Wikipedia

Talk:History of Vojvodina/Archive 1

< Talk:History of Vojvodina
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1


Croats

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

Now the article is quite good but there is one thing that get in my eye. The Croats are noted here as minotiry and they are proclamed that Bunjeci and Šokci are not Croats. Basically I do not agree with that and I think that this thing should be changed.

Also the articel is written from Serbian point of view and the thing that could be missleading. The reader would not read the fact that most of the history part of Vojvodina between Sava and Dunav belonged to Croatia and it has become part of serbia only recently.

Aditionaly. In the part of 1990 there is not mentionig of violence over Croats. Something like 50,000 of Croats were forced by serbs to leave vojvodina.

To answer you: Bunjevci and Šokci do not consider themselves Croats, so why we should write that they are Croats? Second thing: part of Vojvodina between Sava and Danube (Srem) for most of its history DID NOT belonged to Croatia. That is not "Serbian point of view" but simple historical fact: in the Middle Ages that area was county in the Kingdom of Hungary (and it did not had any connection with Croatia), during Ottoman rule it was Ottoman sanjak, during Habsburg rule it was part of the Military Frontier (which also did not had any connection with Croatia). Srem also did not "become part of Serbia only recently" because it was part of Voivodship of Serbia from 1849 to 1860 and it was also known as Serbia (Rascia) long before that. See for example this map from 1661 where Srem is mentioned under name Rascia (Serbia): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Rascia01.jpg (and not only Srem, but Slavonia too). And I never heard about violence against Croats in Vojvodina in 1990. PANONIAN (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Croatian history

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Croats have historically lived in Vojvodina. There is no reason why it should not be categorized under Croatian history. Mind you, this is not categorized under History of Croatia because Vojvodina is obviously not a part of Croatia. Such categorization is similar to the categorizing of Lika under Serbian history. --Thewanderer 18:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the article about history of Vojvodina and about its peoples. Vojvodina is part of Serbia. In history some of its parts were parts of Croatia. Why is wrong to write that down (it is a past tense)

--Ceha 10:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is NOT history about peoples, it is ONLY history of Vojvodina. There is separate article about history of Serbs in Vojvodina, there is also separate article about Danube Swabians, etc. If you want, you can write separate article about Croats in Vojvodina, and then put it into category "Croatian history". PANONIAN (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Part of anybody's history are its relations to its neighbours. By looking that relationsips you can beter understand its past and future. --Ceha 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Lika, it should not be categorized under "Serbian history". It should be categorized only under "Geography of Croatia", and not under history of any kind. If categorization there is wrong, that does not mean that this one should to be wrong too. PANONIAN (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting changes

Latest comment: 18 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

--Ceha 10:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) To Pannonian. Deleting somebody articles is considered vandalism. At least validate your clames that my informations are incorrect.

-Ljudevit Posavski ruled a state which included even parts of today "uža" Serbia (Timocani were also part of his rebelion) and it lasted just 3 years. After that Franks crushed the rebellion, and more after that Bulgarians marched in (some historians claim even they send ships along river Drava).
Timočani also lived in western Srem, and that very well cohere with this map which show that only western Srem belonged to Pannonian Croatia (please provide a source for different claims):
-After the death of Vladislav II his territories very given to other vassals of Hungarian king. Some of them were probably Serb (to him there were only vassals).
Stefan Dragutin and Vladislav II are two DIFFERENT person. Vladislav II was a vassal of the Hungarian king, but Stefan Dragutin was independent ruler. PANONIAN (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it is not clear from the text. Vladislav is Stefan's son, and it looks like he inherited his father as independent ruler of Srem kingdom. --Ceha 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

-Some of historians (mostly from Croatia) note that Syrmium was part of Kingdom of Slavonia (different opinions are used that this article would be NPOV)
So? The article already claim that it was part of the Kingdom of Slavonia. What is a problem? PANONIAN (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But later:) Parts of Syrmia were part of Slavonia from at least 12th century (you got references at the end of discusion page) --Ceha 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

-I don't see why other (non Serb population) is not mentioned when is spoken of turkish rule. Also I don't know any census which took place at that time. If you have some knowledge about it (some neutral please, I wouldn't like to ride fairy tales:) please tell me so.
It is because during Turkish rule almost entire population of Vojvodina was composed of Serbs. There were no Hungarians and Croats in Vojvodina in that time. Only Serbs and Muslims (with some Bunjevci and Šokci, who were not Croats in that time). Also, there were no censuses in the Ottoman time, but there were Ottoman defters (tax records), and the first Habsburg censuses from 1715 and 1720 confirming the data from these Ottoman defters. PANONIAN (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you now they were not Croats at that time? Most of them thinks of themselves as Croats (Census from ex-Yugoslavia), it should not be fair that somebody else tels them who their grandfatheres were:) And why do you think there were no Hungarians there? They existed in period before Otoman conquest. Do you have some population census from were you get your data or? --Ceha 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

