Talk:Serbian Vojvodina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Serbia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The administrator[edit]

Main commitee was formed at the Assembly of 15th of May 1848, at which head of the Main commitee was elected. It was not the Patriarh but Đorđe Stratimirović who formed local commities and subcommities. Imbris 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Josif Rajačić became administrator later after Stevan Šupljikac died. PANONIAN (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You do not know even thay icy bicy piece of info. Stevan Šupljikac was Voivode (temporary of course), and Josif Rajačić was Patriarh. Đorđe Stratimirović was an administrator, and negotiated with Hungarians. This is why you do not mention him. Imbris 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Stevan Šupljikac WAS NOT temporary voivode - there is no word "temporary" in the document that elected him as voivode. Also, Josif Rajačić was a patriarch, but later was administator (or head of the government if you like more) - I say later, not in May 1848. Regarding Stratimirović, I do not see problem that he is mentioned too, as well as other important persons of the time, but I have no time now to expand article with this information. PANONIAN (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I will check for the birth certificates[edit]

And if their names were Stevan and Josif - then we have no problem. If their names were just a bit, a smallest, a tinniest bit different, I will scan the birth certificates, post them here and then change their names to the orriginal. Is that clear, I think that it is. Imbris 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We do not need your fabricated "certificates" made in Photoshop - the names that should be used in the article are same that are used in historical books. PANONIAN (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The birth certificates will have a nummber of the Archive of the land in which they were borned. Your books are a fabrication in some sections of course, but in many section yes. YES. Imbris 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It is just your own biased opinion that "my books are a fabrication" and you have no single proof to support such claims. Regarding birth certificates from the 19th century, such certificates were made with political goal to delete Serbian names and Serbs in those certificates were written under Hungarian or Croatian names. I know that very well because some of my own ancestors were written in documents as Istvan or Ilona, no matter that their true names were Stevan and Jelena. Those birth certificates were part of discrimination policy towards Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy and names that could be found in such certificates are simply not native names of the people. PANONIAN (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If I find a birth certificate of a Serbian Ortodox Church or the register of that church. Ha. What then. Imbris 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Then I am not sure how can you prove is this certificate real or just your fabrication in photoshop...just for a start. PANONIAN (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, well. We all see what is on your mind. Who lies - he steals - who steals - he murders. The only one who lies here is you. When I get my hand on those documents I will have the nummbers and registrars book of the births in that year. You can't forge this. And I will not ruin my reputation by lies as you do all the time. Imbris 04:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, do not bother me with stupidities - I just said that knowing you very well, I doubt that you can provide any original documents rather than fabrications from Photoshop. But anyway, what is a point of statements like "you will have those documents", etc? If and when you provide some of those documents then we can discuss about them, not before that. PANONIAN (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

History edits[edit]

  • The Hungarians were fighting for independence, not for autonomy within Austria, this is big difference.
  • The Hungarians made a mistake not involving the ethnic minority during the fight for independence, but this was not because of trying to oppress the minorities but more a general tendency that the Hungarian authorities at that time did not take attention that the minorities have grown in regard of political power.
  • The Serbs took advantage of the general anarchy but were beaten by Sandor Rozsa brigade of 150 men, then the Hungarian army occupied Vojvodina. The Serbian uprising was crushed.
  • The Serbians were not majority in 1848, but were roughly same number as the Schwabs. Both ethnicity were artifically implanted by Austrians after the Ottoman wars, as the Ottomans have "cleaned" the native local people during the wars, taken all people as Janissary.
  • The feudal system referred in this article is not completely correct. The Hungarian system was not following the "western" type of feudalism, as they have the system of "familiaris". The system was based on the Doctrine of Holy Crown. During the 1848, the king was abolished (as it is a right given by the Doctrine) but the Kingdom remained, Lajos Kossuth as governor (this is again example that this is not western type of "feudalism".
  • At the end, the article is not following facts that the Serbian national uprising did not reach its goal, but finally Austrians betrayed Serbians, if we can say it this way. The only thing which was reached is that there was another Cisletheian land of Austria.

Hétszűnyű Kapanyányi Monyók (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)