Talk:Vojvodina/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Independence of Vojvodina

With Kosovo lost: When will Vojvodina become also independent? The Serbs in Vojvodina regarded themselves always as special and seperate and in fact all nations in Vojvodina could earn much more cash in a multicultural Vojvodina than together with corrupt and chaotic Serbia.

Is this example of trolling or something like that? First read this: Politics of Vojvodina, then read this: Republic of Vojvodina, and then after you read that only about 5% of citizens of Vojvodina support independence and that there is no single political party in Vojvodina that support independence, you can come back here to ask more questions if you do not understand something. PANONIAN (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Alois Mock, former vice chancelor of Austria, said in an interview by the New York Times in february 1995 that the same principles that apply to Kosovo should apply to Vojvodina and that the hungarian minority must be protected. He stated that opression of Hungarians was mounting in Vojvodina with Serbian telling them to leave. A survey in march 2005 showed that 42 % of Vojvodina's voters favor independence whilst 29% are undecided.

So, where can I get some of what you're smoking? :)--Methodius 06:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Methodius, you do not need to answer to those trolish comments - comments posted with purpose of trolling and provocation could be deleted at any time, talk pages are here for people who want to discuss problems with Wikipedia articles, not for people who want to start new Balkan wars (such people certainly should be banned from Wikipedia editing because Wikipedia should promote tolerance and peace, not hate). Regarding percent of voters in Vojvodina that favor independence, that percent is only 5%, no matter what any Internet Troll say or writte. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Vojvodina?!?!?!IS THAT A JOKE?The Republic of Dutchy.......even the name is ridicilous,it is Serbia whether Hungarians like it or not.It has autonomy,it is not a country. Kosovo and Vojvodina are both in Serbia,Kosovo less,Vojvodina more. 80% of the population is Serbian,and 20% others.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.29.142 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Croatian language - 6th?

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

Croatian is official as of 2001, but its not fully been implemented, like other languages in Vojvodina .... we all now Serbian politics... "official just in paper" lol --Göran Smith 08:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any source? --PaxEquilibrium 18:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, i am speaking from personal experience. There are no official documents on Croatian, if you see government buildings, eg national bank of Serbia, other Serbia's ministry offices in Vojvodina and local post offices (even renovated post offices) which still do not have names in Croatian or Latin alphabet. They all have on their stamps and signs on buildings in Serbian Cyrillic, Russian, Slovak and Hungarian. No one has on Latin alphabet or Croatian. I think Subotica municipality is only one (?) --Göran Smith 22:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You mixing official languages on provincial level and those official on municipal level. Official languages on provincial level means that all provincial institutions use these languages, but not local ones. As for sources, here is the official source of Vojvodinian government: http://www.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/ On page named "Upoznajte APV" you have this: "Statutom AP Vojvodine, kao najvišim pravnim aktom u Pokrajini, utvrđeno je da su u službenoj upotrebi istovremeno sa srpskim jezikom još i mađarski, hrvatski, slovački, rumunski i rusinski jezik." PANONIAN (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ne mešam, sve republičke institucije u Vojvodini koriste na pečatima i na tablama na zgradama Mađ, Slovački, Rus i srpksi ćirilicu, kao i pošte na šalterima (baš sam video renoviranu poštu na spensu da nisu stavili hr, a ostale jesu). Kao što u SUPu bilo koje opštine možeš dobiti ličnu kartu na svim jezicima samo ne možeš na hrvatskome, a ni na latinici. I dalje postoji neka blaga diskriminacija hr jezika, a pošto je hr službeni od 2000, a znamo da treba proći dosta vremena dok se zakon i primeni u praxi, ipak je vojvodina Srbija lol :))) --Göran Smith 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia the official language was serbo-croatian (1989-2006). So how it was possible for local-level institutions to confer the Constitution?

Rusyn IS Ukrainian.

Please change Rusyn to Ukrainian.

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

Ethnic violence in Vojvodina

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

The above, properly referenced, may fit into the History of Vojvodina article. The events of the 21st century are by any standard, current and thus belong in Vojvodina. BTW the references are not just Serb-Hungarian violence but events involving many different ethnicities as documented by both Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament. They are notable not just for the violence but even moreso for the conspicuous lack of police and official response to it, even full denial of the problem. This, as Europe has learned time and again, always leads to bigger problems. You may not believe it, Panonian but I do not dislike Serbs - I like Serbs I have Serb friends and even a few Serb relatives - I find it sad the almost pariah condition the events of 1990s have led to quite good and innocent Serbs in UK and USA virtually always self-identifying as "Yugoslavians". I object when properly referenced edits made in good faith[1] and rightfully upheld by disinterested editors [2] are dismissed as nationalist POV when a careful reading of the references themselves reveal that the reverted text is quite a genteel and muted description of harsh reality. I took your specific objections under consideration[3], specifically the criminal code against hate crimes (which HRW calls unenforced), allegations of nationalist bias, and took your advise "If you want to have real story about those events, then please read the official report of European investigators" and found the corresponding resolution passed by the European Parliament. Its fair play.

However, I am still sensitive to your concern about "polluting" a page with dirty laundry (after all, the Ronald Reagan page doesnt have a picture of colon polyps) and that nobody in Europe is whiter than snow (but at least most of us are off to a good start in this millenium). But what is happening in Serb Vojvodina is a real problem with the police and certainly belongs in the wikipedia to inform those who want to know more about Vojvodina. Having "repaired" the text as per your objections, and having reverted twice I will certainly step aside for now and let the community decide on the proper treatment of this issue. István 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is only one solution for this problem: all ethnic violence, historical and modern should be moved to Ethnic groups of Vojvodina article. This is minimum of compromise that I ask for and if you still want to push your POV here be ready for long term high scale revert war (I will notify other users from Serbian Wikipedia about problems that I have here with you). Have a nice day... PANONIAN (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

