian, Romanian etc. is 'nationally recognised minority language'. Official Language refers to no more than 'language of constitution' and is a national issue, not provincial... meanwhile, literature, TV channels, education and governmental announcements in a certain language are not examples of its official status. In Ireland, the official language is IRISH GAELIC, spoken by fewer than 10,000 of its millions of people. As such, the POLICE walk around with the word 'GARDA' written on them and not POLICE in second place, AND all Police MUST speak the language even if English is first. Meanwhile, the next time you take a walk in Subotica or Vrsac, take a look at the first Police car and uniform and see if you can find the word 'Rendõrség', I believe that's the standard Hungarian for POLICE. If you see one, photograph it - tell me, and I'll give you my e-mail address and I want to see it. Unless you have this, its language AINT official!

Meanwhile, Hrvatski Rijec, is published in Croatia OR by diaspora from Croatia in Vojvodina, that is NOT me... I dont ever talk ijekavian, it's not applicable to me; it's not because I am influenced by most people who speak EKAVSKI. On the contrary, the whole reason people DO speak EKAVSKI is because of the contributions of people like ME, my family, and other Slavic people in VOJ who have lived there sincle Slavic arrival. I contribute to the language, and am not restricted by its rules and guidelines! Euro Czar dec 23.05

"IF you call these people Hungarian AND their language Hungarian, then that is their national language, as is so whether or not it is recognized."

Listen: Vojvodina have 26 ethnic groups, so all languages of these ethnic groups would be NATIONAL languages. However, only 6 of those are also OFFICIAL languages. This article mention official and not national languages. If you want to write about national languages of Vojvodina too, then you should to mention all 26 of them, but this have nothing to do with official languages. See what is written for National language: "Though distinct from an official language, which is used for political and legal discourse and so designated by a country's government, national languages are often also official languages simultaneously"

"For it to be official, the national constitution MUST be written in the language (not translated) but written"

Now about claim that a province cannot have official language. Did you read this article: Official language Quote: "An official language is a language that is given a unique legal status in a country, state, or other territory." Vojvodina is "other territory" in this case, and since it does not have constitution, it cannot be written in its official languages.

"English is first. Meanwhile, the next time you take a walk in Subotica or Vrsac, take a look at the first Police car and uniform and see if you can find the word 'Rendõrség', I believe that's the standard Hungarian for POLICE."

Police is a republic, not a provincial service, thus language used there is only Serbian. Provincial services use all 6 official provincial languges. PANONIAN (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, to conclude>

  • 1. Vojvodina have 6 official and MANY national languages (at least 20).
  • 2. Not only country, but also "other territory" like Vojvodina could to have its official languages.
  • 3. Other national languages, which are not official are not used only for "for private and non- governmental publications", but some of them (like Roma or Ukrainian) are also used on the state television sponsored by the government.

PANONIAN (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph has been ammended? I don't see where, and as I promised, I shall not touch it. Well it is a hard call Pannonian; this argument is not a matter of 'is Romanian official or not?', it is a case of 'what is and what is not official?', what does 'official' even mean? The United States is said to have no official language and the CIA World Factbook confirms English and Spanish as both official. Some sources say Eritrea has no official language and others suggest it has so many... the site talks of nationally recognised minority languages then says 'something is co-official' in parts - so what makes it official IF everything we say IS official DOES NOT NECESSARILY make it official?
Are you thinking what I am thinking?

Peoples word is a contradiction of terms. If having newspapers in other languages makes them official then English can be added to Serbia and Montenegro's list, and that of many countries. All I can tell you is this. I havn't stopped laughing since reading that Vojvodina is 'other territory'. Coming from Serbia/Yugoslavia etc. you've never had an interest in life beyond your borders. As a Brit, our history is based on it... Vojvodina is just a part of Serbia-Montenegro's ONLY territory... your country HAS no other territory... Britain has, like Gibraltar, or French Guiana to France... Aruba to the Netherlands, THOSE Pannonian, are 'other territories' not 'Shumadia and Kosovo Polje'. Vojvodina is a region within... yes it MAY have more than one official language there if the constitution says so... as such, it will represent a seperate constitutional body (like Montenegro to Serbia), and every operational phenomenon will be bilingual or trilingual on paper: Kurdish Police in Iraq have POLICE written in Kurdish AND Arabic in Mosul but not in Baghdad. Your precious friends down south in Macedonia now have Albanian as a second language, so much so that they go to university in Bulgaria to learn foreign languages. Strange? They swallow their pride and learn Bulgarian, a similar language spoken by nationals of a state that does not recognize Macedonian or the people as not being Bulgarian...but why do they do it? JUST to escape from sitting a single class in Albanian. You don't beleive me? Try and sign on to Skopje university to learn French and wait for the criteria feedback and see if they let you do so without speaking Albanian as well as Macedonian? Living in Novi Sad, has a person got to have a diploma in Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak, Mosniak, Rumanian and Hungarian to learn German? She ought to if these languages are 'official'! Celtmist 23-12-05

Well, I have some documents written in 6 official languages of Vojvodina, and all public inscriptions in my city are written in all six languages. You simply will not teach me what languages are official and which are not in my city and my province. Those languages are here officialy called SLUŽBENI JEZICI, which could be translated into English only as OFFICIAL LANGUAGES. And since you claim that only countries can have official languages (which is not correct, by the way), why article about Wales claim that official languages of Wales are English and Welsh? Wales is not a country, right? Also, why article about Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia (which have similar political status as Vojvodina) claim that official languages there are Russian and Yiddish? And if you are from Wales, as you claim, why you dont change this in the article about your native province first, and then come here to propose same thing? PANONIAN (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And now please see what the official web site of parliament and government of Vojvodina say about this:

Quote: "The Statute of AP Vojvodina stipilates that the official languages, besides Serbian, are Hungarian, Slovak, Rumanian, Ruthenian and Croatian."