-Also your informations about census in Slavonia. As to my knowledge Serbs didn't have more than 30 percent in it (25 if my memory is correct). Were do you get your data?
If Serbs were 30% of population in one time period, that does not mean that they always participated with that percent. My source is this book: Peter Rokai, Zoltan Djere, Tibor Pal, Aleksandar Kasas, Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002. Since the book is written by Hungarian historians, not by Serbian, I do not see why you would not believe that it is true. Also, it only show data for 1790, and in that time eastern Syrmia (populated only with Serbs) was part of the Kingdom of Slavonia, thus, those Serbs are not only those from Slavonia, but also those from Srem. PANONIAN (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, eastern, predominatley Syrmia was counted in that census. When I found its sources I will shown it to you (probably by Monday), I should really look it up:) --Ceha 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

-Article about changing the borders of Vojvodina was correct. Why was it deleted?
What article? PANONIAN (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's all. I would apritiate that you read [[1]] before you make any further changes. This article shuld be NPOV and not bias. It should be based on historical facts and not on their ignoration. As I wroted before, Vojvodina is Serbian now (and in future) which nowbody denies. It had a very long history (if you live in it) and is something you should be pride of and not ashamed. --Ceha 10:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Vojvodina is Serbian for last 500 years, because Serbs are ethnic majority here since 1526, just to be correct about this. PANONIAN (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In this article I don't see any facts about that (there are not enough censuses, statistics from which you can conclude that up), you can correct me up:) Last 500 years were very mixed in population of Vojvodina. How many percents of population had Germans had? --Ceha 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

AAAARGH!. Ceha, please take a break. I've just wasted half an hour copyediting your contributions to the Vojvodina article, and now you're repeating them here. Let me suggest the following to resolve the issue(s):

  • Please leave the Vojvodina article intact for a moment (I'll explain later).
  • Please complete editing of this article as you see fit.
  • I'll go after you and make only copyediting in this article.
  • After that, let's discuss your contribution. For the very start, I disagree with your references to Kingdom of Croatia which ceased to exist in 12th century.
  • After we (hopefully) settle the issues, Vojvodina#History section should be shortened, as it's already overlong.

OK? Peace? Duja 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry:) Flip-floping is silly and should stop. I'm always for dialogue and we can allways talk about my contribution to the article. It is in interest of everybody to make this a splendid article. History pages should be shortened, but it will be difficult as this is a region very rich in history. Article was very POV when I started making changes and it seems to me that that have changed:)

  • Kingdom of Croatia did not ceased in 12th century, it only got a new king (it changed of course as new king was also king of Hungary, and with introduction of feudalism). Every king of the state which embraced today Croatia (minus Otoman empire) till 1918 had in its title king of Croatia One could argue that Croatian kingdom existed only in name (which were true in numerous short occasions, Bachs apsolutism etc.) but in most of that time Croatia had some form of autonomy.

And I don't see why this should be hidden. Parts of today Vojvodina have in past been part of Croatia. In one point in time Croatia could have become part of Mongolian Empire ('Tatarian raid'). It is all in past, and I don't see why it should not be mentioned, as it had an great impact on the region. It would be as we say that history of United states was made only from persons of English origin. There is no war between us:) Ceha 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course every king had "king of Croatia" among his titles (it's quite usual that a monarch has the title containing "the emperor of Bar, the king of Foo, the duke of Baz and the prince of Boo"), but that doesn't make then-Hungary "a Croatian kingdom". Croats had some forms of autonomy under Austro-Hungarian rule but it still was de facto an Austro-Hungarian rule. To overemphasize, since (probably) Hungarian king was a "something of Galicia" among other things, should we mention that Vojvodina was part of Galicia at the time?Duja 15:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't start working on spelling, as I saw Pannonian is back, and I'm waiting for his comments (possibly, his axe as well :-) ). Duja 15:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Main difference is that some parts of Vojvodina (not whole) were part of Croatia at that time (Syrmian border). If you have some atlas from ex-Yu you can check it up:) So my statment is true in that sence:)

--Ceha 23:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Croatia did not ceased in 12th century, it only got a new king (it changed of course as new king was also king of Hungary"

What have Croatia to do with this article? In that time you speaking about Croatia was where is now Dalmatia, and the region where is now Zagreb was Slavonia, not Croatia.

"And I don't see why this should be hidden. Parts of today Vojvodina have in past been part of Croatia."

All these time periods are already mentioned in the article. What is a problem? PANONIAN (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, Ceha, your changes one by one:

  • You want to write name Croatia in the list of INDEPENDENT countries to which Vojvodina belonged in history, and as far as I know, it never belonged to independent Croatia.
  • As for Ljudevit, if you provide some source which claim that ENTIRE Srem belonged to his state, I would agree to write that here.
  • I wrote now in the article that Stefan Dragutin was both, vassal of the Hungarian king and the facto independent ruler. The Vladislav II was another story, but it is already written in the article about him.
  • Refference that king of Hungary was also a king of Croatia is IRRELEVANT. This article is not about titles of the king of Hungary, and since he had many titles, we cannot write only this one, and not to write all other.
  • There were no Hungarians and Croats in Vojvodina during Ottoman rule.
  • The 1790 population figure for the kingdom of Slavonia is a correct one, thus, no reason to delete it. These Serbs are not only those from Slavonia, but from both, Slavonia and Srem.
  • As for the borders of Vojvodina in 1918, that edit is ok, I will return that to the article with some changes.
  • Šid belonged to Danube Banovina in 1929, thus, there were no such border changes in 1945. PANONIAN (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Croatian history

Latest comment: 18 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion

Either the Serbian category should be removed; or Croatian and other national categories added.