O yes, we can also create new article named Ethnic violence in Vojvodina and move all this shit there. Which of the two options you prefer? PANONIAN (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, what is POV in the passage I added? Ive taken references from two reputable and independent organisations: Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament and summarised them accurately. I'm now copying this to Talk:Vojvodina as it has become important for that page. See more there. István 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your POV is that you posted part how Serbs attack Hungarians but also DELETED part where Hungarians attack Serbs. One cannot understand recent ethnic conflict without its historical background because negative attitude of some Serbs towards Hungarians come exactly from the fact that Serbs in the past were victims of Hungarians. You insisted that we tell this story here, but if we tell it, we must tell the whole story, not only its part. However, I still believe that this story does not belong here at all because much of this modern ethnic-conflict story are just alleged events and there are much more important issues in Vojvodina like unemployment therefore, this whole story should be moved to Ethnic groups of Vojvodina article, but if you insist that it remain here, then we cannot left here only one part of the story. PANONIAN (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive not deleted any material, as stated in the edit summary, the historical material was MOVED to the historical article (and redundancies removed). This material was also available to both Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament prior to their reports. Moreover, Serb victims of ethnic violence is also mentioned in the HRW report therefore there is no double-standard, neither real nor implied; simply a weighed consideration of much evidence (experts having gone down that he-said/she-said road) and issued (in both cases) their final reports: Its a police apathy problem which enables more ethnic violence. The historical context belongs in the historical article (though it should be linked). Perhaps if James Michener were still alive he could write the novel "Vojvodina" and lay out the entire sordid story but that is far beyond what is appropriate for the mainspace article.István 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is not threat - you done the same by calling your "friend" Bendeguz to help you have more than 3 reverts, why I cannot do the same then? At least, I have no bad faith towards the subject of this article. PANONIAN (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive not communicated with Bendeguz; I assume he is acting out of common sense. Ive not implied you have bad faith toward Vojvodina. István 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But I imply that you have. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF works until you meet a disguised egg like Panonian whose quasi-NPOV edits catch one`s eyes. So much for his neutrality, and AGF.--Bendeguz 08:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from false accusations. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I will deal latter with the content of sources presented by you as well as exact look of the paragraph about recent ethnic violence. There are two issues to be discussed first: 1. in which article to post this stuff, and 2. whether to post historical and modern ethnic violance together. The best place where this should be posted is Ethnic groups of Vojvodina article because there is no reason to polute main Vojvodina article with this stuff. Second thing is that both, historical and modern ethnic violence should be on the same place because one cannot understand modern violence without historical one. PANONIAN (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to the point of the references: What historical context excuses/mitigates/justifies present (post-2003) police apathy toward ethnic violence? Human Rights Watch and The European Parliament are pointing out that this is a problem of lack of law enforcement, which they state will lead to even more widespread violence. How can any historical record alter/shade/excuse this very real and important problem? István 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But that is not the source of the problem. They claim that this is source of the problem because they know nothing about history of the region. If the know something about it, they would not claim that. PANONIAN (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One more important point: if you claim that source of this problem is "lack of law enforcement" then I do not see relevance of this in the Vojvodina article. Two facts: 1. police is not under jurisdiction of provincial authorities, and 2. attacks against minorities happen in Central Serbia too, not only in Vojvodina. Therefore, I do not see why Vojvodina should be pulled out of the whole-country context, thus the proper article for such things would be Human rights in Serbia article. PANONIAN (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, now we might be having a serious discussion (down here, not up there). Yes, lack of law enforcement is identified by Human Rights Watch in their report on Vojvodina as enabling/abetting the rapid rise in ethnic violence. They state that this will likely lead to further increases. This is an important distinction from garden-variety "ethnic violence": Most people are not suprised to read that there is ethnic violence in the Balkans, that it comes from just about every group, and that it has a looooong history. However, most readers would equally assume that such violence is illegal and the Police will try to stop it, regardless of its source - yet according to both Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament, this is not the case. In fact, they have done very deep research (just read the HRW report) and made the conclusion that there is a special problem in Vojvodina of the police ignoring ethnically motivated attacks on virtually all ethnic minorities in the province. This conclusion is made taking into context the history of the region, and focuses on Vojvodina specifically. It is they (HRW, EU), not we, who may define the problem, frame its context, and set its scope at Vojvodina and not Serbia. Human rights in Vojvodina would be a better place to put this material, and it should be linked from the main article. István 14:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Panonian is not neutral, that's for sure. It is predictible that he is Serbian and modifies everything accordingly. What it has anything to do with NPOV in Wikipedia? (I am "taking my people from other websites..." lol) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion00 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I'm a Serb, but my mother is a Hungarian. All my best friends were and are of such mixed origin. While I don't feel completely as a Serb, some of them don't feel as a complete Hungarians. We all belong to Vojvodina, because these kind of origins only exist here. I have never heard tha anyone of them had any problems concerning ethnicity. Every country has idiots, and Serbia is certainly not an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.20.4 (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Zoran Petrović

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

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

Part of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

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

No, that are not facts. Only Syrmia was part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, while Banat, Bačka, and Baranja (three lands also known as Vojvodina in that time) were for short time de facto independent before they joined Serbia. Just read this article: Banat, Bačka and Baranja. PANONIAN (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

They were de facto occupied by the Serbians royal army. And de iure part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong: the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs de jure did not even existed and was not recognized by anybody and therefore the claim that something de jure belonged to this state is ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact No. 1 Syrmia was part of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.

Wrong: the Triune Kingdom was a fictional (non-existing) union of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia, which both de jure and de facto were completelly separate Habsburg crownlands. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia was de iure official name in Zagreb. But you are stating a fact it was only a name which designated two sepparate entities Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia. Croatian Parliament in Zagreb called the Kingdom - Triune Kingdom because it had every right to do so. And because the promisses of Habsburg dinasty to Croatian people in 1527. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Triune Kingdom was just unofficial name used only in Zagreb and nowhere else - Triune Kingdom was never officially recognized as political entity in the Habsburg Monarchy, no matter of imagine "rights" that Croats spoke of, but nobody in the Habsburg Monarchy never recognized those "rights". In fact, I do not care if you use name "Triune Kingdom" in the Croatia-related articles, but in Serbia-related articles there is no place for that crap. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact No. 2 Bačka, Banat i Baranja (alphabeticaly) were at the time lands of the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. And they were not independent (in 1918) but at most self governed, autonomous part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.

Banat, Bačka and Baranja was official name no matter of alphabetical order and it indeed was de facto independent territory under protection of Serbian army until it officially proclaimed its unification with Serbia. It had its own government and had no any connection with the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the truth. They were unlawfully occupied territories of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By whose law? By the law ow WW1 allies, Serbian army was legally on those territories. Opposite to this, the existence of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was completelly illegal by all laws, including Allie laws and Habsburg laws. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact No. 3 By the Statutes of the People's council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, dated 1918-10-06 and verified 1918-10-08. People's council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is the political representative of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, which live in Croatia and Slavonia with Rijeka, in Dalmatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Istria, Trieste, Carniola (Kranjsko), Friuli Venezia Giulia (Goričko and Kras), Styria (Štajersko), Carinthia (Koroško), Bačka, Banat, Baranya, Medjimurje and in the rest of southwestern Hungary.

The government of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs claimed that its aim is to rule over Banat, Bačka and Baranja, but it never established its control over those lands because Serbian National Board in Novi Sad had all authority over Banat, Bačka and Baranja and it was not subordinated to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Also, the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was not never internationally recognized as a state, so it had neither de facto neither de jure control over Banat, Bačka and Baranja. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A state can have de iure controll of a territory even if not recognized by international community. And it was National council not board. They just opted for Serbia sooner. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, if state de jure does not exist (and exactly that was the case with the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs) then it cannot have de jure control over anything. Also, it was Serbian National Board at first, but after region officially joined to Serbia it was transformed into real provincial government. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact No. 4 The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was the short form for The State of the People's council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and was proclaimed in accordance to the Statutes 1918-10-08

What this has to do with Vojvodina? PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Every textbook said that Bačka, Banat and Baranya were parts of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in accordance to its Statutes. It has everything to do with Vojvodina. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Every textbook? Where? In Croatia? Should I laugh to this or something else? I already told you: de jure the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs did not existed and therefore it de jure did not controled anything beyond its de facto borders, while de facto the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs never controled Banat, Bačka and Baranja. So the only thing that could have connection with Vojvodina here is history twisting with the purpose of justification of modern Greater Croatian political aspirations. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact No. 5 At the meeting in Geneve 1918-11-09 there was an understanding between President of the government and minister of foreign affairs of the Kingdom of Serbia, and President of People's council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and President of the Yugoslav commitee from London. In the Conclusions of the meeting it was decided by the Government of the Kingdom of Serbia to recognize People's council in Zagreb as a reprezentative of the people and Government of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. At that meeting there were dozens of people present, parliament members, presidents of parliaments, members of the press etc.