This sentence is clear, and there is no place for interpretations. PANONIAN (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What difference does it make? This is all bullshit phraseology. Pannonian, you must learn that JUST BECAUSE Radoslav Milutinovanojorgoperovich or whatever the mayor of Srkspaville is called, SAYS that a language is official, DOESN'T make it one, especially if YOU and I have different understandings as to what constitutes an official language. In my Wales, things are no different. Now Wales as oppose to Vojvodina is different. I never said 'local regions' cannot have official languages. YOU said that Vojvodina was 'other territory', I'd nominate that for Quite of the Year. Does Vojvodina have a codified constitution? Does it have a constitution of any kind? Wales does...and I mean a codified one, so does Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Did you know that in your predecessor only had one official literary language? That was Serbo-Croat. It then had four local literary languages used for everyday business, Slovenian, Macedonian, Serbian and Croatian as seperate in writing. Finally in 1974, Hungarian and Albanian were introduced ALONG WITH standardized forms for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro, all as 'nationally recognised minority languages'. So there must be more than one form of official, the word may have a two, possible THREE tier system. So it is better to say that, Switzerland has THREE official as oppose to Serbia-Montenegro's ONE official; Switzerland has cantons within the German sector where a FOURTH 'un'official language is recognized and used in much the way that Hungarian is used in Vojvodina. There are then two hundred or so languages from all the cantons which have some legal status in the way that the remaining languages of Vojvodina have outside of your precious six. Somehow, I doubt you'll make 25 given that over half the so-called nations are local Slavs FROM Vojvodina but use religion or "distance between eyes" or whatever silly measure to declare nationality. Well, I havn't touched your article. Celtmist 24.12.05

"What difference does it make? This is all bullshit phraseology. Pannonian, you must learn that JUST BECAUSE Radoslav Milutinovanojorgoperovich or whatever the mayor of Srkspaville is called, SAYS that a language is official, DOESN'T make it one, especially if YOU and I have different understandings as to what constitutes an official language."

Well, in this case, YOU are Radoslav Milutinovanojorgoperovich, not the officials of Vojvodina. I talk here about facts, not about linguistic theories. If the fact that Vojvodina have 6 official languages does not fit into YOUR theory, that mean that your theory is wrong, not the fact. In science, theory exist only until it is proved or dissaproved by the facts. If facts does not fit into theory, then theory should be changed to fit with facts, but facts should NEVER be changed to fit with theory. The usage of official languages maybe is not same in Wales and Vojvodina, but this only mean that somebody who write linguistic theories about official languages should also to see how these languages are used in places such is Vojvodina. Vojvodina does not have constitution, but it have a statute (which is similar thing), and the usage of the official languages is regulated by the statute.

"I never said 'local regions' cannot have official languages."

So, what you object then? Vojvodina is "a local region", and have official regional languages.

"So there must be more than one form of official, the word may have a two, possible THREE tier system."

Yes, that is a point, there are more than one levels of use for these languages. Some languages such are Hungarian and Slovak are used here as "official regional languges", but also as "official minority languages" in some cases. Since this article is about Vojvodina region, those languages are mentioned here as "official regional languages of Vojvodina". If you want to mention them as "official minority languages", find a proper article for that, but then I have to inform you that not only those 6, but several more languages in Vojvodina are recognized as a "minority languages" (like Ukrainian, Roma, Macedonian, Bulgarian, etc.).

"I doubt you'll make 25 given that over half the so-called nations are local Slavs FROM Vojvodina"

25 maybe not, but 15-20 might be. Some of those Slavs like Slovaks, Rusins, Macedonians, etc, have their own languages, while some other like Montenegrins, Yugoslavs, Muslims speak Serbian. PANONIAN (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect yet again. where there is fact, there is no theory. It isn't I who dictates what is and what is not official, all I have done is observe the conventions as we understand them in Britain. Nothing is solid. In your country, Serbia, and Montenegro are known as REPUBLICS yet it is one country. Even in Yugoslavia it was six republics. In the UK, Wales and Scotland are known as COUNTRIES, even if the UK is a country unto itself. Switzerland is a CONFEDERATION even though a confederation comprises actual countries who maintain certain centralized links (it's a long story why), it is all phraseology, just like Hungarian being official in your region. So how do we conclude this arguement?
  • Official language means that of 'constitution', anything else is a deviation of usage. No theory, no escaping 'fact'; If YOU want to call it official, that's your choice. Why not suggest that there are only 86 centimetres in the meter, I'm sure we'll find a 'fact' to support it.

I rest my case. Celtmist 24-11-05

"It isn't I who dictates what is and what is not official, all I have done is observe the conventions as we understand them in Britain."

Well, that is the main problem. We do not talk here about Britain. So, please tell me who is competent to say what are official languages in Serbia-Montenegro? (I know the answer, but I just want to hear it from you) PANONIAN (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And please, provide some relevant sources which will support your claims about languages of Vojvodina. You can perform a simple google search about this with key words "official languages vojvodina" and "national languages vojvodina":

You will see plenty of sources, which claim that languages of Vojvodina are official, while the only source I saw there which claim that Vojvodina have national languages is one of the your versions of our Wikipedia article (written by you, of course). PANONIAN (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Change the subject gentlemen

This debate is getting boring. Celtmist, you must understand one small thing. Now I am both a British citizen with an interest in language AND born to parents from the Yugoslav Diaspora in the UK. To me, as to most, official language does indeed mean 'language of constitution' when in fact it is the states official language. Serbia and Montenegro on the other hand recognizes so many languages spoken in Vojvodina as official for that region. That's what they say, and what we have to accept, regardless of the correct term. It is true that the non-Slavic languages of Vojvodina are NOT of the same status as Albanian is since 2002 in Macedonia (in that university students of foreign languages must be reasonably accomplished in both official languages), but that is how it is when officialdom applies to regions and not entire national bodies. I hope this is now clearer to you. Evlekis 25 December 2005