Note that several articles, including

See Ljudevit Posavski. It's my article. As far as I know, he rulled only a bit of Srijem, the majority was only vassalaged to him.

Note that Srijem was Croatian up to the conquests of Bulgarian Czar Simeon that took entire Srijem from the Kingdom of Croatia.

Note that also, bits of Vojvodina were a part of the Croatian Banate 1939-1941 and the Independent State of Croatia 1941-1945.

Croats are, anyway, one of the constitutional peoples of Vojvodina for a while (Croatian language), so it is sufficient to put the category. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Serbian category is a "History of Serbia", not "History of the Serbs". There is now separate category for the history of the Serbs, and this article is not there:

As for the "constitutional peoples", Vojvodina (and Serbia) have no constitutional peoples. Serbia is a state of the citizens. Vojvodina have only official languages, but languages and peoples are not same thing. I just sorted these categories dealing with the history of Croats and history of Serbs. Only the articles which are really about history of Croats or Serbs or about important historical regions or provinces with Serb and Croat population should be there. The history of present day regions like Vojvodina, Lika or Herzegovina do not belong there.

As for claim that Srem belonged to Croatia before the Bulgarian conquest, where you read that? As far as I know, Croatia in that time was where is now Dalmatia. See this:

I do not see on these maps (or on other which I have in my computer) that entire Srem belonged to Croatia in the Medieval Ages. Do you have some other map or source, which show different? PANONIAN (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you mention of other peoples on territory of Serbia offends you? Celts also lived in territory of Vojvodina. So what? Why do you delete them, when is obvious that thay have lived in that territory and contributed to its hostory. As for Srijem I answered you on the Syrmia page. Times History of the world. And Croatia was not were now is Dalmatia:) There were two kingdoms (northern and southern). As I said there it only lasted for 3 years, after that Bulgarians conqured Srijem. In Banac's book he says that Bulgarians even invaded Drava whith ships and tried to conquer whole of Panonnian Croatia (but they were repoulsed and forced to return by Franks). But I didn't see that he used confirmed sorces for that. Anyhow, after the crush of Ljudevit's rebelion, Panonnian Croatia was prety much a battlefield. Ceha 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC) --For status of central and eastern Syrmia it is possible that it was just a vassalage of Ljudevit as Timocani were his allies. In Times Atlas of the world history it is marked as part of "state of Ljudevit" Ceha 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Ok, I reverted some minior changes. I puted Croatia in the list of the countries above, because as Hungarian king was also and Croatian one (ethniclly great period of the time was not hungarian, but french, so this is not important:) and as Croatia see itself as one of the states which grow from that union of kingdoms... Ceha 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"I don't see why you mention of other peoples on territory of Serbia offends you?"

Who say that this offends me? What offends me is if somebody want to post WRONG information into article, no matter about what that information is.

My changes are not wrong, evrything I puted in has its background.

"Celts also lived in territory of Vojvodina. So what? Why do you delete them, when is obvious that thay have lived in that territory and contributed to its history."

Who deleted Celts? Read article better, they are there.

Didn't mean about deletation of celts:) I mentioned them in context that you delete unncesery from articles some facts that Croats lived in Vojvodina (or just minorizing their contribution to its history)

"As for Srijem I answered you on the Syrmia page. Times History of the world."

All right, the explanation for the state of Ljudevit is ok, but I will rewrite that part in more scientific manner.

"I puted Croatia in the list of the countries above, because as Hungarian king was also and Croatian one"

Can you understand that it is a list of the INDEPENDENT states, and can you understand that Hungarian king was also a king of SERBIA, and many other countries? And finally, can you understand that this is not history of Croatia? PANONIAN (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is history of Vojvodina. Shouldn't it been important that you see evrything what happened on that territory? I don't see why you are makeing differences betwen Croat and Serbian histories? If that territory were at some time part of France you should put it there because it happend that way. Why can't you understand that? Ceha

  • I simply asked you to provide sources for your claims, nothing more. PANONIAN (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian king was "de jure" king of Croatia & Slavonia (which encluded large parts of Syrmia) and "de jure" king of Rascia, but there is a deference betwen this two titles, as Rascia was his title of king of Rascia was highly contested (for most of the time he didn't have any rights there, and this was only a pretension to that kingdom) and in Slavonia he had at least some power- State union between Croatia and Hungaria could be also interpretated as union of two independent countries with same kings. Look at your arguments in the case of "Srem" kingdom. What is indepence to you then? Ceha 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think that you worked part of Ljudevit ok. My arguments for mentioning Croatian kingdom stil stands, and you should put in that part (and somethimes whole) Srijem was part of Slavonian Kingdom (look for Povijesni atlas from ex Jugoslavia, you could see in it that in 14th century Sremska Mitrovica was part of Croatia), and not part of Kingdom of Hungary (we are speaking of "de jure" kingdoms again). Ceha 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen: In the Kingdom of Hungary, Srem was seen as integral part of the Kingdom, not part of vassal Croatia. Please see this historical map of Hungary from the 13th century and then stop this discussion about the title of the Hungarian king. You see here where is Srem, where is Slavonia, and where is Croatia:

As for Stefan Dragutin, I wrote both, that he vas a vassal, and later independent ruler, so you do not have to repeat this (vassal and "governor of the province" are same things. As for indepence, I think that the level of independence was similar in the cases of Ljudevit and Stefan Dragutin, thus if you claim that the state of Ljudevit was a state, then it was also a state of Stefan Dragutin. And spare me the medieval "legality" here, please. PANONIAN (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See more maps:

See where is Hungary and where is Croatia in the 11th century:

Now see where they were in the 15th century:

Now see the map of de facto independent states at the beginning of the 14th century when the central power in Hungary collapsed:

PANONIAN (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Stefan Dragutin, his state was made from both, the lands that formerly belonged to Hungary and the lands that formerly belonged to Serbia. Hungarian king simply could not to make him a "governor of province" in the lands that belonged to Serbia and not to Hungary before this. PANONIAN (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If I were mean I'd just sad that Hungarian king was also and Serbian king:) He maid him gouvernor of territories outside of Serbia. It was common practise. Bela IV has given territories(Gradišće) to govern to Habsubrg emperor when he was fleeing the Mongols. Later he took them back. I've seen all of this images. Had you seen large maps of Europe every hundred years (Caucaus included)? Their borders are a bit different:) Ok, but you should write when the central autority in Hungary was reestablished and what was its consequences for Vojvodina. In ths way you have left gaps in its history --Ceha 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are many gaps in the article, not only this one, I agree, but my sources are mainly about history of serbs in Vojvodina, thus I do not have much information about other non-Serb local rulers of the region to write about them (I found information about Ugrin Čak, and I wrote this). Also, the situation about Ugrin Čak and stefan Dragutin is not quite clear. Seems that only Ugrin Čak ruled over present day Vojvodina, while one source claim that Ugrin Čak was a vassal of Stefan Dragutin, thus the rule of Stefan Dragutin over Vojvodina was only nominal. Also, Stefan Dragutin certainly was not governor, but rather "ban" (if he really got that lands only to govern them), but he in fact got these lands as a "possesion". As for the maps of Europe you refering to, are that maps from Euratlas? Which of them is different in the case of Srem? PANONIAN (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he was not certanly not governor:), but that word was first thing I could think of, and I think that at that moment it served it purpuse. As I remember (unfortunutly I can not quote you the source, it was a long time ago I read this:) that in statment ('povelja' is original name I can't think of apropriate translation now) those lands (Usora, Soli and Mačva) are given to him as lands of Hungary (now goes the full title of the king, names including Croatia:) for gouvernship ('na upravu' was stated in original I read) unfortunatley I didn't cheked it up for their trutfullnes, but book was of some prestigious historian, so there was no need at that moment for that (I'll try this weekend to dig something up, and if I am sucksesfull in it I'll let you know:).

I remembered commentary that in that statment it is clearly shown that those lands are not given to any other king, but rather that Hungarian king still views them as part of its kingdom(s) And for the maps, it could be from EuroAtlas, I still have them at my comp(unfortunetly this doesn't have Caucaus in it, I lost that map:) but on this the region of Vojvodina is clearlly visible(it is showing area in the year of 1300) . Sirmia is shown as vassal kingdom of Hungaria(upper Sirmia,not lower), together with Soli, Macva, and Usora (for Usora there were not enough place, so from its name you can see just Oz:) It is (in your words:) "de facto" and not "de jure" map. If you wont I can put it on the wiki. It is big, it has 285 kb, but I could shorten it a bit:) Ceha 2:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have that map in my computer too. This map is a good example about difference between "de facto", and "de jure", and a clear proof that map based on the "de jure" concept does not show the correct information. Another example is that Hungarians claimed that a lands which Ottomans took in 1526 were still "de jure" property of Hungary. "De jure" concept depends of who claim what and who recognize this claim, and if the "de jure" concept is not in accordance with the "de facto" situation, then it is only one POV, and not historical fact. I will give you one example: to whom "de jure" belong Kashmir, since India, Pakistan and China claim the region or its parts. The most accurate geographical atlases show only the "de facto" line of control in Kashmir, not the line of any "de jure" claims. PANONIAN (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir is disputed territory. It was "de jure" part of India as it was given to her at the time of making Indo-Pakistani border(shah of Kashmir decided for India when Pakistanis attacked), but India had obligation to conduct a referendum in that territory (UN-resolution) which it did not held. In most of the atlases borders lines in Kashmir are marked with difrent color (or in some other way) to show that this is not internationally recognised border, but just "de facto" state. Maybe good example would be Somalia, or Columbia (I don't mean to offend anybody, it is just a analogy, maybe wrong one) in which we have parts of that state which are clearly "de facto" independent, due to lack of central gouverment, but not "de jure". Or interwar China in 20th century in which due to the war with Japan and Chinese civil war (nationalists against comunsts) we had a bunch of warlords which did not respond to anybody.