What this has to do with Vojvodina? PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a comment, but ignoring the truth. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The truth is not same as the "truth" - when you see a difference between the two you will realize that I am right. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact No 6 Why would Kingdom of Serbia recognize claim of Bačka, Banat and Baranya to the State of People's council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs? So some PANONIAN would defer the idea. I don't think so!

It never recognized such claims. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It did 1918-11-09. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it did not. Serbia recognized State on of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs on the territories that they de facto controled, which did not included Banat, Bačka and Baranja. If you do not trust to me, trust to this: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/193818BK.GIF PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

All was arranged for Union between State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with Kingdom of Serbia. That is why. They signed a Declaration of 1918-11-09 that promoted the idea.

What this has to do with Vojvodina? PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vojvodinian quick answer to the proposals of hastened unification (without autonomy) which were proposals of the Serbian monarchy (with no plans for the future) pushed the rest of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in the unification (with autonomy). It has everything to do with that sittuation. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I told you, Vojvodina was not part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and therefore unification of Vojvodina with Serbia had nothing to do with the unification of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with Serbia, they were separate entities: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/193818BK.GIF . And by the way, Vojvodina did united with Serbia as autonous entity (read again Banat, Bačka and Baranja article), but Serbian government did not regognized autonomy of Vojvodina in this time. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact No 7 1918-11-24. People's council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs proclaims the union with Kingdom of Serbia, and Kingdom of Montenegro (de facto occupied by Serbia, and thus forced to union with it).

State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs proclaimed its union with Serbia on 28.11. i.e., after Vojvodina (25.11.) and Srem (24.11.). PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true. After the debates of 23. - 24. 11. 1918. Central comitee of the People's council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs accepted the conclusion of the Presidency of Central comitee (inner circle, comitee of eight) which stated the unification with Kingdom of Serbia and Kingdom of Montenegro, not with "Serbian National Board in Novi Sad". Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You simply mixing everything here now. Just read and learn: on 24.11. Syrmia united with Serbia, on 25.11. Banat, Bačka and Baranja united with Serbia, on 26.11. Montenegro united with Serbia and on 28.11. State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs united with Serbia. Those are dates that could be found even in my history book for school so please do not mix date of conclusion of the presidency and date of unification. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

At that same day (1918-11-24) Vojvodina proclaims union with Kingdom of Serbia. What was that I wonder? Did they leave the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs just to find them selves in union with the same State.

As I said it was not on the same day, and as I said, it did not leave State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs because it never was its part. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh you were late a day. I don't think so. But for the sake of curiosity. Vojvodina that was part of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs after that State joined Serbia and Montenegro seceded from the State to join it again od (by PANONIAN's datum) 1918-11-25. Imbris

Vojvodina WAS NOT part of the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, no matter how many times you repeat this lie. I already explained problems with de jure/de facto control and problems with dates, so just read my previous posts again. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Two days latter Kingdom of Montenegro joined by force to the newly formed Kingdom "of" what.

Two days latter of what? Kingdom of Montenegro joined Serbia on 26.11. PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes two days latter of 1918-11-24. Kingdom of Montenegro was forced to unite. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You still did not said later of what? PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact No 8 Address (or better said speeach of the vice-president of the People's council to the regent King at which the King answers with a Proclamation of Union.

What this has to do with Vojvodina? PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Serbian king Karadjordjevic misused the Serbian constitution when declared the creation of the Kingdom. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no connection with Vojvodina again. PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the Constitution of 1921. when the Kingdom receves it's legal and constitutional name. Imbris 04:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What this has to do with Vojvodina? PANONIAN (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are a hard core xerb and anti-vojvodiner. Imbris 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot be anti-Vojvodinian because I am native Vojvodinian and I support autonomy of Vojvodina within Serbia unlike you who obviously support Greater Croatia and destruction of Vojvodina and many my cousins from Srem were killed in the name of Greater Croatian idea. And yes, I am Serb (like 65% of the citizens of Vojvodina), do you have problem with that or what? PANONIAN (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What that's got to do with anything? I have never said anything about broadhening the borders of Slavonia. You deliberately ofence me. Imbris 02:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I ofence you??? And do you think that you do not offence me with claim that I am "anti-vojvodiner"? I am only anti-separatist, and separatism is a true enemy of Vojvodina. Of course, there are only 5% separatists in Vojvodina and even they are not pro-Vojvodinian, but their false separatism is in fact connected with irredentism in their native country, which in 99% cases is either Hungary either Croatia. So, please stop your attempts of imposing here one wrecked idea that cannot gain more than 5% support of the citizens of Vojvodina and please stop insulting the majority of the Vojvodinians who equally love both, their province and their country. PANONIAN (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally when your sources are only the Serb ones.

Dr Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjiga 3, Novi Sad, 1990.

Sima M. Ćirković, Srbi među evropskim narodima, Beograd, 2004.

Lazo M. Kostić, Srpska Vojvodina i njene manjine, Novi Sad, 1999.

Drago Njegovan, Prisajedinjenje Vojvodine Srbiji, Novi Sad, 2004.

Dejan Mikavica, Srpska Vojvodina u Habsburškoj Monarhiji 1690-1920, Novi Sad, 2005.

Imbris 23:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just read the rest of the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vojvodina#References and you will find many non-Serb sources there. Of course, this is not question of origin of sources but question whether information is correct or not. And please stop now with those provocations. PANONIAN (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hahaha - good one. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This discusion is about historical event that took place allmost 100 years along, someone has deliberately tried to connect this discusion with the present. I have objected to the POV of the author. To which objection the author reacted fiercely, not letting some minor changes (but for the sake of truth very important ones).

I admitt that some harsh wording has been said, but people from former Yugoslavia are like that. I appologize for the pain I have caused, but with no pain there is no gain. I think that "telling" is per definition a chilidren's habbit. Well, I will go on in this debate.

Nevertheless I am new here, I am old enough to know that Wiki is all about facts, if someone doesn't like them, he or she shouldn't participate.

Please if someone would be so kind do set the marking of not NPOV to the maps that are beeing discused.