Just one thing: Vojvodina does not have a constitution, but it have a statute (and these languages are official according to that statute). So, what is a big difference between statute and constitution when we talk about official languages? Is statute not a kind of constitution, just with a lower importance? PANONIAN (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, and my English-Serbian vocabulary even translate a word "statute" into Serbian as both: "statute" (statut) and "constitution" (ustav). PANONIAN (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Autonomy of Vojvodina

Constitutional changes were pushed through in 1989 by Milosevec that stripped both Kosovo and Vojvodina of their status of autonomy. This is by the government in Belgrade. Autonomy was NOT restored - it is widely disputed by one and all (hence, this discussion). However, the fact remains that the status of autonomy does not exist (Kosovo's status will be 'discussed' this year sometime). You stated to me that status was restored by the UN in 1999, however, the following website has an article from 2000 that discussed an opposition (hence, status was not restored in 1989 as you previously stated).

http://www.iwpr.net/archive/bcr/bcr_20000804_4_eng.txt

You can go on spouting the autonomy of this and that, but you cannot deny that it was not restored (or please 'educate' me by sending me articles that I can read that state this restoration of sorts). You can twist it around any way you want, but next time please note that wiki edits are not vandalism - you quickly jump to conclusions and judgments. This is not good practice.

Rarelibra 6JAN2006

Listen: the LEVEL of autonomy as it was in 1974 was not restored, not the autonomy itself. Autonomy was never abolished. This is official web site of Vojvodina, everything is there, please read it carefully:

PANONIAN (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of post-WWII history

Hard to believe that there has been no history worth mentioning here since WWII!! Nfitz 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is mentioned in the History of Vojvodina article, but I could expand this history section here with the few sentences. PANONIAN (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ceha's edits

User:Ceha has added various material to the History section of this page. I reverted it for the following reasons:

  1. The section in this article should be brief. The main article is History of Vojvodina and all elaborations should be placed there. Only the essential stuff should go into this article
  2. Some of additions OK, most of it was Croatian POV
  3. All additions had terible speling and gramar in common. I had no nerve to sort them out.

Duja 14:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Duje's changes

  1. Ok, I agree that article should be brief, but some parts of article are very bias, so I puted them in their context. All of the changes were NPOVs, and diffrent opinions were marked as such. Sorry for spelling:)

Ceha 19:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the spelling, (from your recent edit on Herzeg-Bosnia):
disagreaments with bosnian goverment only intensiffied. Croats feared that the bosnian gouverment have become mono-ethnic, non prepared for war (burning of Ravno by JNA, serbian ocupation (of?) most of eastern and western Bosnia), and that is planing to settle most of Bosniak refugees in municipalities whith high proportions off Croats thus mayorizing or even expelling (?) them. Bosnian gouverment accused them of separatism. Small conflicts over settlement of refugies and coordinations of mutual army efforts against JNA (and later Serbian army) exalated in war after Wance-Owen peace plan (,?) which incomporated most of territories claimed by Herzeg-Bosnia in Croat cantons.
Look, how is one supposed to fix it? – It's two dozen errors in two sentences?! We all make spelling and grammar errors, but you're literally spilling them. So, if anyone is to make sense of it, (s)he has to go through thorough copyediting AND reduce your nationalist POVs. The simplest way to deal with it is to delete it. Duja 14:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the changes I made is not NPOV. If I used some POV's it is clearly mentioned as such (Croats feared...) look for [[2]] ? I already apologized for my bed spelling, but no matter what, deleting large portions of somebody's article is (as I know) consider wandalism. If you like you can change something, or ask me something at discussion page, but not this. Everything I write is in NPOV, I even wrote in form (some historians think) which would not offend anybody (although majority of historians think that way:)) And I would think of it appropriate that you do not minimaze my contributions to this encyclopedia:) I didn't write in English for a long time, that is all:) Ceha 9:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How interesting that many people read this article and the only persons who ever said that it is bias were Croatian and Hungarian nationalists, and the reason why they said this is because this article do not claim that Croatia and Hungary have "historical rights" to rule over Vojvodina. I never consider that somebody who use this term "historical rights" is a serious editor. If the so called "historical rights" are "a rights of somebody to one territory which he ruled in one part of the history", then how can be that people who use this term mention only "historical rights" of their own country to its neighbours and never mention "historical rights" of their neighbours towards their country. Maybe user Ceha could to write something about Hungarian, Turkish and Austrian "historical rights" to Croatia. Fact is that term "historical rights" is ridiculous because modern countries do not seek their sovereignty from "historical rights", but from its citizens. PANONIAN (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you. Look for [[3]]. Vojvodina is Serbian province (now and in future). It was settled by many different people in its past. Nobody has the right to delete history, just because it is convenient for them. If I wrote Croatian historians think... then I am just presenting their point of view (I'm not saying that that point of view is accurate) as it is allowed by the wikipedia rules. I don't see a problem there.

Ceha 9:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Put history in History of Vojvodina

I have reverted the latest edits to the history section. I don't care about the POV but please put additional historical items about the history of Vojvodina in the History of Vojvodina article. The history section here is entirely too long -- it should be a basic skeletal outline only. Also, please copy edit before posting. I realize many of us are non-native English speakers but there are resources out there for free (e.g, a spell checker at Spellcheck.net *). As far as placenames go, check ones like "Mohazcs" on Wikipedia (Mohács?) before using strange hybrid spellings.

