Talk:Vukovar-Srijem County

use of the term Syrmia in modern-day administrative subdivision names

Please see Talk:Syrmia#use of the term Syrmia in modern-day administrative subdivision names. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029211333/http://www.nipp.hr/UserDocsImages/Registar%20geografska%20imena%20nacionalnih%20manjina%20RH.pdf to http://www.nipp.hr/UserDocsImages/Registar%20geografska%20imena%20nacionalnih%20manjina%20RH.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Proposal to rename article

Based on the exchange of opinions at the talk-page of Wiki-Project Croatia (most up to date contribution) I propose that this article is renamed/moved to Vukovar-Syrmia County. There are two spellings used for the region in English (Syrmia/Sirmium) yet Wikipedia uses Syrmia for the region itself and Sirmium for the ancient Roman city. The name of the Croatian county is derived from the name of the region and I therefore propose Syrmia version in the title as well. I will propose similar change for Osijek-Baranja County in which you may be interested as well.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Jeez, User:MirkoS18, why did you not advertise this at Wikipedia:Requested moves? We do not move articles by RfC, and this one was not particularly well advertised anyway (I admit, I was barely active in June anyway). There was a 2014 discussion between myself, User:Joy and User:Anastan at Talk:Syrmia#use of the term Syrmia in modern-day administrative subdivision names. "Syrmia" is not a well-attested term in English, and the main reason we use it as the name of the main article is a compromise. It should not be used for all derived meanings where it does not have a common usage. Now that the category tree and whatnot has been moved, it's quite inconvenient to revert, but well, I object... No such user (talk)

Dear User:No such user, first of all let me thank you for your feedback. Apologies for not sharing it on the Requested moves page. I forgot about that page, and I anyway believed that majority of interested users will see it on the talk page of the WP:Croatia. It is okay that you were not active in June, self-evidently in no way it prevents you from sharing your ides now. I was aware of the discussion from 6 years ago that you mentioned. This was in fact why I initially asked others for their opinion. My reasoning is explained in my posts on the WP:Croatia. While the 2014 discussion was insightful, I thought there were other aspects which were not considered at that time. It also looked to me more as an friendly exchange of opinions than some formal decision making. Anyway, to acknowledge earlier contributions and opinions I made this specific edit. Now, I don't completely grasp if your current comment aim at certain proposal or it is more for the record? I certainly appreciate your feedback. If it is proposal, while I would't like for this to be interpreted in any way as my push on the rest of community, I also would't really like to revert anything myself as I think the current version is better one. Hope you can understand this point.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah this should be summarily reverted on procedural grounds, WP:RM is the way to move articles, not this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Joy summarily reverting it one month after the change only on procedural ground sounds quite contrary to WP not bureaucracy policy, plus WP:RM is not the only and mandatory procedure. Despite my omission (and it was nothing more) you should not just ignore that I posted this proposal both here and on the WP Croatia and that until now there was no opposition to relatively massive changes on factual grounds. If it is to be reverted it probably deserve some factual reasoning and not only procedural one.--MirkoS18 (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The best way forward is that we open a fresh RM from the current title so as to have a proven consensus one way or another, and to hopefully settle the issue for good. Procedural reverting is simply impractical given the number of articles affected (via categories) and the time lapsed (over a month). No such user (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like reasonable way forward that gives me a fair chance at "defending my case", plus it appreciate significant (and unopposed) effort at manually moving everything. Summary revert would be rather frustrating honestly. As far as I see the key point of your earlier comment was that this was not a common name. I would like to try to find evidence that it is in fact, and to answer to some other claims, logical conclusions and facts which I think were partially misrepresented or completely missed. New RM can provide me a platform (of course, to everyone else as well). If possible (if there is a precedent), it would be great if a new RM can ask for the confirmation of this title so that my original unfortunate omission is addressed?--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The passage of time makes no difference to whether the change was correct or not. We already had these discussions for years, so I find it utterly weird that you think that your opinion in one particular month now suddenly magically trumps everything else. That is not a bureaucratic distinction, it's a question of what is actually learning from history and what is in the spirit of collaboration. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The passage of time most certainly makes no difference whether the change was correct or not but I don't know where do you see I claimed it? My earlier comment stated exactly that a change on bureaucratic distinction is not justified here especially since my earlier moves did stabilize for some time and may therefore probably better suit process of Move review. Now, all of those years you mention are referenced at one (not that conclusive) exchange of opinions in 2014. Now, you may say that that my disagreement with your 2014 opinion is utterly weird and phantasmagoric but I think that you (while I assume your best intention) were not completely correct for following reasons:

1) On 30 June 2014 you said "I don't currently see we can source either of those terms. If "Syrmia" was actually a common English word, there would be no debate, but it's really just another relatively obscure toponym.". I think it is as either Syrmia or Sirmium is used by International Organizations (OSCE: 1, CoE: 1, UNSC: UNTAES, 1023, 1025, 1037, 1043, 1069, 1079, 1120, 1145, ALDA: [1], CEMR: 1), Foreign Governments (CIA: 1, 2, State Department: 1, US Board on Geographic Names: 1, Bosnia SIPA: 1, Assembly of Vojvodina: 1, Official Journal of the European Union: 1, Slovak Consulate: 1), Academia (JSTOR results: 1 and 2, CEEOL results regular translation: 1, Springer: 1 and 2 and 2 and locally HRČAK: 1 and 2) and Media (1, 2, 3), as well as locally (Ministry: 1, in statistics: 1 in tourism: 1, by local bodies: 1, companies: 1). Google Books in fact do provide results both for Syrmia and Sirmium. In addition, my quotes here are not exhaustive but simply exemplary in nature (I can provide additional if needed). You can also look into sources for Syrmian Front and other moments which all make term's usage a bit less "obscure".

2) I believe that this proves that Sirmium or Syrmia is/are common English language name(s) for the region. The fact that there is some variance should not lead us to a logical mistake. It is not -1+1=0, it is 1+1=2 as both are common English term for the region. I addressed this HERE.

3) Even the claim that there is a clear line between the usage of Srijem in Croatia and Srem in Serbia is only partially (even if mostly) correct. Ekavian is common among local Serb, Rysin and at least historically relevant Croat community (if there is need for references I can provide them). This is so much so that it marginally leads even to the co-oficial usage of it: in case you know Cyrillic take a look at ekavian official inscriptions in Vukovar which are now vandalized but which are officially used in other units.

4) Now, there will certainly be opposite examples, but I for example don't see how is Carinthia less "obscure" term, but we still have Carinthia Statistical Region, Carinthia (Slovenia), 2018 Carinthian state election... and many other. This (and other states and regions there and elsewhere) is in no way obligatory, but it does have persuasive characteristics.

5) Last but not least, the fact is that 6 years of different Wikipedia practice certainly influenced the type of sources available online as even Google itself provide reference to Wikipedia.

All of this may be my weird phantasmagoria, but I think this argument is stronger than what was provided in exchange of opinions in 2014. I am really sorry I missed one common step in procedure but I count on your assumption of my good faith. I haven't tried to do anything against the spirit of collaboration here as it seems to me was maybe alleged.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What prevented you from posting this tl;dr rant in WP:RM originally? IOW this actually makes me less willing to accommodate you after a repetitive refusal to accept responsibility for such a basic oversight. "I am right, therefore whatever I do is right, too!" --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Joy I apologized for my omission repeatedly. I think that my initial good intention is visible from the fact that I initiated discussion both here and at the WP:Croatia. I am sorry that this makes you annoyed or dissatisfied as I appreciate your contribution to the project. I do not ask you to accommodate me in any way, but if you say that my contribution was incorrect you should not really say that my answer is too long to read rant once I present my argument. Insistence on procedural omission certainly does not seem like there is any effort to "accommodate" me. I try my best to be constructive here. I proposed Move review if there is reason to believe I was incorrect on factual ground. Nobody here would be happier than me if I knew I need to put it on WP:RM from the beginning. I did not avoid it intentionally (which editor would like to be treated in this way intentionally). Your proposal is only to revert everything on procedural ground, but even that is not strictly in line with procedure when a new undiscussed (in fact discussed but on "wrong" places) title stabilize. Mass procedural revert should only motivate me to open a new WP:RM right after that. There must be another way to work together and to assume that everyone here have a good intention without name calling and undermining other editors or their contributions. Please, let us be reasonable. You have much more experience here, I don't believe that there is only one thing which can be done.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I went through a dozen of the links you posted and they do not actually all advance your argument. To clarify, we need info about the English naming of the region, but more specifically we need info about the English naming of the county. Many of those links are references to the region during the times of Yugoslavia, and many are simple searches to the English/Latin phrases. They're not all references to the county name. You shoud present links that clarify that some source refers to the actual county using some phrase. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