Imbris 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But Imbris, you are the one who do not like the facts. Why you do not go to the library and read some of those books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vojvodina#References After reading them, you will see that everithing that I told you is in those books and that nothing was invented by me. The only problem here is your lack of knowledge and too small number of books that you read in your life. PANONIAN (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Books are not the only source of information, documents are more important, and you are not my forth grade teacher to give me lections about the nummber of book I read. Your representation of the content of those book may be a source of problems, I do not belive a man who disregards archives of his own land. Imbris 02:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The one should be professional historian to read the documents properly, therefore the books I mentioned here are the books written by professional historians. And how can I "disregards archives of my own land" when I just told you to read a book of the best Vojvodinian historian D.J. Popović who used documents from the archives and therefore his interpretation of those documents is more relevant than your own - you are simply not competent to contest book written by D.J. Popović. PANONIAN (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have heard from some Montenegrins what they think about such historians, and about the way someone gets a degree in history in Belgrade. Same way is in Banja Luka. And he may be a historian but not an archivist. Have you telephoned to the Archives of Vojvodina, the institution is placed in the very town you live. Imbris 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

D.J. Popović is most well known Vojvodinian historian and his book "Srbi u Vojvodini" written on 1,201 pages is the best and most complete work about history of Vojvodina ever written - so your attempt to discredit such historian could only discredit you. And why should I go to the archive of Vojvodina? D.J. Popović did used those archives and wrotte his book based on them, so for me and you, it is quite enough to read the book. PANONIAN (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I will fax the Achives of Vojvodina and ask of them on the bassis of the Law on the freedom of official information and documentation wrritten confirmation that the mayor name and the official name was Serb Voivodship and Tamiš Banat. Fax will be scaned and posted here for everyone to see. Then they will know that you produce lies. Who lies, steals, and who steals, murders. And go to jail. You will be unmasked and exposed. Your main description page forgoten (BUT ARCHIVED FOR EVERYONE TO SEE). All of the Wiki community will turn you their back side and say GOODBYE. You see what have you caused to yourself. In encyclopaedical world when someone - however he is highly placed in the hierarchy - is discovered to be a liar - IS RECANTED. His works are being diminished to the oblivion. HISTORY will diminish your lies. Imbris 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, send a fax to the Achives of Vojvodina and prove to yourself that you are wrong. Of course, do not forget to see official site of the Vojvodinian government that use name Vojvodstvo Srbija: http://www.sluzba.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/SEKRETARIJATI-V/MANJINE/manjine-koliko-se-poznajemo/web-tekst/sadrzaj.htm It is time for you to recognize obvious fact that name Vojvodstvo Srbija is used by many sources, which also could be confirmed by yahoo search: http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&cop=mss&p=vojvodstvo+srbija&x=0&y=0 Who ever click this link to yahoo search results will see that I do not lie, so please refrain from personal insults and ridiculous accusations. PANONIAN (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda by an POV pusher named Panonian. And Bačka, Banat and Baranya were part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Imbris 04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use personal insults - you have no proof that my posts are propaganda or POV pushing. Also, if Banat, Bačka and Baranja were part of the State of SCS, why they are not showed as such on this map: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/193818BK.GIF PANONIAN (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys! According to Hungary#Interwar_era, The joint Serb and French army occupied Southern Hungary. The post-War Entente backed the subsequent annexations of these territories. So, I think, situation is pretty clear here: Serb army occupied that area and annexed it. Local population (Serbs) proclaimed unification with Serbia, the same happened in Montenegro.
The self-proclaimed State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (and territorial aspirations of that state) were not recognized by any other country. The new state clamed all regions of former Austria-Hungary inhabited by Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, but that was not accepted by local population in some regions. Some regions joined other countries (Serbia, Italy, Romania), some other were successful in their efforts to stay inside the Austrian or Hungarian borders.
So, it looks Vojvodina was part of Serbia few days before creation of Yugoslavia (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes). I’m not sure why is that so important?--Jordan 777 06:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing the link, I will correct that statement in Hungary#Interwar_era to reflect NPOV view. Since Serbs were majority in Vojvodina they saw Serbian army as liberators, not as occupants (the Hungarian state was seen as occupation force by the Serbs), therefore, word "occupation" is wrong word for usage here, especially because Kingdom of Hungary was not independent state in this time, but part of Austria-Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

a sta ovo chudo moze se menja na netu??? jupiiii

K. Lastochka

It is not question whether information come from Human Rights Watch or other source. No matter that we can have a long discussion about methods and sources used by Human Rights Watch, the question is something else. Even if we assume that data presented by Human Rights Watch is correct, this data still do not belong to this article. The data is already mentioned in Human rights in Vojvodina article which could be easy reached from this page, so we have no reason to duplicate this data. The second problem is that Vojvodina is a region where majority of population is of Serb ethnicity and you can notice that this article do not speak about times when Serbs were persecuted. In history, there were 3 large genocides that Hungarian nationalists commited against innocent Serbs civilians (in 1703-1711, in 1848-1849, and in 1941-1944), and this article does not mention these genocides. Now you want to writte here data that some Serbs beaten some Hungarians, but you do not want to writte data that Hungarian nationalists killed thousands of Serb civilians. By such presentation, you send to Wikipedia readers a political message that one regional minority that number 290,207 people is more important than largest ethnic group in the area that number 1,321,807 people. I am sorry, but that is not acceptable. PANONIAN 17:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you will read the two sentences I added to the article, you will see I made no mention whatsoever of the nationality of the victims of ethnic violence. I could have been referring just as much to the Serbs who get beat up by Hungarians as to the Hungarians who get beat up by Serbs. I have nothing against writing about the genocides committed against Serbs--I'm a little surprised they aren't in the article, actually. I don't know much about the earlier two but I know the one during WW2 happened primarily in Vojvodina. That's such a big part of Vojvodinian history, why ISN'T it mentioned?

Returning to the earlier issue, of my two sentences and three citations about the current ethnic tensions. There is absolutely no good reason to keep that information out of this article. The existence of a separate article does not preclude the inclusion of TWO SENTENCES mentioning the issue (we can even say "See also: Human Rights in Vojvodina" after it, if you like) and as such, approaches the status of a WP:POVFORK.

You really need to stop assuming bad faith on the part of your fellow Wikipedians. I have no political agenda here and I'm not trying to push any sort of nationalist POV. I am only attempting to add relevant information to an article--you are being very unreasonable by repeatedly removing sourced and NPOV information. K. Lásztocska 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo in the Map of Serbia

In the picture, Kosovo appears to be part of Serbia. This picture should not display Kosovo as part of Serbia. Kosovo is a republic which declared independence from Serbia.--Arber (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but I think maps should show countries recognized by UN, Kosovo is not recognized by UN. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be referred to as disputed territory (for lack of a better category). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVLG (talk • contribs) 07:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is best to show it grayed, or with lines through it to reflect its status as a disputed territory. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous

This article is ridiculous. The so called "Vojvodina" was an integral part of Hungary for 1000 years, despite what Serbian nationalists say - though there's no mention of this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.90.77 (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As Transilvania and and many other lands, but that doesn`t means that it is Hungarian land. If you rule over somebody that doesn`t change the thing that Hungarians came from Central Asia. Even Serbs have more right on that territory than Hungary. Everything between river Tisa-Danube-Dnister and Black Sea is Romanian ancient land.

Ps: You don`t really read what Serbian nationalist say :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iadrian yu (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, I don't think you want to compare the history of Serbia, with the history of Romania. It stands on a far 'weaker base', than the Serbian tradition and history - as so I guess it might be an insult towards Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion00 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

user Hobartimus wrote: "what are these many countries? feel free to list them"

These countries are Dacia, the Roman Empire, the Hun Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Gepid Kingdom, the Avar Khanate, the Frankish Kingdom, the Kingdom of Croatia, the Great Moravia, the Bulgarian Empire, the Serbian Empire of Jovan Nenad, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Independent State of Croatia, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Serbia and Montenegro.

As for listing them, they all are listed in the "History" section of this article, but this is an geographical article about autonomous province of Vojvodina, and not an historical article, and it is clear that autonomous province of Vojvodina that was formed in 1945 was never part of Hungary, but only part of Serbia and Yugoslavia. History section of this article could mention former countries to which this territory belonged before 1945, but despite of its "history" section this is primarily an geographical article and, as such, it cannot mix history and geography like this. 212.69.2.147 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Country?