Medieval is similar to that state. It is time of many small vassals (warlords, but this is maybe a bad word:) which had somebody bigger behind them, so some bad neighbour wouldn't take to much of the kingdoms lands. It must be some level in which we say than somebody has a indipendent state (if looking by the vassalage we can argue that every local ruler of castle was independent, which would be foolish:) In my opinion (but this is POV) independence is acheaved in the way of Bosnia's king Tvrtko. Before that Bosnia was vasal state (to Hungaria, and many other before that), but after him any other ruler of that kingdom used title of King, no matter about his vassalage. This was not the case with Dragan's state:( Maybe you should put that that lands were given to him as banate, and at the time of dinastic troubles he ruled his realm as independent kingdom, but after new king consolidated his power, his decendants were forced to give up that title (I'll try to find that charter in which his title were shown). But that only speaks of the lands on which Hungarian kings looked as his own (if I'm not mistaken parts of Dragans state were nominally parts of Rascia, and Dragans ancestors ruled them long before him?) "De jure" concept depends of whom recognases that condition. Without it every castle would be a state. "De jure" concept has in it some higher meaning that european states at the time were not just blood-thirsty (which they partially were:) but also had some civilisation in it. Your neighbours had to recognise "de facto" state for state independence. In other words "de jure" indepence meant that your state was recognized by neighbouring big-powers and that was guaranty for state survival. As for 1526. Ottoman emperor did not take souverenty from Hungarian. He only tried to make him his vassal (I don't now about territory of Vojvodina, and it's southern borders), as was shown in Zapolja-Habsburg war for Hungarian thrown? If Ottomans took Vojvodina, then hungarian nobles would not be able to return to it. To my knowledge (I could be mistaken, I have not enough certifide data about that), only after Ottomans established Sanjak of Buda did the Hungarians lost large parts of land(correct me if I'm mistaken). In most time of that period large peaces of Hungarian kingdom(s) where no mans land, as civil war raged. Form hungarian POV Ottoman goverment was just 200 years old ocupation, and most of the non hungarian population who lived in that territory just colaborators which should be forced out(offcourse that included and all aboriginal population which they labeled as not coopertional). Habsburg king ruled that territory as Hungarian king(ok, now you can speak about all of its titles:), but practise of that time was that you can not just attack somebody, without (even) falsifaing some claimes to it (which would mean you had weak neighbours:) or rather cooperational ones:) If I'm not mistaken nobles from that territory went to Hungarian parlament? History parts of that period in Hungary and Croatia are characterized as ressistance to Vienas-centralism, and politics of the cort to that area was divide and conquer, so you should probablly put in article that Emperor played them against each other (Hungarians who wanted to take that area and Serbs who were relative majority). Also I'm suprised that you didn't mention Jelacic anywhere in this article (see history of Croatia). He was from Petrovaradin, he is responsable for transfer of Syrmia from kingdom of Slavonia to Vojvodina, and he was proclaimed ban by serbian patriach (I'dont know if he was from Sremski Karlovci or somwhere else) in abstance of catholic archbishop. There were plans that whole of Vojvodina unites with Croatia and makes some kind of anti-Hungaric bloc, but they stayed just plans. I notted your adition of Radovan Čelnik in the article. Perhaps it would be better to just make another article about transition of Vojvodina in Otoman hands, and in this briefly mentioned that Vojvodina had two local rulers which tried to assert it independence. Also your map of "Serbian empire" is wrong. Turks conquered Osijek and most of Syrmia before Mohač (Sultan's great bridge in Osijek). You should also put some proofs about Radniks kingdom (1929 and 1990 aren't neutral years, year of dictatorship and year of war?) so it would be nice that you try to find some independent sorce before puting such thing on wikipedia. Ceha 22:06 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, one thing at the time:

  • Yes, I added Radoslav Čelnik, and my basic idea is that all important local rulers who ruled over the region, no matter if they were independent or vassals, and no matter if they were Serbs, Hungarians, Croats or anything else, should be added here. There were more rulers, but I do not have much information about them to write this (or I have information in Serbian, and I do not have time to translate that). PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. Sounds right. But I thought, as this page is too long to break it in few smaller articles.

Ceha 20:25 4 February 2006 (UTC) Mentioning of local rulers and nobles sounds great.

The page is still not too long. When the page is too long, and when you edit it, you receive a message that it is too long (there is still not that message here). PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The main problem with the "de jure" character of the state of Stefan Dragutin was that he created his state from both, lands that belonged to Hungary, and the lands that belonged to Serbia. One Medieval French author call the state of Stefan Dragutin the "Kingdom of Serbia", while the state of his brother Milutin he call the "Kingdom of Rascia". Thus, it is questionable what was "de jure" status of his state. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps his state could be best described something like dukedom of Burgundy? It had lands from both sides of Franco-German border, some towns and provencies which it rent (sounds fanny,but it was like that:), some local rulers put some towns in their hands as garanty they would pay off their debts etc. That part of his state would be and "de jure" independent. Medieval confusion:)))

Ceha 20:25 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is confusion, and therefor I would rather not change that part. By the way, in the Medieval ages borders very often changed and "de jure" statuses of many lands were rather POV than fact. Stefan Dragutin was recognized king, thus he was "de jure" recognized as a ruler. The question remains what were statuses of the lands which he gained from the Hungarian king, but both capital cities of his kingdom (Debrc and Belgrade) were in that former Hungarian lands. Second, the later rulers of Serbia claimed that they have right to these lands that formerly belonged to Stefan Dragutin. One "de jure" claim was sometimes opposite to another, not only in the Medieval ages, but even today. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • As for map of "Serbian empire", I just saw the Times historical atlas of Europe in the bookshop, and I saw the borders of the state of Ljudevit (you was right about that), and I also saw the borders between Hungary and Ottomans in Srem before Mohač (you check that atlas for this too). There is only little difference between my map and the map from Times atlas, and the difference is that I gave too much of Srem to the Ottomans. According to Times atlas, Osijek was not captured by Ottomans before Mohač. Where you get that information? PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Croatian historical maps:) It is possible that they ment by this just that the city (or it's ruins were not under cro-hung control)

Ceha 20:26 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just read about that little more, and my map is completelly wrong. Ottomans held only estarn part of Syrmia and Transylvania even was not formed in that time (I based my map on the one which claimed to show borders from 1526, but it does not show correct information). I will change that map in the next few days. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • And what is "Radniks kingdom" you refering to. I do not understand. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See this, by the way:

"The city was sacked and destroyed by the Ottoman Empire on August 8, 1526."