*not an endorsement

LuiKhuntek 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for spell checker. It is very useful:) Ceha 9:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Euroregion

For Lui: The DKMT euroregion have not one, but 3 official names, in the 3 main languages used there. The fact that web site you looked at in its English version show name "Tisza" instead of "Tisa" is because the largest part of this river is in Hungary, thus the Hungarian name is used, but that does not mean that only this name is official and other one not. I saw many of your recent changes, and I do not agree with some of them. I do not agree that the name used as a title for one article should be used in every other article which mention that term. For example, if the article about Tisa/Tisza river is titled Tisza and not Tisa, that does not mean that we have to use name Tisza in every article which mention this river. I agree that article itself should be titled Tisza because largest part of it is Hungary, but if we write about part of the river in Serbia, then it is Tisa, not Tisza. Same thing is with DKMT euroregion. Danube is an English name, while Kris and Mures rivers are not located in Serbia, thus despite the fact that Serbian names for these rivers are Kriš and Moriš, we do not have to write these names in Serbian. However, river Tisa/Tisza is located in Serbia, and since this is Serbia-related article, Serbian name is the best solution. The one thing is to have proper titles for the articles, and another to use names in other articles. PANONIAN (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care which form is used but was trying to match the reference here at Vojvodina to the form used in the Wikipedia article which is Danube-Kris-Mures-Tisza. You have presented good evidence that this is not the most common form (and maybe not the official English form). Maybe the article on the Euroregion should be changed as well. However, I disagree that the form should change depending on the context. English Wikipedia should use the primary English form (especially if that is the article title) whether the article is concerning Serbia, Hungary, or Romania. For example, I would not write "On 7 May, NATO bombs hit the Chinese Embassy in 貝爾格萊德, killing three Chinese journalists and outraging Chinese public opinion" just because the subject is Chinese. (From: Kosovo_War#The_NATO_bombing_campaign) LuiKhuntek 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, if the Syrmia article have this title, that does not mean that we have to use this name for the region in every other article. I do not see why in the Serbia-related articles name should not be Srem, and in the Croatia-related articles Srijem. That is not POV. The POV article would be Croatia-related article with name Srem in it, or Serbia-related article with name Srijem. PANONIAN (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly in Serbian Wikipedia "Srem" should be used, but this is English Wikipedia and the article title is Syrmia. Even if the "Syrmia" form is not used in every article, there should at least be parenthetical reference to it. (For example, "The city is in Srem (Syrmia) on the river..."). Otherwise, not all readers will make the connection when linked to Syrmia. LuiKhuntek 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. That makes sence. Ceha 9:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Lui, problem is that many things have more than one name used in English. Why we should to use only one of them and not another. For example, why Eyalet of Temesvar should not be somewhere written like this, and somewhere like Temesvar Province. I do not see reason to use only one name in all articles, and other name not to use at all. And Lui, I am not talking about use of Chinese or Serbian names here, but about more than one name which is used in English for the same subject. See Myanmar and Burma as an example. PANONIAN (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But now, Panonian, you're creating a bastard. I know there's no established English name for Tisa/Tisza so the Hungarian spelling was adopted, but the English name of the region is officially spelled with Tisza. So, it's either "Dunav-Kriš-Mureš-Tisa" or "Danube-Kris-Mures-Tisza" but I don't think that "inter-versions" are appropriate. As for Srem/Srijem/Syrmia, the latter name was taken as a compromise for the article; I basically agree that it should be "Srem" in Serbia-related articles, but not overly strongly. Thus, whatever. Duja 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, since it is not about the river, but about euroregion, I am not against the name "Danube-Kris-Mures-Tisza", if this is realy only name for this euroregion used in English. However, I do not think that it is the only name. Here are some links which claim that name "Danube-Kris-Mures-Tisa" is also used in English, thus it is not a bastard:

etc, etc... It is interesting that those Hungarian web sites use name "Tisa" and not "Tisza", obviously because they think that this name more suit in English. Problem is that I do not see why we need this unification of terms in all articles, which Lui want to perform. PANONIAN (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And now about Srem, see this:

Since Lui now changed Srem to Syrmia there, the readers would not see the connection between the name of the city and the name of the region where this city is located. I am just saying that we do not have to write name Syrmia in every single article. PANONIAN (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I must note that "Srem" is quite a common spelling in English, and that "Syrmia" is a kind of artificial resolution for the naming dispute. So, I'm with you that it should be Srem in Serbia-related articles, Srijem in Croatia-related ones, and Syrmia in articles concerning the common (mostly historic) references to the region. Duja 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted some of the changes which give more context to history (yes, the article is to long, but without it article isn't NPOV). Ceha 10:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits

I am sorry Ceha, But Greater Croatian POV is not acceptable for this article. The purpose of this history section is to briefly show the ORIGINS of Vojvodina and to show the time periods when the region of Vojvodina was a political subject. I will discuss here your changes one by one:

  • Vojvodina was never part of independent Croatia, thus adding Croatia to the list of the countries to which Vojvodina belonged in history is not correct.
  • According to information I have, not entire Syrmia, but only western part of it was part of the state of Ljudevit Posavski. See this map as example:
  • http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/800s.jpg

Please provide a source which claim that ENTIRE Syrmia was part of this state.

  • Stefan Dragutin was de facto independent ruler. At first, he was a vassal of the Hungarian king, but since the central power in Hungary collapsed soon, he was independent ruler. Reference that king of Hungary was also a king of Croatia is ridiculous, since according to his title, he was a king of many countries (also a king of Serbia among other). So, there is no reason to mention only Croatia (this is not article about Croatia, if you did not noticed).
  • Also, to write only how Hungarian kings viewed Vojvodina, and not to write how other rulers or people who lived there viewed it is POV. Besides this, how you know how Hungarian kings viewed Vojvodina? You asked them perhaps?
  • I do not see why you mentioned battle Mohač. This is not article about history of Hungary.

