Talk:Serbs in Vojvodina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Serbia (Rated Start-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The article on Serbs of Vojvodina - that doesn't mention how many of them are there... --PaxEquilibrium 11:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It does now. :) PANONIAN (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed[edit]

As a researcher of ethnic conflict, and also as a person familiar with the history of the Balkans, including Vojvodina, I strongly feel that this article needs to be neutrality checked. There are far too many errors and distortions, above all racial bias, to have corrected them myself, or to list them all here.

The article bears all the hallmarks of racial bias in that it talks up the ancestry of one ethnic group (Serbs) and talks down the ancestry of the others, talks up the atrocities of non-Serbs (let alone placing them in historical context). It failed to mention (in its original incarnation) any of the atrocities committed by Serbs against the other peoples living in the region, and so on.

Already the first sentences are a giveaway of the deep bias in the article: "It is thought that this original population [the Vlachs] didn't entirely disappeared, meaning that they left certain genetic traces into the modern Serb population of the region." It is typical of ethnonationalists desperate to assert the primacy of their claim to a territory by making spurious links between peoples previously inhabiting the region and the group which the nationalist in question belongs to. The article is presented as if Serbs had always lived in the territory, which other peoples intermittently occupied, and now it is back to the rightful possession of Serbia. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the area will note that it doesn't even make sense to use some of the current ethnic categories in analysing the situation around the time of the Hungarian conquest, and Serbian will in fact be one of these. Other peoples who lived in the area at the time and who dominated the area both demographically and in terms of administration, such as the Avars, are not even mentioned, presumably because not even a spurious link could be made between them and the Serbs (the Avars were Turkic-speaking)... etc.


Nice political pamphlet, mister Lev123, but in case that you did not noticed, the title of this article is "Serbs of Vojvodina", so why we should writte here about Avars? And regarding "claims to a territory", since this is history of Serbs who live in their own country, why they should claim it? There is really no logic in your post. Those who want to claim some territory are usually those who do not have it, and it is they who want to delete history of Serbs from this area so that they can impose "their" history instead to justify their political claims. Really pathetic... PANONIAN (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
And if you believe that this is good place for you to post your biased opinions, you are very wrong - for your information post World War II partisans were not Serbs, but an army composed of many different nationalities including Hungarians and Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr or Ms Panonian,

I see we like to heap in some sexism with the racial bias too. In the future you might like to check yourself before assuming that the gender of a commentator with a gender-neutral name must be masculine.

The article writes about Croats, Jews and Hungarians as well, which by your logic should not be mentioned either? As Serbs in Vojvodina do not live in a vacuum, describing their history may involve mentioning other peoples too. The author of the article chose to mention the Vlachs: my point is that if they felt it necessary to mention non-Serb peoples who lived there before, they should also have mentioned the most important of these groups, the Avars.

Insecure people are often desperate to assert claims over things that they have, which they may fear to be lost in the future or to be disputed. Secure people can deal with the fact that many peoples have coexisted in an area over centuries, what matters is that the human rights of all are respected in the current arrangement. Insecure people interpret efforts for increased objectivity as efforts to "to delete history of Serbs from this area". Please. Noone wants to "delete" the history of the Serbs, that would be idiotic and just as racist as your efforts to underplay the history of the other peoples.

For your information, the post WWII partisans did have a Serb-majority composition, and Serbs certainly have been very happy to trumpet this. For your further information, the partisans did fight the Serbian paramiliaries, the Chetniks, and many Serbs did not belong to either, so noone is claiming that all Serbs are responsible for the actions of all partisans. Nevertheless, if you list crimes committed in the period against Serbs by armies and informal groups of other nationalities, fairness requires that you also list the crimes committed by Serbs against other nationalities. (especially as you do choose to talk of Serbian policies regarding minorities, you just heavily edit what you choose to include.)