The beginning of the article states that Vojvodina is a country, however it is a part of Serbaia, and not declared itself independent, therefore it should not be considered a country. Secondly I also question it being called a Republic, I realize that in some Eastern European and ex-Soviet countries the term Republic refers to a first-level administrative division, particularly in a Federation, however I'm pretty sure Serbia does not use the term, so it should be reffered to what it's trnaslated as, that is an Autonomous Province.

-IkonicDeath —Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Voivodina is not a country. It is a part of today Seabia, inherited from Yugoslavia.--Mzolta (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

alternative names already in Names section

The alternative names are presented in the lead, but also in the Name section. I think they must eliminated from somwhere, because this form is redundant (Umumu (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Šokci and Bunjevci are Croats First!

Why do Serbs continue to try and split the Croats in Serbia and Bosnia into sub-group? Šokci and Bunjevci are Croats and should be included in that demographic. I am Šokac and always think of myself as Hrvat first as does every Šokci. I am sure Bunjevci are like that too. You don't see these divisions in Croatia. If Wikipedia displays these as separate, then they are making a political statement and are showing great bias. 154.5.223.29 (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Vojvodine

*Croat sup group in Vojvodine (Srijemci, Bunjevci i Šokci)

• popis iz 1948

narodnost; broj; % Srbi 841,246 50.6 Mađari 428,932 25.8 Hrvati 134,232 8.1 Slovaci 72,032 4.3 Rumuni 59,263 3.6 Nemci 31,821 1.9 Crnogorci 30,589 1.9 Rusini i Ukrajinci 22,083 1.3 Makedonci 9,090 0.5 Romi 7,585 0.4 Slovenci 7,223 0.4 Rusi 5,148 0.3 Česi 3,976 0.3 Bugari 3,501 0.2 Jugosloveni 1,050 0.1 ostali 5,441 0.3

• popis iz 1953

narodnost; broj; % Srbi 865,538 50.9 Mađari 435,179 25.6 Hrvati 127,027 7.5 Slovaci 71,153 4.2 Rumuni 57,218 3.4 Crnogorci 30,516 1.8 Rusini 23,038 1.4 Makedonci 11,622 0.7 ostali 78,254 4.6

• popis iz 1961

narodnost; broj; % Srbi 1,017,713 54.9 Mađari 442,560 23.9 Hrvati 145,341 7.8 Slovaci 73,830 4 Rumuni 57,259 3.1 Crnogorci 34,782 1.9 Rusini 23,038 1.4 Makedonci 11,622 0.7 ostali 83,480 4.4

• popis iz 1971

ukupno 1,952,533 100 Srbi 1,089,132 55.8 Mađari 423,866 21.7 Hrvati 138,561 7.1 Slovaci 72,795 3.7 Rumuni 52,987 2.7 Crnogorci 36,416 1.9 Rusini 20,109 1 Makedonci 16,527 0.8 Nemci 7,243 0.4 ostali 94,897 4.9

• popis iz 1981

narodnost; broj; % Srbi 1,107,375 54.4 Mađari 385,356 18.9 Hrvati 119,157 5.9 Slovaci 69,549 3.4 Rumuni 47,289 2.3 Crnogorci 43,304 2.1 Rusini i Ukrajinci 24,306 1.2 Nemci 3,808 0.2 ostali 234,628 11.6

• popis iz 1991

ukupno 2,012,517 100 Srbi 1,151,353 57.2 Mađari 340,946 16.9 Jugosloveni 168,859 8.4 Hrvati 74,226 3.7 Slovaci 63,941 3.2 Crnogorci 44,721 2.2 Rumuni 38,832 1.9 Romi 24,895 1.2 Bunjevci 21,552 1.1 Rusini 17,889 0.9 Makedonci 16,641 0.8 Muslimani 6,079 0.3 Albanci 2,959 0.2 Slovenci 2,563 0.1 Ukrajinci 2,057 0.1 Šokci 1,866 0.1 ostali 33,140 1.7

• popis iz 2002

ukupno 2,031,992 100 Srbi 1,321,807 65.05 Mađari 290,207 14.28 Slovaci 56,637 2.79 Hrvati 56,546 2.78 Jugosloveni 49,881 2.45 Crnogorci 35,513 1.75 Rumuni 30,419 1.5 Romi 29,057 1.43 Bunjevci 19,766 0.97 Rusini 15,626 0.77 Makedonci 11,785 0.58 Ukrajinci 4,635 0.23 Muslimani (u smislu narodnosti) 3,634 0.18 Nemci 3,154 0.16 Slovenci 2,005 0.1 Albanci 1,695 0.08 Bugari 1,658 0.08 Česi 1,648 0.08 Rusi 940 0.05 Goranci 606 0.03 Bošnjaci 417 0.02 Vlasi 101 0 ostali 5,311 0.26 regionalni identitet 10,154 0.5 neizjašnjen 55,016 2.71 nepoznato 23,774 1.17

Hrvati(Croat in Vojvodine):#Croat-sryma, #Croat-bunjevac, #Croat-šokac Languages in Vojvodine 1910. Ethnic map Vojvodine 1910.

Macedonian

Macedonian is included in the official language list. Is this correct? If so, when did the status begin? Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Demographics of Vojvodina

To explain my contributions to this article. This source 1; There is a document named Communication SN31, first one from the top, that represents the demographic structure of Serbia (Vojvodina included). By that data (page 6), in Vojvodina we have the total number of population 2031992 from which 1321807 are Serbs. Since data isn`t represented in percentage , we can calculate it (100 * 1321807/2031992 = 65.049 %). And the official page of the Government of Vojvodina 2 that confirms this data. This is why I have corrected and removed the old reference (which was "dead") and replaced with this data diff. Adrian (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Jovan Nenad

Jovan Nenad was not an emperor, he was a rebell, concured very quickly.--Mzolta (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Errr... and what is your point with regard to that if you don't mind my asking? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well. We do not know from where he came, we do not know his family, we do not know exactly how he was look like. He was fighting against a nobleman and lost, he was exacuted, we do not know where he was burried.--Mzolta (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with his controlling the area of Vojvodina though? If we know he controlled the area for a time, that's the only thing we need to worry about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not know exatly how much of the territpry he controlled, he did not succeded to make legal form of controlling, actually he tried to get territory, but he did not succeded, because the local nobleman defeted his own territory.--Mzolta (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

First. there are numerous sources about Jovan Nenad: [4]. Second, I agree that he was not "real" emperor, but just an local ruler who called himself emperor. That, of course, can be further elaborated with info from reliable sources. Also, there are sources that describing "how much of the territory he controlled" and who exactly says that he "did not succeed to make legal form of controlling"? Who exactly is called to say what was "legal" in the 16th century? Pope in Rome? Sorry, but Jovan Nenad was Orthodox, he did not needed permission from Pope to rule the land. PANONIAN 20:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

YOU ARE MIXING THE TERMS SOURCES and LITERATURE--Mzolta (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