There are few of other your edits, but they are not worthy of commenting. First of all, there is separate History of Vojvodina article, and most of these things are already mentioned there. This history section here is only a BRIEF history of VOJVODINA (not of Croatia or Hungary!), and it show the ORIGINS of Vojvodina as the present political subject. PANONIAN (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Ceha on History of Vojvodina. While I agree that his edits have a nationalist POV, he might have some points and he seems willing to discuss (WP:GF), and I decided not to merely revert. Please join & review. Duja

Hungarian king was "de jure" king of that area. His appinion is worth noticing, don't you agree?:) In the worst case scenario it shows contex of stronger neighbours and that afiliation to the future of that country. His views are formulated from his actions, granting of the lands, etc. I'm reminding you again that he was "de jure" ruler of that area. There is great difference between his title of Croatian king, and his title as Serbian king. Croatia had certain autonomy (in the begining of the arpadovic's rule kings heir was first proclaimed ruler of Croatia, and he governed from there, and later there was alway's bans) while Raska was independent most of the time, and this title for it was just titular. Most of Vojvodina didn't had that special status as did Croatia (at least not for long). I mentioned Croatia in that light. It had special conection with parts of Vojvodina. It is not important were the battle took place. It's consequences were important for Vojvodina. Ceha 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hungarian king was "de jure" king of that area. His appinion is worth noticing, don't you agree?"

Not, if we do not mention other opinions. As I explained, this history section should be BRIEF mention of the ORIGINS of present day Vojvodina. I do not see what the opinion of the Hungarian king have to do with the origins of Vojvodina. If this history section is to be expanded, then it cannot be done in the manner you done this. None of the countries which ruled over Vojvodina in the past have not much to do with the ORIGINS of Vojvodina as POLITICAL SUBJECT. To mention that Vojvodina " WAS PART OF SOMETHING" is not relevant for the brief historical section. Only relevant parts of the history were those when Vojvodina "WAS SOMETHING". If we also write here about time periods when Vojvodina "was part of something", then we would simply REPEAT the History of Vojvodina article, and that article was created because this history section was too large. If we expand this section here, we cannot do that in the manner how you expanded it, but we have to mention much more things which are already mentioned in the "History of Vojvodina" article for the NPOV picture. For example, if we only mention that Vojvodina was part of the Habsburg or Ottoman Empire and not mention that Serbs lived here in that time, that would be POV. As for relations between Croatia and Vojvodina, I provided for you some historical maps, please see them here: Talk:History of Vojvodina. PANONIAN (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you are saying that way in which Vojvodina was treated (opinion of Hungarian king?) in the state which was part did not influeced creation of Vojvodina and its evolution in any way? "BEING PART OF SOMETHING" infuenced you to "BECOME SOMETHING", process of evolution isn't it? Being in a political unity (beeing part of other country or living close to it) you will get some idea from them, and thea will get them from you. For example Portugal (again, but this is also a good example:) had had Spanish kings for 80 years. First two were quate good, but third one oversteped his juristdictions, and tried to abolish it autonomy. Because of him that 80 years are seen as years of Babilonian capitivity in Portugal. Once sentance is enough after end of Dragutins rule(or the rule of its son). And that would be which happened with that territory. Was it conected to Bosnia, or to Rascia, Hungary, or? One short sentence could mean a lot there:) If you want to show evolution of one idea (creation of Vojvodina) you should showed its ups and downs. Because sometimes downs are more important than the ups. Don't you think so? I'm going to look history page:) Ceha 2:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that this history section should be as BRIEF as possible. I am saying that only MOST IMPORTANT things regarding the ORIGINS of Vojvodina should be written here (everything else belong to the separate "History of Vojvodina" article). Besides that, all independent countries to which Vojvodina belonged in history are already mentioned in this brief history section. As for that one sentence what happened with the territory of Stefan Vladislav II, I will add that sentence there if you insist, but it will be little different than your version. PANONIAN (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You are all nationalistic chauvinists. Keep your arguments somewhere else and let this be an encyclopædia. PeaceOnEarth 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Try reading something before you insault somebody. Ceha 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence??

Where this the proof that only 56,000 Croats live in Vojvodina. We know that there happen to be a lot more than this, and Bunjevs need not be regarded as a seperate nation given that they originated in Croatia. The hundreds of thousands of ethnic Croats in Vojvodina are two-fold, the indigenous and the migrants who moved from Actual Croatia to Vojvodina at some point. 56,000 is a small number and I think that if there is proof, then the Serbian government has manipulated it again, just as they think that all Slavic speaking people of Hungary are Serb-descended. They are Croats and they know it. Millenko 4/2/06

Unfortunately Milenko, this is a tough one. When I grew up, I was told that Shokci and Bunjevci were all ethnic Croats. Then I moved to Belgrade (just before the "troubles") and discovered that I was wrong for so many years, because they were all Serb. Whilst Serbs and Croats may claim to be baked in the same oven but kneaded using different dough, it's fair to say that once she declares herself a Bunjev, then such, she is. We all ultimately descended from the same source - people chop, people change! Now I'll be honest with you, I too reckon the number of Croats (discluding alleged subgroups) is higher. If or not Croatian society conditions us to think this, or the Yugoslavian Federal government (as we are talking 2002) manipulated these figures is one that we will never know. Perhaps we should take the clipboard and pen and knock on every door in Vojvodina and ask everyone! Friend or foe? (Croat or Serb?)  :)))))))) Ragusan 4 February 2006

Here is your evidence (download these two PDF documents with official 2002 census results):