The other peoples that are mentioned here are those that had an important connection with Serbs (for example, Serbs have much Vlach blood, but not Avar, hence Vlachs are mentioned and Avars are not). I repeat that this is not article about history of Vojvodina but about Serbs of Vojvodina, thus its subject is not part of the history of Vojvodina that is not connected to Serbs. So, if you did not noticed there is separate article named History of Vojvodina and all these other peoples are mentioned there. There is separate article about Hungarians in Vojvodina as well, where, for your surprise, history of Serbs is not mentioned at all. As, for partisans, much of them were Serbs, but not all, and since there is no such thing as collective guilt for things done in war, then your alleged crimes of the partisans ahould be mentioned in the Partisans article, and not in article that speak about people (for example, the article about Hungarians in Vojvodina do not mention crimes of Hungarian fascists in WW2). Also, the policy of Milošević regime towards minorities is certainly not even close to the subject of this article. PANONIAN (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Serbs have much Vlach blood like the Romanians have much Dacian blood (=as much as every other nationality living around there does, ie. insignificant). If you think there is some huge connection, then cite some reputable sources. Notice the qualifier reputable.

Ethnonationalists make up these connections to "prove" that their group was there first, which must mean in their interpretation inviolable rights to the territory for ever and ever. It is for these implications of your passage that I picked on your mentioning of the Vlachs, whether or not it was intentional. All of these groups have mixed among each other so much that talking of genetic inheritance, even if there was something to the concept in the first place, is pointless BS.

BTW you are the only one, notice, who has been going on about the partisans - when I mentioned Serbian crimes in my first comment I did not name any groups. Similarly you are the only one talking about collective guilt. If you feel mentioning Serbian crimes must mean the implication of collective guilt, and you feel collective guilt is BS, then why do you mention crimes committed against the Serbs and associate these in exactly the same manner with other groups? Other nations can have collective guilt but the Serbs not? FYI, I think collective guilt is unproductive, but *facing the truth about the past* is extremely important, and gaining a complex appreciation of one's national past is extremely important.

I recommend you meditate on the following little gem:


1. If an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us - you are merely occupiers.

2. If an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us - borders must not be changed.

3. If an area belonged to us 500 years ago but never since then, it should belong to us - it is the Cradle of our Nation.

4. If a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us - they must enjoy the right of self-determination.

5. If a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us - they must be protected against your oppression.

6. All the above rules apply to us but not to you.

7. Our dream of greatness is Historical Necessity, yours is Fascism.

Formulated by David C.Pugh

Norwegian Refugee Council


Regarding this "Norwegian Refugee Council thing" you posted, I really see no relevance of it for this discussion. I see, however, two things that could be discussed: 1. the connection between Vlachs and Serbs is very known historical fact, but if you object that sources for that are not listed in that section, then you should post "cite source" tag, but not "neutrality" tag. I will see to find these sources and post them here. And regarding your "proofs for territorial claims", if numerous genetic and anthropological researches claim that Serbs have Illyrian and Vlach blood, should we delete that from here only to please Greater Hungarian nationalists whose goal is to prove that Hungarians were here before Serbs? 2. The second thing are crimes: I certainly did not mentioned that other ethnic groups commited crimes against Serb civilians, but I mentioned that FASCISTS commited them. There is big difference between ethnical and political groups and try not to mix them ,ok? In another words: if fascists commit cromes against Serbs, we mention that here because this is article about Serbs, but if partisans commit crimes against Hungarians, then we have no reason to mention it here because this is neither article about partisans neither about Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Panonian,

I posted the Seven Rules of Nationalism because I thought you might find it interesting, and also helpful in reflecting on whether your own approach might not be a little bit nationalistic.

Just like you assumed before that I am male, now you are assuming that I am a Greater Hungarian Nationalist. You have no idea what my nationality is, my friend. Your lashing out in this manner, simply because I called on you to provide cites for something that is only taken for granted by Serbians and Serbophiles, is further indication of your insecurities. It would be better for all if you did not consider every call for more objectivity a sign of some sinister anti-Serb greater-Hungarian whatever-the-heck movement.

I would like to remind you that the infamous SANU Memorandum that was filled with the most despicable racist hate-mongering was also written by academics, so merely digging up somebody who could pop a "dr" in front of their name will not suffice as reputable citation (non-Serbs arguing the same, and links to actual proof and evidence would on the other hand be particularly likely to convince).