How so? PANONIAN 20:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Other things: Claim that "Voivodina has no long history" is ridiculous because territory of Vojvodina traces its history to prehistoric cultures. Also, Hungarian administration did not lasted entirely from 895 to 1541, because during this time some parts of the region were under Bulgarian, Byzantine or Ottoman administration and some were ruled by independent local rulers. Also, term "The Hungarian part of Habsburg administration (1699-1867)" is completelly artificial and incorrect: during that time large parts of Vojvodina were not part of the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary: Habsburg Military Frontier, Habsburg Banat of Temeswar, Serbian Vojvodina. PANONIAN 21:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pannonian you mix up the terms of territorry, and a political entity. Of corse the tertitory when I am sitting at the present moment has its "history", but just the political entities has real histories. Voivodina was not a political entity, and it has no history before 1945. If you look at history for example of Byzantinian empire you may find that it begins with a date and ends with a date. It is meaningless to speak about history of Byzant before 4th century, and also it is meaningless to speak about it after 1453, although the places belonged to that entity has their "histories". So it is meaningless to speakabout history of Voivodina before 1945.--Mzolta (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

History of every existing political entity includes history of its territory before actual official formation of entity. Otherwise, why article History of Hungary speaks about events before 9th century? Byzantine Empire is not a proper example, since it is former country and it cannot be regarded same as an existing country or region. Also, please stop with inclusion of your personal opinions into article text. No scientific evidence that Pannonian Croatia existed? Who say that? You? This is not place for your original research. PANONIAN 13:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pannonian. I will not argue more with you. Learn, and read some more history. Your article is full of mistakes.--Mzolta (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have many history books about Vojvodina and you might be right that article sections were not properly referenced. I will add relevant references to article text soon. As for "mistakes", if you present any reliable source which claims some opposite things then we can discuss about it. PANONIAN 19:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungary and Voivodina

The Hungarians enterd into a Carpathian basen after 895. A few years after that they can manage to stay at that territory, because it was almost empty after the long wars of Franks, Avars, and Bulgarians. When the kingdom of Hungary was established it was obvious that it is a part of Hungary. In 12th century Byzantinian empire and Hungarians had war, and for a short time Byzantinians got a southern parts of today Voivodina, but most of the time Hungarians got terrytories southern from the rivers Sava and Danube. From that time to time of Ottoman empire it was part of Hungary, and the inhabitatnts were probably Hungarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzolta (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if territory of medieval Kingdom of Hungary was "empty" when Hungarians came then modern Hungarians would have very different genes. Modern genetics undoubtedly proved that modern Hungarians are genetically same as their Indo-European neighbors. Various authors are confirming that "real" Hungarians were minority in medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Regarding control of Vojvodina, according to various sources, Syrmia region was administered by Bulgarian and Byzantine Empires until the 12th century, which means that entire Vojvodina was not under administration of the Kingdom of Hungary until that century. Which source say that territories in the south of Sava and Danube were "for most time administered by the Kingdom of Hungary"? Also, Syrmia was part of Ottoman Empire since 1526 (or you have some source which claiming the opposite?). PANONIAN 20:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"almost empty" - Read carefully what is written! There is no evidence what kind of genes Hungarians, Serbians, Croatians etc. had at that time.--Mzolta (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I spoke about modern genes, not historical ones. See genes of modern Hungarians: http://www.le.ac.uk/ge/maj4/EuropeMap+Tree.jpg (just same as neighboring peoples). In another words, if modern Hungarians are descending from a group that came to Central Europe with Arpad in the 9th century then they would have genes similar to peoples in Syberia, not similar to neighbouring Slavic peoples. Source that I presented does not show any major genetic difference between Hungarians on one side and Ukrainians and Poles on another side. PANONIAN 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What if?

What if the historical issues would be written in the article about History of Voivodina, and this article would be just about Province?--Mzolta (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would we do that? See some examples of Wikipedia articles about some provinces: Wales, Brittany, Quebec, etc, etc. It is common that histories of these territories are including histories before actual official formation of the province. Is there any reason why we should use different criteria for Vojvodina? PANONIAN 07:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

...

Please stop with disruptive revert warring and try to discuss issue with other users. Seems that you trying to rewrite this article to reflect Hungarian point of view and not neutral point of view (and the later is required by the policy of Wikipedia). 88% of Vojvodina citizens are not Hungarians and therefore, you cannot favor views that would be insulting for majority of people in this region. Can you discuss this like civilized person and can you reach compromise with others? Please, tell me one thing: why simple titles "Hungarian administration", "Ottoman administration", "Habsburg administration", etc are not good to you? These descriptions are completely neutral and they do not favoring any ethnic group. I now removed part "periods of Serbian autonomy before 1918" from the title because I agree that other peoples (Germans, Hungarians, Croats, etc) lived in Vojvodina in that time and that Serbs should not be favoured. Why neutral title "Habsburg Monarchy" is not good for you? Also, I added some sources for various countries that administered Vojvodina in the past (and there are more sources that confirming those), so please stop removing that or using article text to say that "it is just a theory". Please use this talk page to present sources which saying that "it is just a theory" and we can examine these sources. Maybe you are not aware, but you have article named Hungarians in Vojvodina where you can write what ever you want about history of Hungarians in Vojvodina. This is general article about Vojvodina and should not be written in accoradance with national (or nationalistic) POV of any ethnic group or nation. Please tell me if you think that some parts of this article are insulting for Hungarians and I would be happy to discuss with you how this could be corrected. There is no need for your revert warring when we can cooperate and discuss like civilized people. PANONIAN 07:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pannonian. I just try to make the article to be more punctual and better. I am a historian and I know the rules of writing historical articles, I wrote them an published for 15 years, more than 90 scientific articles (some of them in Serbian language). When I say that something is just a theory that is so. There are no punctual sources about the inhabitatnts of Voivodina in the middle ages, so nothing could be declared... According to the rules of scientific dispute the burden of proof is always at the side of a participant who declares something, but if there are no sources then a declaration coluld not be made. Please note I did not erase things you have written, I just made them to be more punctual by putting there if it is theory and not proved statement. etc. etc. Please think about it.--Mzolta (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Mzolta, I can say that I am king of Morocco - that means nothing. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources and in accordance with agreement of various users, not due to revert warring. Also, please log in next time you edit article. So, please, present and quote your sources on this talk page and we will discuss about these sources. Also, please do not remove sources that I included into article. So far, you committed several violations of Wikipedia rules: aggressive revert warring, IP sockpuppetry, removal of references. Please try to discuss the issue here first and please present sources for your claims. If you do not present sources then when you "say that something is just a theory" means absolutely nothing in Wikipedia. Please present sources that saying that "something is just a theory". PANONIAN 07:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The source could not be presented if it does not exist.--Mzolta (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

So you say then that you have no sources that supporting your claims? PANONIAN 07:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Let now examine some sources

• Dacia under Burebista:
• Pannonian Croatia under Btaslav (according to Hungarian historian DR Sandor Marki):
• Principality of Lower Pannonia under Kocel:
• Great Moravia:
• State of Jovan Nenad:
• Slavic migrations:

Now, Mzolta, would you be so kind to present sources that supporting your claims? PANONIAN 07:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pannonian, you do not know what is historical sorce. You put just referencies, a reference could have prooven statements, unprooven statements, theories, and mistakes.--Mzolta (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