So, Ottomans did sacked the city before Jovan Nenad created his state, but that does not mean that they included this city into their empire in this year. According to Times historical atlas, it happened later. PANONIAN (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The city was important for Ottomans as it stands in a way to Hungarian capital. They built a bridge through witch they traveled to Mohač and returned back (at least to my knowledge:) In Croatian historical maps ('Hrvatski povijesni zemljovidi') border line goes by the Vuka river and then some ten kilometers west of Osijek. It seems to me very doubftull that Turks would just live that bridge behind?:)

Ceha 21:00 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just read about battle of Mohač. Turks did conquered much of Hungary in the time of the battle (including Buda), but after this they returned to their country, and the only land which they kept was eastern Syrmia. However, Hungarian king became Ottoman vassal, but Hungary did not became integral part of the Ottoman Empire before 1541. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, Ceha, I saw that your maps were deleted from Wikipedia. You should make them more different than their model (change their size, the thickness of the lines, colour, and write names of the cities with your own letters). That would make them to be 100% your work. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm new in wiki, so I don't yet fully know how does it works:)

For maps I used bosnian municipality grid from [[2]] (I though their borders were public property:) and made rest myself. Your suggestion isn't that bed:))

Ceha 20:06 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Last edits

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments1 person in discussion

Regarding last edits, there are 3 problems here:

  • 1. Vojvodina have 6 official languages, so if we write alternative names only in Hungarian and not in Slovak, Rusyn, Romanian, and Croatian, then it would not be fair towards these four ethnic groups because officialy, all languages of the region are EQUAL.
  • 2. "Rascia" (a land of the Serbs) was a name used for the entire territory between Budapest in the north and Sava and Danube in the south.
  • 3. Regarding the 1944 events, I do not object to mention that too, but it should be written in a more NPOV manner. For example, the current version of the article mention that fascists killed PEOPLE in Vojvodina. No matter that most of the killed people were Serbs and Jews, it is not mentioned because people that belonged to other ethnic groups were also killed. Same was after the war. I can agree that reason for the expulsion of Germans was partially ethnic, but certainly with dominant political background (for example, 95% of ethnic German population were members of the fascist organization "Culturbund", and that was main reason why communist authorities decided to expel them, not just because of their ethnic origin). The last POV changes within article imply that reasons for the killings were mainly ethnic, which was not the case. PANONIAN (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. As I see this Article, you didn't make too much effort to add something about the 1000 years of Hungarian, German and Croatian history of the region. To add the historical names of the cities and regions is a minimum. If you write about the History of Voivodina between 896 and 1918, you must at least mention the Hungarian names of the cities here. (However Mohács is still in Hungary or am I wrong?)
First of all, there are no 1000 years of Hungarian, German and Croatian history of the region. Time periods of the history of Vojvodina connected with these 3 ethnic groups are much smaller. Regarding the Hungarian names, the official language of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary was LATIN, not Hungarian, thus, I do not object that you write Latin names for that time period. Also, during Ottoman rule, the official was Turkish, and during Habsburg rule was German. Regarding Mohač, no problem to write Hungarian name for that. PANONIAN (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, another thing is that Wikipedia articles should not be a lists of various names. All alternative names of these cities and regions (including Hungarian names) are already mentioned within articles about these cities and regions. There is absolutely no reason to mention these names here too. PANONIAN (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 2. There are probably some Historians, who think whole Hungary is Serbian territory, but in the before 1918 Hungary the most of the Serbs lived only along the South border of the country.
No, they do not think that whole present-day Hungary IS Serbian territory, but that much of it WAS Serbian territory in the first half of the 18th century (Serbs were majority even in the Hungarian capital Buda according to the 1715 data). PANONIAN (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 3. I agree that we have to write more detailed about the 1944 events. I added the two sentences, because you MENTION the Jewish an Serbian victims, but forget about the Hungarian and German ones. I'm ready to write more detailed what the partizans did against the Hungarian civilians in the Bácska region, but i'm also ready to write about the Újvidék razzia by the Hungarian Army in 1942. Please don't revert it then.

kelenbp 19:28 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not mentioned Jewish and Serbian victims. I mentioned all victims (no matter of their ethnic origin) who were killed by fascists. Whether I will revert your changes or not depend of your edits. Regarding your edits so far, you seems to be POV pusher, and if you continue with that, I will revert. PANONIAN (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I did not said that we should write more detailed about WW2 events, but what ever we write should be NPOV. It is well known that story about partisan crimes after the war is often used to justify fascist crimes from the war and to create a balance between the two. I do not deny that partisans made crimes after the war, but these crimes certainly were not larger than those of the fascists. PANONIAN (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't want edit war, because it's so pathetic. You are right that the official language in the Kingdom of Hungary was latin until 1844. Still, geographic names of Hungary were often used in Hungarian, where no latin name existed. For example I don't see the reason for using Serbian names in an English text for medieval Hungarian county names, like you do. (Bács, Bodrog, Keve). However between 1844 and 1918 (except 1849-1867) Hungarian was the official language also in the today's Voivodina. I would like only mention these names in this history article (without deleting the Serbian names).