2) I would like to quote you then what you had written about the WWII crimes. "The difficult time period for the Serbs in Vojvodina was a World War II and the Axis occupation (1941-1944), when Vojvodina region was held by the German, Hungarian and Croatian occupation forces. The occupying powers committed numerous crimes against the ethnic Serb population in the region. It is estimated that during the occupation, about 50,000 people in Vojvodina (mostly Serbs and Jews) were murdered, while more than 280,000 people were interned, arrested, violated or tortured."

I do not see the word "fascist" mentioned a single time in this passage. Further, when you write " (mostly Serbs and Jews) were murdered", you do no attribute responsibility for these to the occupying forces separated from collective guilt implications. And yet further, because of the sensitivity of the topic, if there were significant war crimes committed by both sides in any case anywhere in the world, this should be acknowledged in a manner that doesn't make it appear as if only one side was guilty. Yet further, crimes were committed against the non-Serbs in Vojvodina also after Tito assumed power, ie after the war itself. Have you considered your responsibility here, Panonian? If a Serbian schoolkid stumbles here to learn about his people in Vojvodina, he or she could go away thinking their people were victimised grievously, and innocently. And this kind of misinformation was one of the contributing factors to the breakout of the wars in the 1990s. I maintain my previous words.

BTW I see that you wrote the article on Hungarians in Vojvodina too. I do not see why you shouldn't have mentioned Serbs there, in fact I find it very odd that you didn't do so. And given that you wrote it, it hardly counts as evidence that other nationalities should not be mentioned in articles about x group - even if you hadn't written it, "an 'is' doesn't make an 'ought'".


You do not see word "fascists" mentioned in that quotation because another people who objected to this word thought that word "occupation forces" is more neutral. You can return word "fascists" there if you want, I am not against any of the two. Anyway, my previous point is still valid because words "German, Hungarian and Croatian occupation forces" certainly do not refer to German, Hungarian and Croatian people, but to military of these three countries. For example, the word "Hungarian" have several meanings - it could refer to ethnic Hungarian, it could refer to Hungarian language, it could refer to Hungarian state, etc, etc. And, sorry, but I do not have time to discuss other things from your post that are not related to this article. And if you read my post again, you will not see a part where "I assuming that you are an Greater Hungarian Nationalist" (those are your words, not mine). But anyway, no matter of your nationality and your political orientation, it is quite certain that you have a bit of bad faith towards the subject, i.e. you want to make Serbs look bad. That is certainly not in accordance with neutrality policy of Wikipedia. And I will also tell you this: if one article speak about cat, then we should writte about cat and not about dog (that is also answer why we have no reason to mention here something that have nothing to do with the subject - you have separate articles about Tito and Partisans, so everything about them you can mention there). The article about Hungarians in Vojvodina is also not proper place where war crimes that Hungarian army commited against Serbs should be mentioned and I would also object that somebody include that there as well as I object inclusions of Tito, partisans or Milošević into this article. PANONIAN (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: such things do not belong here. The article on Serbs should have lists of all genocide, ethnic cleansing committed in WWII, the Croats article should contain the suffers of Croats throughout history, the Albanians article the horrors the Albanians endured in Kosovo in the last 20th century's decade. But not the other way around. That's how most articles are here written, and this is because such terrifying atrocities & crimes're committed not by the whole people, but by evil individuals that are characterized as such exclusively. But if a nation has been wiped-50%-out, it must be in its article, in the article(s) of the perpetrators and in the articles about the process - but not in the article of the ethnic group to which the evil-doers belong to. That alone is observing the world not as a place it is, but through ethnic clashes of nations, rather than personal individuals - and is nationalism itself.