By tha way your links are interesting.--Mzolta (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia articles are to be based on reliable secondary sources. It is against these guidelines that we conduct our own original research and that we provide our own opinions about historical subjects. In another words, if you want to write that "something is just a theory", then you should quote historian who said that and book where he said that. PANONIAN 08:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My answers will come after a short time, I will prepare you good answers. Most of your links state that such as theories exist, but not that they are not tehories. I think you do not intrpret propperly the guidelines.--Mzolta (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have other sources too - I just showed few that could be easily seen on the Internet. I never saw source that saying that existence of Dacia or Pannonian Croatia are just "theories". PANONIAN 08:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Serb state of Jovan Nenad

• the Serb state of Jovan Nenad,

A state could not be organised in a few months.--Mzolta (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it again your opinion or you have source that say that? How you explain the fact that some states (like Mughan Soviet Republic or Baranya-Baja Republic) existed for even shorther time? PANONIAN 08:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Who (which countries) recognized Jovan Nenad as Emperor and his Empire? A self-proclamed empire is not a real empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.21 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In the 16th century there was no international legal system that required mutual recognition of states. self-proclamation and de facto control was in that time only condition for statehood. PANONIAN 15:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Aesthetics

Now, let me ask you an important question about aesthetics and form of this article: why you think that states that ruled over Vojvodina should be mentioned in a long list instead in a short paragraph? I do not think that there is any need for a such long list - these states should be just briefly mentioned as a basic info to readers. This is not so important issue to be presented in a form of list. Or you have reasons for the opposite? PANONIAN 08:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pannonian, List could be more suitable for readers, and it is easier to edit it. And I will add some dates, to have a better picture of all. Again your lins are interesting, but that quotation about Jovan Nenad is so old, and it does not quote a real source, so that is an opinion. Mzolta (from another computer)--93.87.251.79 (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I will provide additional sources about Jovan Nenad tomorrow. PANONIAN 15:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is more punctual the Hungarian part of Habsburg Monarchy

• the Hungarian part of Habsburg Monarchy (from 17th century to 1918, including Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary)

All of rulers of Habsburg Monarcy were Hungarian kings, they carry that title. They must be crowned with Hungarian crown, and that meant that they should obey many rules. They can rule just with Hungarian Nobility. The nobility had right to refuse anything if it was not according to de rules accepted by the king when he was crowned.--93.87.251.79 (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC) MZOLTA

Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary did not included entire Vojvodina until 1882. Since 1699, most of Habsburg-controlled Vojvodina was part of Military Frontier (the frontier was not part of Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary, but an separate military province directly subordinated to Vienna). Also, Banat of Temeswar that existed from 1718 to 1778 was too an separate province that was not part of Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary, as was Voideship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar that existed from 1849 to 1860. Military Frontier was abolished only in 1882, which means that entire Vojvodina was not administered by Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary until that year. Third, rulers of Habsburg Monarchy had many titles and I do not see how these titles are related to status of the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary. From what you said, we cannot conclude that Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary was anything else but Habsburg province with certain level of autonomy. Even After 1867, when it gained large level of autonomy, Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary was not an independent country. Your sentence that say that there was some "Hungarian part of Habsburg Monarchy from 17th century to 1918" is misleading - there was no such thing as "Hungarian part of Habsburg Monarchy" before 1867 and, as I said, there existed other Habsburg provinces in this region. It is incorrect to say that all these provinces were "Hungarian". Regarding King Stefan Dragutin, he was vassal of the king of Hungary in the beginning of his rule, but since in the time of his reign central power in the Kingdom of Hungary collapsed, Stefan Dragutin was later an completely independent ruler. As for "theories about Slavs", tell me this: from where Slavs came to Balkans? From Italy? Or from Space? In their migration from Slavic homeland they simply had to move through Vojvodina to reach Balkans. I will provide additional sources about Slavs in Vojvodina and you please provide and quote reference that saying that "Slavic presence in Vojvodina is a theory". PANONIAN 15:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Military frontire was part of Hungary, but it was contolled from Wienna (Not by a Hungarian nobility), because of possibile state of emergency. (Mzolta) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.109.143 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Military Frontier was not part of "Hungary" and there is no reliable source that can confirm that. If I am Greater Serbian nationalist then I could say that Montenegro, Bosnia and Macedonia are part of Serbia, but they are "controlled by rebel governments". such views are unacceptable. PANONIAN 17:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are additional sources about Slavic presence in Vojvodina

• http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Vojvodina/997/Slovenski-grobovi-uz-reku-Galadsku (article about slavic graves near Kikinda)
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/31770589/Obicaji-i-Verovanja-Slovena-Na-Tlu-Danasnje-Vojvodine (about slavs in Vojvodina 5-6th century)
• http://www.andrzejb.net/slavic/images/map2.jpg
• http://www.home-edu.ru/user/uatml/00000628/rumjancev/drevnieslavjane/rasselenie.jpg
• http://ark.wz.cz/ib/slavic_expansion.jpg
• http://www.memo.fr/Media/Salves-X-XIIe.jpg
• http://www.muzejvojvodine.org.rs/?O_Muzeju/odeljenja_i_zaposleni/ko-je-ko_trifunovic-s (This links contains books named "Археолошка истраживања словенских насеља у северној Бачкој и северном Банату" ("Archaeological research of slavic settlements in northern Bačka and northern Banat") and "Словенска насеља V–VII века у Бачкој и Банату" ("Slavic settlements 5-7th century in Bačka and Banat").

These are clear evidences that there are archaeological traces of Slavs (including graves). Now, Mzolta, please say who exactly claim that "it is just a theory". PANONIAN 15:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Quotation from your link: Poor archeological ndings with the usage of the available Byzantium sources, as well as the one of the data within all the Slav’s regions where the Pagan religion is a little bit more famous, enable and allow all the religious notions to be reconstructed on the basis of the traces within the language, rituals, customs, and believes from much older periods of time with the above mentioned Slav’s nation on the territory of today’s Vojvodina. Plants and animals took up rather important place in the Slav’s cult. The Old Slav’s religion was the polytheist one. The Old Slav’s God of the sky and bad weather (rainfalls, summer rainfalls) i.e. the God thunderer was called Perun. The Daž God was the God of the Sun and rain, indispensable natural phenomenons for the human race sur- vival. Veles is a Slav’s God of the elds, pastures and forests, crops, livestock and wild animals. Vesna was a Godess of the Spring within the Slav religion while Morana was the Godess of death and winter.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31770589/Obicaji-i-Verovanja-Slovena-Na-Tlu-Danasnje-Vojvodine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzolta (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

mzolta, you now lie. who know to read serbian see that source say por findings of slavic religion not por findings of slavs. we see now that you are hungarian nationalist and that you work against serbia. you think that trianon will fal if you say your lie here. it will never fal and if you are smart you may know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.175.202 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

STOP

Well, I will stop to work on this article. Yo may write on it what ever you want! If it is a way of arguing on Wikipedia, that is not a place for me.--Mzolta (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