Well, the reason for using Serbian names for the places mentioned here is that these places are today known under these names, thus the readers of Wikipedia can to see what place or region the article speak about. If we use different names for each time period that will make a confusion and people who read the article will not know about which places article speak. Regarding the medieval Hungarian counties they were named after Bač and Kovin towns for example, thus the mention of present names of these towns is important that the reader can see what these places are. Of course, we can mention here both, Serbian and Latin names for these counties, however, since I do not know exact Latin names of these places, somebody else should write Latin names for them. I also agree that we can mention Hungarian names for counties after 1867. PANONIAN (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Lot of Serbs have lived (see Vojvodina) and are still living (Szentendre, Budapest, Baja) in Hungary. However i don't think they made a vast majority in any region (of course with the exception of the Southern parts of the Vojvodina). With your terms could be also Belgrade Hungarian as János Hunyadi conquered it from the Turks in 1456 (and was called Nándorfehérvár in Hungarian). On the other hand you mention not too much about the history of the Hungarians in the Northern Vojvodina, where they were always in majority (with the exception of the 150 years time of Turkish occupation.)

Regarding the Serbs, in the first half of the 18th century Serbs were majority in the entire present-day Vojvodina, in most of Slavonia, in much of present-day Romanian Banat (including Timisoara), in much of present-day southern Hungary (including Baja, Mohacs, and Pecs), as well as in parts of central Hungary (including Buda and Sent Andreja). Although, there is a record thet Serbs were majority in the entire area south of Budapest, the northern border of Serb ethnic territory was somewhere between Meček mountain and the northern bank of the river Mures. The entire territory in the south of that line was named Rascia in various historical sources. What I say here is where Serbs lived as a majority in the 18TH CENTURY. I do not claim that any of these territories which are outside of present-day Serbia "is" Serbian or that it should be Serbian in the future. I only claim that it WAS Serbian in the 18th century and I do not see why somebody would have problem with that piece of information. Regarding Belgrade, I do not know what was its population in the time you mentioned. If Serbs were majority in the city, it was Serbian, if Hungarians were majority, it was Hungarian. Regarding history of Hungarians in northern Vojvodina, please suggest what I should to mention about them. If you say that I should mention "something", I suppose that you should also say what that "something" is. Also claims that something was "always" like that or that somebody "always" was a majority somewhere are not exactly correct when we speak about any part of the land on the planet Earth. Nothing was "always" in this World. PANONIAN (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

3. The only reason i mentioned WWII, because you didn't write a word about the fate of the non-Serbian population of the Voivodina after the withdrawal of the Hung. and German army. I don't know too much about the Banat Germans, what they did or not did. I just know, that the Hungarian inhabitants of the Bacska region were no war criminals and were treated like war criminals by the partisans. This fact is at least one sentence worth.

kelenbp 20:20 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is mention what happened with German and Hungarian populations after WW2, but in few other articles which speak about history of the region. Maybe you do not know, but there is article named Hungarians in Vojvodina, and it is best place for you to write that including everything else you want to write about Hungarians in Vojvodina. PANONIAN (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Confused passages

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Can you explain how you could write the following sentence:

"In the 13th century, the territory of present-day Vojvodina was divided into several counties: Bač (Bacsensis) and Bodrog (Bodrogiensis), both in the region of Bačka, Syrmia (Sirmiensis) and Vukovar (Vukovariensis), both in the region of Syrmia, and Kovin (Covinum) in the region of Banat."

Right after having stated that it was conquered by the Hungarians in the 10th century? You do not nonchalantly divide an area into counties when in fact parts of it belong to different countries to start with.

Also, I see in an earlier comment that Pannonian thinks Vojvodina has been Serbian for the past 500 years because it has been Serbian majority since then. Very creative approach to reckoning the belonging of territories, quite contrary to the lip-service people usually pay to small things like, you know, country borders and sovereignty. I presume Pannonian also thinks that Kosovo has long been Albanian, given the vast, vast Albanian demographic predominance there.

Lev123

First: notice the difference between 10th and 13th century. Second: I have same opinion about Kosovo too - every land belong to its people no matter of country which want to rule over it. I am half-anarchist and I do not believe in "sovereign" country as a usefull way of political organizing (but that is another subject anyway). And finally the third: please say why you consider that this article is POV or remove POV tag from it. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, I appreciate your reply. I have removed the POV tag because I don't have the time to pursue this too, and I see that you are making efforts towards neutrality, although I still think you are biased. I noticed the difference between the 10th and the 13h century, and I also noticed that the area in question was under Hungarian administration in both periods, did you notice the same? Ie if the area belonged to several different countries, it is misleading to then say 'it was divided into x counties', as if it had been a unified area before.