As for non-mentioning - well, this isn't the article about them. I personally do not like this article, because I think that there's nothing here that should be either at the Vojvodina or the Serbs article. --PaxEquilibrium 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

--Rjecina (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)==Stefan Dragutin==

He has never ruled in Vojvodina. For evidence I giving this map of his state:

Kingdom of Srem

Because of that I have deleted writings about this ruler. --Rjecina (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The map has been removed (by me) because it is incorrect. Ugrin Czak's lands are (as per Hungarian wikipedia) depicted far too large. According to the sources I've gather, Dragutin indeed did rule "northeastern Syrmia", i.e. the westerm part of Srem, mostly corresponding the modern-day Serbian part. Another interesting thing to note is that in 1292 Ugrin was captured by the supporters of the Anjou family, who managed to seize most of Slavonia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It will be very nice to show that source ?
Until it is possible to see this source your comments are nothing more or less but original research becase article is not speaking about territory in Vojvodina but territory in today Bosnia and Serbia south of rivers Sava and Dunav.--Rjecina (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am having Serbian historical books for which you have given me link and in this books there is not town or village north of Sava where Stefan Dragutin has ruled. Similar to that all Serbian historical maps from article Stefan Dragutin are showing that he has not ruled north of this river, or better to say he has not ruled in Vojvodina [1] , [2] , [3] . It has been clearly stated before during discussion in another Balkan article that obscure books which can't be looked on internet are not accepted source in similar situations.
Even you in this discussion have writen that this map is wrong not because of Dragutin state but because of Ugrin Czak lands --Rjecina (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that 3rd map is Milutin's and not Dragutin's.
OK, then we'll put that there is a controversy and is seems we'll never be able to find out...perhaps search for some contemporary sources from the time of his reign? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you understand how POV and misleading is writing:"According to some, he also ruled "northeast Syrmia", i.e. eastern part of Syrmia." and then writing 5 lines of text about territory which he has maybe ruled ? This is POV pushing like Podgorica Assembly . --Rjecina (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't get offended, but you're awfully lot complaining and not contributing. :) I didn't write that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have found plenty of Serbian sources (Vladimir Corovic, Zeljko Fajfric) and maps (Jugoslavian History, History of the Serbs) that claim he indeed did rule a part of "northeastern Srem", that is most eastern Syrmia. But after screening for sources, I found among the Anonymous Western Historian's works, who was a contemporary to Dragutin's life. In his works that is confirmed. Also, after a short visit to Fruška Gora, I found out Dragutin founded one of the monasteries up there. :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet sources are saying other thing or it will be much better to say that they are not speaking about Dragutin rule north of Sava. Official site of Sremska Mitrovica [4] is speaking about everything but not about rule of Dragutin. Similiar thing is story about Zemun official site [5] . I simple refuse to believe that Serbian offical sites has forgoten to write about first Serb which has ruled this towns ... --Rjecina (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some, others don't. Also, the official History of Srem article doesn't seem to mention a lot of things at all. Also one of the reasons was that this, as a lot of history in general, was suppressed in the Communist era. We have come to a moment of information, that seems to contradict with one map, at least for a certain period of time (that is, until 1311, Czak's death).
I'll tell you what - I'll find some time and jump over to the Vojvodina Academy of Sciences and Arts in half a year or so, they'll most definitely have the answer. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Predic 2.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Predic 2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cvijic's map[edit]