START

I can not suffer the stupis things of Pannonian.--Mzolta (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What you mean by that? PANONIAN 20:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As first read, and learn, than write articles!--Mzolta (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I certainly read much more than you - you do not know basic things. You wrote that Kingdom of Slavonia did not included Vojvodina, so what you think about this history map where Slavonia includes northern Srem: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/181815ge.gif Also see what were borders of Serbian Vojvodina: http://www.lsv.org.rs/files/upload/261.pdf ("Srem sa granicom"). Army of Serbian Vojvodina controlled Srem and was never defeated by Hungarian rebels. I do not understand why you want to include incorrect info into article? What are your goals? PANONIAN 20:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, speaking about Military Frontier, you said that "it was part of Hungary", but these sources are saying that it was "annexed to Hungary" in 1872/1873: [5], [6]. How something that "was part of Hungary" can be "annexed to Hungary"? It is against basic logic. The whole problem is that some members of Hungarian nobility from that time believed that all territories that were part of medieval Kingdom of Hungary are "eternal parts of Hungary", no matter if Hungary itself does not administer these territories. Their belief, however, is nothing but their personal religion, which had no any impact on real political and administrative status of mentioned territories. PANONIAN 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That map is O.K. Srem is in Croatia on it (ie. at Slavonian part), just as I told you. I have no goals, I am a HISTORIAN, I would like to make this article to be valid, good. HISTORY is not an emotional burning, with collecting the things we think that are good for achiveing any goals. The only goal is to find the answer to a question: How it was actually. --Mzolta (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I am not claiming that I am king of Morocco, do I? I will not argue are you historian or not (and if you are, then it is really surprising that you do not know basic things from regional history). I am bibliophile and I have large number of history books and history atlases and if you really want to work here in good faith I can tell you which literature about history of Vojvodina you can find and read (or I can even upload scaned pages from these books just for you). If you are really here in good faith with goal to find answer "how it was actually" then your general (rather aggressive) behavior really surprises me and your edits are indeed looking like "propagation of history of Hungarian statehood" and "denial of history of Slavic and Serb statehood". PANONIAN 20:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Ok, let now examine this source: Dr Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjiga 3, Novi Sad, 1990:

• Page 289 (speaking about what happened after Percel defeated Serbs in Banat): "Prirodno da je Rajačić, u takvim okolnostima, morao napustiti Bečkerek, te je sa glavnom upravom prešao u Zemun odakle se odmah obratio knezu Aleksandru za pomoć", also same page: "Stratimirović brže-bolje skupi tada nešto vojnika, što se moglo skupiti, a njegovim odeljenjima pridruže se Knićanin, Milivoje Petrović Blaznavac i Jovan Stefanović Vilovski. Svi srpski odredi, zajedno sa Srbijancima, brojali su tada ukupno 4-5000 ljudi i raspolagali sa 35 topova" "Kada je Percel, koji je imao oko 12000 vojnika i 40 topova..."

• Page 290: "Zbog napredovanja Mađara, novoformirana uprava Vojvodstva morala je preći u Zemun, gde je dočekala i svoj kraj. Rajačić se počeo ponašati kao diktator..." "...Ovakvo postupanje Rajačićevo izazvalo je opoziciju Glavnog odbora..." "Ujedno je donesena odluka da Rajačić i njegovi savetnici nisu ovlašćeni da preduzimaju bilo šta značajnije bez dogovora sa Glavnim odborom". "U maju je na predlog bana Jelačića, Stratimirović, narodni general i vrhovni vožd naimenovan za potpukovnika u husarskom puku kojim je komandovao brat bana Jelačića".

So, let examine this source: while Percel did defeated army of Serbian Vojvodina in Banat, he neither entirely defeated this army neither destroyed Vojvodina. Remains of this army and Vojvodinian government moved to Syrmia (whose eastern part was de facto still controlled by them). Then, since members of this government were no longer able to cooperate one with another they politically destroyed themselves and then remains of Serb army were included into Austrian army that subsequently defeated Hungarians. So, Percel won one battle, but clearly not the whole war, and he certainly did not entirely defeated Serb army. PANONIAN 22:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Dear Pannonian.

Dr Dušan J. Popović is not a historical source, his work is interpretation. All of us can give just a picture of our knowledge, so it can be disputed.

I think that it is not good, to discuss our political views here in Wikipedia, because it is not place for it, but I have nothing with so called: "propagation of history of Hungarian statehood", moreower I think that nationalism is so often just a method to manipulate people by individuals because of achiving selfish goals (while the people have been left to quarell, fight and suffer). If somebody would write article about Voivodina without mention of Serbs, I would add the things about Serbs. We have two problems:

• 1. Voivodina really did not existed before 1945. Actually it is even not geographically compact. Srem/Syrmium is opened to Croatia, Bachka is opened to north to the territory between Danube and Tisa. Banat is a compeletely different story, it was mostly swampy, and it is/it was a compact territory with its part in Romania. So we can not define what is Voivodina before 1945. We may discuss about its "history", but it is a history of Military Frontire, Hungary, Habsburg Monarchy etc. Military Frontire could be discussed because it has its beginning, end, territory, administration etc. It is the same with the departments (megye, županija), theoretically they also had beginning, end etc. etc (but most of the sources did not survive). So at present moment Voivodina has just its beginning, now we are at its history, but as I see present events can not be disputed without history of Serbia, Voivodina is a so called subsystem of a larger system, and can not be understood itself even now.
• 2. There are a lot of litarature which were motivated by achieving of political goals. The history was made to serve the politics, to make arguments for politicans, it was especially the case at the beginning of 20th century. That is why I insist in a historical sources. The propper way of arguing about - let us say - Jovan Nenad is to see what sources survived, than to se what are their content, and than to discuss about what they mean. Fortunately I can use more languages, and I can have opened perspective.

And by the way: I am jelous of you, that book was published when I was student, but it was so expencieve so I could not buy it. --Mzolta (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, first problem that you mentioned is not historical at all. It is question of Wikipedia practice. I already mentioned examples of Wales, Brittany and Quebec (but I can find much more) where histories of existing regions are including histories of their geographical areas, no matter of the time of exact political formation of such regions. Opposite case are former countries and provinces whose histories are usually written from the time of their formation to the time of their abolishment (with optional brief mention of preceding and succeeding events). Vojvodina simply have to be treated same as other existing regions (Wales, Brittany, Quebec) and not as an former region that do not exist any more (like Principality of Transylvania, Eyalet of Rumelia, Duchy of Styria, etc). Of course, I can agree that usage of name "Vojvodina" for periods that preceding its creation is anachronistic, but usage of term "territory of present-day Vojvodina" would solve that problem. Also, as I said, Wikipedia guidelines are requiring that articles are based on secondary sources (which includes work of Dr D. J. Popović) and not on our own original research. Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Sure, various authors might have various opinions about some subjects, but in that case, this talk page is place where users are able to present such sources and opinions to other users (like I presented quotations from Dr D. J. Popović). You simply cannot come here to claim that "something is truth" only because "you are historian", that is not how Wikipedia works. You simply have an obligation to present sources to other users and to convince them that your claims are correct through these sources, not through claims that "you know better". PANONIAN 22:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Mačva

Mačva is not part of Voivodina, and it was never part of it. It should be discussed on a separate page.--Mzolta (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This is basic geographical knowledge - several settlements of Mačva (including town of Mačvanska Mitrovica) are part of Vojvodina (in Sremska Mitrovica municipality): [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. PANONIAN 18:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the basic geography is that Mačva is on the other side of the river. It is obvious.--Mzolta (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but administrative border of Vojvodina does not correspond with river flow and it includes part of Mačva. Or you claim the opposite? PANONIAN 14:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)