Only the official census is valid evidence about these numbers, because it is what people declare about their nationality, no matter what you or anybody else think about that what they declared. It is their right of choice to declare what they want and if they declare themselves as Bunjevci or Yugoslavs we have no right to list them as Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the manipulation of census results in Serbia, I never heard that there were such manipulations here. The only manipulations with these results did occured in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, when people who declared themselves as Bunjevci and Šokci were listed as "Croats" in the census results. Now they have right to declare themselves how they like, and they are listed in the manner how they declared themselves. What is wrong with that? PANONIAN (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I couldn't agree more. Serbia would never manipulate a census, but Serbia and Montenegro would, and does at that too. All fucking countries manipulate the census, democratic or not. Greece has as many Greek Orthodox followers as it has ethnic Greeks. So how about the Greeks who converted to Islam under the Ottomans? All other nationalities did (given that Bosniaks and Pomaks are Slavic converts), not to mention many Albanians or all their ethnic varieties too: No, any Muslim is a TURK in Greece, even if he speaks Greek as a first language. Get this, I KNOW Greek Sunni Muslims. And how about my stupid country? Croatia? To prove that I am not some nationalist Pro-Croat Anti-Serb - Zagreb sees no Slavic Catholics as Serb, even though in and around Dubrovnik (where I spent most of my young life) there is a traditional group of Serbs who are Catholic... again, I know some of these people by name. Not according to Zagreb though... Italy plays down the number of Slovenes in her, Finland claims that there are fewer Swedes there than Sweden says... France plays down ALL Alsatians to declare themselves German ... Poland exaggerates the number of people who call themselves Pol+something in Belarus and the Ukraine. Israel is as ethnicly Jewish as it is religiously, even though many who follow the faith and live in Israel admit having converted whilst those who declare their nationality Jewish are Christians or Muslims. That's the way of the world, and bang in the middle of all the injustice is a country called Serbia & Montenegro, so PURE since the overthrow if Miloseveic that they could never tell lies in their censa! Perhaps the world should now look to Belgrade for a moral lead! Ragusan 6 February 2006

I think it is wrong when somebody declares himself as something else than his grandparents were just because it is more convinient to him (or because villige neighbours look him as of wrong nationality). But people should have the right to call themselves as they please. It reminds me of funny story of european zulustani (no offension intended:) People change. Ceha 21:00 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ragusan, there is no need for Sarcasm here. I simply know how census is performed in Serbia, thus I do not see how census results could be manipulated here. In census, every citizen get a paper with 3 empty lines where he could to write any ethnicity, any language and any religion (or not to write anything if he want). The one even can to declare himself as Borg or Alien or what ever. Later, the statistical service count how many people declared what nationality, and list that in the census results. PANONIAN (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now it's time to establish the facts.
  • 1)There is no such existing nation as the Yugoslav. The creation of the state was a farse and all Croats were forced into it. You can be a Serb, a Slovene, but NOT a Yugoslav. It has no historical identity.
  • 2) Bunjevs ARE Croat, they came from present day Croatia and STILL speak a form of Croatian, not no "Serbo-Croat" nonsense.
  • 3) People DO write down they are Croats, and the Serb authorities write down that they are Serbs. Still got lots of nationalism, how you say it in English: Old Habits Die Hard.

We're not Slavic and there are more of us than is mentioned anywhre, including Romania. Pro-Serb proof is manipulated by Serb government.

  • 1. Yugoslavs ARE RECOGNIZED as nation in Serbia, and people declare themselves in census as such.
  • 2. Same thing with Bunjevci. They ARE NOT Croats but Bunjevci, no matter what Croatian nationalists think about that.
  • 3. This is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS AND WRONG, and it is not worthy of commenting at all. PANONIAN (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits (again)

For user Outesticide: Before you made another deletion of the history section content, first read some issues discussed on this talk page. Seems that you are another "Greater" nationalist who came here to delete history of Serbs and to write about "historical rights" of Hungary and Croatia to annex Vojvodina. The obvious reason why you deleted part about Jovan Nenad is because you do not like his ethnic origin. If you do not have some better reason to delete this, please do not remove that section again. By the way, read this article about history of Subotica, written by Hungarian historian (Peter Ricz), where Jovan Nenad is mentioned:

Second thing is that Slavic tribes settled ENTIRE Vojvodina, not only southern Srem (and entire present-day Hungary was settled by Slavic tribes before Hungarians came, by the way). The question about Serbian despots in Srem is same as with Jovan Nenad: you do not like their ethnicity. Finally, the name of the Serbian Vojvodina say that it was Serbian region. Its name was not "Hungarian Vojvodina", and Hungarians were not majority in it but Serbs, thus please stop this vandalism. Try this with the articles about Transylvania or Slovakia for a change (I bet they are your next stations in your "rightful" crusade). PANONIAN (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a crusade. History is a fact, and not a wish or a dream. You are speaking about Vojvodina like it was a part of Serbia from the beginings of history. Vojvodina was part of Kingdom of Hungary and not vassal. You are right Serb lived in Vojvodina but Vojvodina became the part of Serbia from 1920. You should not write about proposed things(in the article more times but marked), these are not histohttp://szotar.sztaki.hu/dict_search.php?L=HUN%3AENG%3AEngHunDict&O=HUN&flash=&E=1&sid=820284d78500f9a1c9d0ebb355c54943&in_form=1&W=k%F6zigazgat%E1s&M=2&P=0&C=1&T=1ry, the article should be about facts. Outesticide 14:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not see that any part of the article claim that Vojvodina was part of Serbia from the beginnings of history. The history section only mention local rulers which ruled over the region through history, no matter if these rulers were Serbs (Jovan Nenad), Hungarians (Ugrin Čak), or Bulgarians (Salan, Ahtum, etc...). The history section also do not say that Vojvodina was vassal of the Kingdom of Hungary, but that local rulers from the region were vassals of the Hungarian kings, which is completelly correct historical fact. Also, what are these proposed things you talk about? I do not see that anything there was only proposed and not realized as well. PANONIAN (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For example: "Southern and Northern Serbia (Vojvodina) in 1849". This is a false assertion, with delusive picture. Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat 1849-1860) was not part of Serbia, this area was part of Austrian empire. (Austrian crown land in the Kindgdom of Hungary.) Later Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat was administrative area in Kingdom of Hungary from 1854 (-1860). Outesticide 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat was not part of Serbia"