As an example, compare these three:

• JSTOR search for vukovar syrmia county - 3 results - and actually excerpts from 0 seem to talk about this topic?
• JSTOR search for vukovar sirmium county - 11 results - and actually excerpts from 3 seem to talk about this topic?
• JSTOR search for vukovar srijem county - 26 results - and actually excerpts from 6 seem to talk about this topic, while 1 more uses the 'Sirmium' phrasing?

So it's fairly obvious that a proper review of sources will require us to actually delve a little bit more into this. Most obviously, because these numbers are very bad for your argument, but also because the excerpts might actually not be representative. I also observed one usage of the phrase "County of X and Y", so there could be some ambiguity in searches in that regard as well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all thank you for your renewed interest in this topic and for looking into provided sources. I am not sure which one of them do not advance my argument. I will just rollback a bit for an overview which you are of course free to challenge in part or in full:

• there was no conclusive consensus in 2014 which is claimed. There was also a claim that a common English word for Syrmia does not exist. I proved that Syrmia or Sirmium is in fact a common English name for the region (used before, during and after Yugoslavia for the region by reliable international sources, although I do not see what was the issue with reliable sources from any period).
• It is a common practice to use the English language names of regions for all Croatian counties where common English names do exist. Therefore we have Požega-Slavonia (not Požega-Slavonija), Split-Dalmatia (not Split-Dalmacija), Istria County (not Istra) counties. This was shared in the original exchange on the WP Croatia (idea that it is contradictory to use one name for the region, and another when it is used in county's name). In fact, with Istria there is Slovene Istria, Istria County while there seems not to be a special Italian unit.
• If we are to use original name I don't see why we don't use Vukovarsko-srijemska County? While one of statistically common "translation" of Vukovarsko-srijemska may be Vukovar-Srijem it is not the literal translation of the term. The situation is comparable with much more notable Austria-Hungary case where the full name is not Austria-Hungary Empire but Austro-Hungarian Empire. JSTOR in fact provides some sources using Vukovarsko-srijemska County term as well.
• As for JSTOR, it is certainly something we should strongly take into consideration. JSTOR in fact do not provide strong and conclusive argument in this case. As for Vukovar-Syrmia or Vukovar-Sirmium "dilema" I have zero preference and if you propose at any time to rename Vukovar-Syrmia to Vukovar-Sirmium I will support it. Also, it seems your search missed some JSTOR sources: for example Vukovar-Syrmia (just to point out it is not 0). Since you put some question on international sources created during the Yugoslav time, I will feel free to feel some doubt on neutrality of some sources created by local authors during or in the aftermath of the War when the region was contested and the place of conflict. The fact is that in this time international community and media insisted on the term Sirmium as it is clearly visible in my sources and elsewhere. While I do not question neutrality of any provided JSTOR sources at the time (at least not without detailed analysis), the fact is that they were almost all written by local authors.
• In the end, I can't free myself from the feeling that the insistence on Vukovar-Srijem term is insistence on Croatisation which will distinguish it from the Serbian term Srem, and not only on statistics. That is why I prefer neutral English name both to Srijem and Srem terms. When there is no insistence on Croatisation in the case of other counties, I see no reason why to insist in the case where there is in fact the highest proportion of the local population which may not use it.
• As for some English language references for the region itself (some repeated):

• Vukovar-Syrmia: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5- page 47, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23- page 58, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36-by the County and honestly many more, certainly enough to claim that English naming of the county is Vukovar-Syrmia County (even if other versions may exist)
• Vukovar-Sirmium: 1, 2 and certainly many more but I will need more time if needed.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)