I think that this map should be either be removed or it's obvious and extreme pro-Serbian character made clear. I'm not really familiar with Vojvodina's demographics, however when the absurd inclusion of Bulgaria up to the Iskar as a Serb area is considered, it seems rather unlikely that Cvijic was particularly objective when considering Serb areas in Vojvodina. Kostja (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not just any area of Bulgaria, but area inhabited by Shopi whose transitional dialect posses both, western and eastern South Slavic features. Cvijić simply classified them in accordance with western South Slavic features in their language, while some Bulgarian scientists are classifying in accordance with eastern Slavic features in their language. Such linguistic features in the dialect spoken by Shopi are an scientific reality and I do not see how interpretation of Jovan Cvijić is more extreme than interpretation of Bulgarian scientists (they both used exactly same methodology and classified Shopi population in accordance with some of the features in their language). And if we speak about Vojvodina, you can compare that map with some other from same or similar time periods and you will see that there are no major differences between them: (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, the area where transitional dialects are spoken is much smaller (See this map). The dialect spoken east of those areas is unambiguously Bulgarian, except for the opinion some Serb authors like Cvijić (see [6]). Also, regardless of language classification, there is the question of national self determination, which is Bulgarian in Western Bulgaria according to all authors except Cvijić and those like him. In every case, Cvijić takes a consistently pro-Serbian position, so it's quite correct to describe his position as Serbian nationalist and I have restored the caption. Kostja (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This article does not speak about western Bulgaria, so whether this particular part of that map is correct or not is irrelevant. If you do not have objections to accuracy of this map when territory of Vojvodina is in question then you have no reason to remove that map from this article or to object to its accuracy regarding other territories. There are some errors in all old maps and this one is obviously not exception. By the way, why are you not concerned about maps where people of southern Serbia and Macedonia are labeled as "Bulgarians" (for example this one: ) These maps are representing even larger POV (Cvijić at least recognized Macedonian ethnicity). PANONIAN 11:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, it is quite clear that Cvijić's map is very similar to this map of Bulgarian dialects and that, therefore, data presented in his map is not "nationalistic", but it represents his scientific opinion by which speakers of these 3 dialects in western Bulgaria are ethnically closer to Serbs than to Bulgarians. PANONIAN 11:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
And final, but not less important issue: if you want to claim that Cvijić was nationalist then you have to provide an reliable source that also claim that. The fact that Cvijić presented people who spoke 3 South Slavic dialects in western Bulgaria as Serbs does not make him nationalist. He was a scientist and he had every right to his scientific opinion. Your personal opinion, by which "Cvijić must be nationalist if he presented these 3 dialects as Serb" is not evidence for anything. Due to the fact that your personal opinion is controversial and not generally acceptable, reliable sources that would support such opinion are required. PANONIAN 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to remove the map. I just want to mention the possible bias the map might have regarding Vojvodina. It's obvious that when an author is biased towards the Serbs in one region, he might be biased towards them in another and it's definitely something that a neutral article should mention.
This is not the place to discuss the Macedonian Question, so I'll point out only two things:
1. The opinion that the Slavs in Macedonia were Bulgarians was the general consensus at the time, as my link shows (and many authors had the same opinion about southern Serbia)
2. Cvijić didn't consider them Macedonians either, but Macedonian Slavs ie Slavs living in Macedonia.
As for Cvijić's supposed scientific opinion (Cvijić wasn't a linguist, by the way) it's one to thing to claim that the Western Bulgarian dialects have some similarities to Serbian, it's quite a different thing to claim that they were Serbian and yet a third thing to claim that the inhabitants of Western Bulgaria are Serbian. And it's really only Serb authors who have reached such "conclusions".
And, yes there are sources. I have added them to the article now. Kostja (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I removed the map but only because I do not want to see that this article is turned into popularization of nationalistic propaganda from Croatian site that you used in your last edit. Having this map here is not worthy of keeping all kinds of bias that come from that site. PANONIAN 14:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I had actually added a second source, but for some reason it didn't display correctly: Cartography in Central and Eastern Europe: Selected Papers of the 1st ICA Symposium on Cartography for Central and Eastern Europe; Georg Gartner, Felix Ortag; 2010; p.338. Kostja (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What ever. I uploaded now an cropped version of the image without Bulgaria. Is that one acceptable for you? PANONIAN 14:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I had no opposition to the map. However the current version is fine. Kostja (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


Drmies, yes, two other users do not agree with my edit, but what is their argument? They have only one argument: “Undid revision by Nemambrata”. Is that argument? This is argument: Page that speak about “Serbs in Vojvodina” should have links that have relation to Serbs in Vojvodina. Pages Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, Independent State of Croatia, Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) and 1944-1945 killings in Bačka are not in relation with Serbs in Vojvodina and links to these pages should not be promoted here. Can anybody say how links to these pages are in relation to Serbs in Vojvodina? Nemambrata (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Vojvodina is not a historical region it is an autonomous province of Serbia and a political entity so no Zemun,Surčin and New Belgrade are not part of Vojvodina. (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)