Of course that it was not "part" of Serbia, but it WAS Serbia. To say that Voivodship of Serbia was not Serbia would be the same if you say that Kingdom of Hungary was not Hungary. The map show two territories which both had name Serbia in that time, one of them was "Voivodship of Serbia", and another was "Principality of Serbia", one of them was located in the south, another in the north, one of them was part of the Ottoman Empire, and another was part of the Austrian Empire. Also, Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat was not administrative area of the Kingdom of Hungary, but separate crownland, which was directly subordinated to Vienna (you obviously did not read much about history of Vojvodina, did you?). PANONIAN (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My tiny addition on the opening paragraph was just a gesture that in general, the nations of Vojvodina live in harmony and have done so for decades, even through our miserable period. I feel it worth mentioning at a time when most Western European media is again beginning to paint unrealistic pictures about otherwise good Serbian people. Evlekis 13 March 2006

Vojvodina was Serbia, but also was Hungary post 1867. Problem with this article is that it speaks from just one contex, while ignoring the others (for Hungarians living in Vojvodina prior to 1920 Vojvodina was nothing less than Hungary). I think that solution to this is obvius. First, there should be a prefix Serbian in the title, as this article obviously talks about formation and creation of entity of Serbian Voivodina, and not about other entities (kingdom of Hungary,lands of Hungarian counts) which existed in the region. Second it should have link to another article Vajdaság, which should explain history of Hungarian people in that region the same as this article is centered about Serbian people. Would that be ok? Ceha 13 March 2006

Here we go again. We already discussed that this article is about Vojvodina in general, not about its history only. That is why History of Vojvodina article exist. This article here should only to mention most important things from the history of Vojvodina, and the majority of the people who live in Vojvodina would agree that most important things are already mentioned. Also, this article mention that Vojvodina was part of the Kingdom of Hungary between 1867 and 1918, so, I do not understand why you object here? Second thing, there is already article about historical Serbian Vojvodina, while this article here is about present-day autonomous province of Vojvodina, not about historical one. And please read the article better, so you will see that it mention both, that Vojvodina was part of the Kingdom of Hungary as well as that the most important Hungarian noble from the region (Ugrin Čak) ruled over it. As for Vajdaság it is only alternative name for the region, not a separate region which would need new article, while history of Hungarians in Vojvodina is already explained here: Hungarians in Vojvodina. PANONIAN (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I only wanted to draw paralel to your post Vojvodina was Serbia. But that is a whole other debate... As for article about Vajdaság I though that it would be a good solution to anybody which objects you for POV. Article about Vajdaság should be about dates wich are historicly relevant to Hungarians in Vojvodina. In Hungarians in Vojvodina history part is very short and probably should be extended (not by me, I'm not Hungarian:) Ceha 12:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, history part there is short and should be extended by somebody who know more about the subject (I wrote there what I know). The point is that this article is a proper place for the history of Hungarians in Vojvodina, and we do not have to write new one. Even if somebody want to write new article about that, the proper title for that new article would be "History of Hungarians ih Vojvodina". As I say, Vajdaság is only alternative name for Vojvodina, and such alternative names for regions are usually only redirects, not separate articles (we do not need more than one article about one same subject). One more thing, Hungarians are only one of many ethnic groups which live in the region. Do you suggest that we should to write as many articles about Vojvodina as ethnic groups we have here? Should be then separate articles about Vojvodina dealing with Slovak, Romanian or Rusyn history? All these ethnic histories should be in the articles about these ethnic groups: Hungarians in Vojvodina, Slovaks in Vojvodina, Romanians of Serbia, Pannonian Rusyns, etc. That is why such articles exist. PANONIAN (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree with you that that history goes into the "Hungarians in Vojvodina" as for any other nationality in Vojvodina the same rules apply. If somebody has the will and time to write about its ancestors, I don't see a problem with that:) As for article "History of Hungarians in Vojvodina" I think that if it had a lot of information it should be a seperate article, not just part of "Hungarians in Vojvodina". Isn't that a practise in wikipedia? If something is to large, put that part in a separate article:) Ceha 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if the history section there became too large, it should be moved to the new article. I agree 100%. :) PANONIAN (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So-called "Yugoslavs"

This is most ridiculous title for nationality. There is no Yugoslavs and the Yugoslavs dont exist, they never did. You live in Vojvodina? Your Serbian or Croatian (if not Hungarian or Rumanian etc etc etc) but nobody calls himself a Yugoslavian, never did never will. I suggest delete this crap. Arvatov 19-6-06

A small percentage of the population do declare themselves Yugoslavs. They are constitutionally recognised in Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Evlekis 19 June 2006
The percentage might be small, but in absolute numbers, it is about 50,000 people. Of course, the last census in 2002 was performed in the time when the name of the country still was Yugoslavia, thus those people identified their ethnicity with the name of the country where they lived. We will see how many people will declare themselves as Yugoslavs in the next census, but until then, we should present census results as they are. PANONIAN (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
No need to feed the trolls. The guy is a confirmed vandal and troll [4] [5] [6] [7]. Duja 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't patronise many any from you- Evlekis your name sounds like a Greek, what do you know about Vojvodina? Duja your wrong, my edits are all valid, people dont like the truth, i aint no vandal, and panonian, you reckon u know it all but u dont, NO Yugoslavs, NO Yugoslavia, ever. Arvatov 20-6-06

The likelyhood is that come the next censa - I use the plural for what are now two countries - those who declared Yugoslav nationality will do the same, atleast the older generations; after all, each has ones own reason which is private. Outside Serbia & Montenegro, Bosnia accepts the national name, but I've read reports of people declaring themselves Yugoslavs in Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia and in each of the last three, the figures were dismissed when publications were made. Given that Vojvodina enjoys a proud status of many national names being used by the people, particularly the usually unlisted nationalities down there below the 1% mark, there should be a Yugoslav entry in 2012 even if they are erased on the following census. Evlekis 20 June 2006

Last edits

  • That article named "Religious aspects of the Vojvodina Conflict" from www.religioustolerance.org is a propagandist science fiction story and have nothing to do with reality in Vojvodina. Therefor, there is absolutely no reason to post it here.
  • The question whether to have introduction part "Vojvodina is the northern autonomous province of Serbia" or "Vojvodina is the autonomous province in northern Serbia" is problematic. I want that we have here a sentence that will not be changed when status of Kosovo is solved. Kosovo either will be independent either autonomous state within Serbia, but certainly not autonomous province. Therefor, the sentence "Vojvodina is the northern autonomous province of Serbia" is only temporar solution until the status of Kosovo is solved. What is wrong to have permanent solution for this sentence now?
  • Regarding two external links (www.backabanat.com and www.youtube.com), I might agree that better places for them are Geography of Vojvodina and Music of Vojvodina articles, but I have nothing against to have them here. If somebody want to remove them, he should consider to move them to these two subarticles instead. PANONIAN (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think youtube is unacceptable; we don't link blogs and sites with likely stolen copyrighted material, and the video will probably disappear soon. As for backabanat.com, I only casually looked at it; maybe it's appropriate but doesn't look impressive with contents. Duja 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding The Last Edits

  • "That article named "Religious aspects of the Vojvodina Conflict" from www.religioustolerance.org is a propagandist science fiction story and have nothing to do with reality in Vojvodina. Therefor, there is absolutely no reason to post it here."

In essence what your saying is "It’s a lie and I’m reverting it", not much of a reply at all.

That site is very unbiased and reliable. It actually uses reports from the EU and Human Rights Watch to back up its information.


  • "What is wrong to have permanent solution for this sentence now?"

The point is Wikipedia can be edited and changed as situations develop, at the moment the sentence "Vojvodina is the northern autonomous province of Serbia" gives the most accurate and detailed information, and if Kosovo becomes independent the article will be changed accordingly to reflect the change.


PANONIAN, Wikipedia is not the place for your nationalistic edits, please refrain from tainting Wikipedia which was created to give accurate and updated information and not your propagandist garbage.


--Taz Manchester 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Taz Manchester

Troll. Duja 19:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
He is troll indeed, but there is no harm to explain why the http:// www.religioustolerance.org/ war_vojv.htm address is unappropriate for Wikipedia. Even the title of that article is highly biased, because there simply was no conflict in Vojvodina to talk about its religious aspect. So, the link is biased, it might claim that it "uses reports from the EU and Human Rights Watch to back up its information", but it in fact does not use such reports, and instead of it, it is an completelly invented fictional story of its author (B.A. Robinson). Furthermore, the article was published during the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia in April 1999, and its purpose was not to describe any conflict, but to start new one and to justify that bombardment. If mister troll want, we can analyse every single sentence from that link to see why it is incorrect and biased. PANONIAN</ font> (talk)</ font> 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"He is troll indeed, If mister troll want, we can analyse every single sentence from that link to see why it is incorrect and biased."


There are a few trolls and vandals here but they are PANONIAN, Duja and Bormalagurski who are nationalists against NPOV.


"but there is no harm to explain why the http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_vojv.htm address is unappropriate for Wikipedia."


Go ahead please, your continued statements that it is "fiction" are a insult to intelligent debate as well as an insult to the ideals of Wikipedia.


"the link is biased, it might claim that it "uses reports from the EU and Human Rights Watch to back up its information", but it in fact does not use such reports, and instead of it, it is an completelly invented fictional story of its author (B.A. Robinson)."


You continued use of what seems to be your favourite word "fictional" could have been believable except for the fact that anyone who bothers to read the references can see what reports are used:


References:


1.Hans Küng and Karl-Josef Kuschel, "A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the World's Religions", pp. 43-44)

2.Umi Schmetzer, "Hungary gets new ethnic exodus," The Toronto Star, 1999-APR-15,Page A6

3.James Hooper, "Albanians feel betrayed by Americans," Current History, 1999-APR.

4."The Conflict in the former Yugoslavia and autonomous region of Vojvodina, and the need for a more coherent U.S. foreign policy," The Stanton Group, 1993-NOV-11.

5.Peter Kaslik, "Urgent appeal by Hungarian Human Rights Monitor" 1996-JUL-7, at: http://www.newforce.ca/huncor/organ/HHRM/mission.htm

6.Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, P. 5; cited in reference 7.

7.T Carpenter & P. Kislitsyn, "NATO expansion flashpoint #2: The border between Hungary and Serbia," Cato Institute, 1997-NOV-24.

8.Human Rights Watch, "World Report 1998: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia," at: http://www.hrw.org/hrw/worldreport/

9."World Report 1998, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Human Rights Developments" at: http://www.hrw.org/hrw/worldreport/Helsinki-12.htm

10."World Report 1999, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Human Rights Developments," at: http://www.hrw.org/hrw/worldreport99/europe/

--Taz Manchester 02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Taz Manchester

Stop trolling, you troll. --serbiana - talk 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, that article claim that these are its references, but those are in fact not its references. The article was completelly invented by its author and he listed these references just to hide this obvious fact. PANONIAN (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling, you troll

LOL, Is that intelligent debate by your standards Bormalagurski?

--Taz Manchester 11:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Taz Manchester

A "Do not feed the troll" image (don't encourage trolls by reacting to them)
A "Do not feed the troll" image (don't encourage trolls by reacting to them)
By the way, there is no reason that anybody discuss with you further. There is clear Wikipedia policy named "Do not feed the troll". So, here is nice definition of Internet troll: "In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion." The discussion page is for seriuos discussion not for trolling purposes. PANONIAN (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)