The following comment, as you note, is another though related subject, but permit me to register my interest in your ideas; so every area should belong to its "people"? How do you define who are "its people"? The demographic majority? What happens to the rest? Kick them out of there? What if the balance swings? What if it swings again? What about local majorities - cities that are dominated by one ethnic group, in provinces dominated by another? If country borders are arbitrary, why aren't regional borders equally arbitrary? And this isn't even scratching the surface of the issue of changes in group identities. Ethnic groups are not immutable you know.

Be well.

Lev123

The sentence about counties is perhaps not written in best manner, but the point of the sentence was to mention counties that existed in the 13th century, not to mention when they were created. Regarding other part of your post, I have no time to discuss it further - it is not related to this article and I really have some other things to do. PANONIAN (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Pannonian!

  • The story of Csak Ugrin as a local ruler is a nonsense ... like the Black Man as an Emperor :))) Nobody recognised their rule/Kingdoms/Tsardoms ... Oh, They called themself ruler, emperor, tsar, Holy Spirit? And so what. Building national histories upon such a stupidity is quite ridiculous :)) ... Sure I know another example: in the case of the ancient Slovakia ... just beacause another Csak hired 5000 czech mercenary he became the first Slovak King :)))
First: this IS NOT article about national but about regional history. Second: all these persons: Jovan Nenad, Ugrin Čak, Matej Čak are well known regional rulers and the fact that their enemies did not recognized their rule is simply not our concern - our job is that we writte about them for what they were in reality, not in the minds of their enemies (for example if Republic of Cyprus does not recognize existence of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is that mean that Northern Cyprus does not exist? - I do not think so: Northern Cyprus exist (fact) and claim that it does not exist is just opinion (but not the one based on facts). PANONIAN 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW You wrote in the King Dragutin's article that he was the King of Lower Srem ... So then why his picture is still present in the KoH section?

Dragutin was vassal of KOH. PANONIAN 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure but He ruled territories south to the Sava river ... Then why is he even mentioned here? See the Dragutin article. --fz22 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Three reasons: (1.) name of that territory south of Sava river in that time was Syrmia and therefore it is part of "history of political unit known as Syrmia, no matter which territory it included", (2.) part of that territory south of Sava river (nothern Mačva) is even today part of Vojvodina and therefore history of that territory is also part of history of present-day Vojvodina, and (3.) ruler of northern Syrmia (north of Sava river) was Ugrin Čak who was a vassal of Stefan Dragutin for certain time, thus we might say that Dragutin also ruled over northern Syrmia. PANONIAN 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
then this is another condtradiction vith the article about Vojvodina. The map of Vojvodina in that article shows a region smaller then the Sava bordered Delvidek (Mathematically speaking :) the section between the former Delvidek and present day_Vojvodina isn't empty) . Plus Ugrin Csak ez a vasal? I will recheck this, but until then let me take this info with a grain of salt ... moreover the whole article about the so called history of Vojvodina in the Kingdom of Hungary without a word about eg. the famous Hussites Bible - speaking gently - is incomplete ... R. --fz22 08:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
What contradiction you talk about? Just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojvodina#Geography There is clear description that Vojvodina also include part of Mačva, so what is problem here? (Map in that article also show Vojvodina together with its part of Mačva). I also do not understand which territory you call "Delvidek" here because there are many possible definitions of that term. Regarding Hussites Bible and other things that are not mentioned here, nobody stopping you to expand article with aditional info about that, but only if you do not try to delete history of Serbs as you done in your previous edit. PANONIAN 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
OK I see now, there is a minuscule land South to Sava attached to the Autonomuos Vojvodina ... and this is why you added the Dragutin parts ... --fz22 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW this is quite bizarre approuche. I'll give you an example: present day Transylvanian border was expanded at the expence of Moldova in tha last 50 years. But I never heard saying Stefan cel Mare was a local ruler of Transylvania (even considering that he had estates near Csicso', in Transylvania), He was a vojvode of Moldova + a Transylvanian landlord, member of the Hungarian nobility ... --fz22 06:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The cases are not same because in the case of Dragutin, there are two factors: 1. territory of present-day Mačva which is part of Vojvodina, and 2. name of his kingdom - Syrmia was old name of Mačva region and of the kingdom of Dragutin (opposite to this, Transylvania was never name used for Moldova, thus your example is very different case). PANONIAN 15:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • you also did not post other maps. In fact you post a map from the 16-18th centuries ... which period is not an object for KoH section
You are right about that - it will be corrected. PANONIAN 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Plus there wasn't such a term (Vojvodina) in the Middle Age. This is another good place for "history mill". As it is mentioned quite well in the article the name is dated from the mid 19th century. Before that 'Alvidek' (under Arpad Kings), later 'Delvidek' was used ... BR --fz22 20:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
History of one territory always include two things: 1. history of its geographical area no matter if that territory existed as political unit, and 2. history of political unit, no matter which territory it included. In another words, text clearly indicate that we speak about "territory of present-day Vojvodina", which do not imply that this term was used in the past as well. Regarding terms 'Alvidek' and 'Delvidek' such terms were never officially used for any political unit - they were just rare unofficial names used for an undefined "southern territory" that could refer to Vojvodina, Slavonia, Croatia, Romanian Banat, etc, but certainly not only to Vojvodina. PANONIAN 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Serbian despotat in Vojvodina

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

Please be good enough to explain when Serbian Despotat has made conquest of Vojvodina ? This is like saying that Bosnia has ruled Slavonia after 1463 because Hungarian king has created few of his Slavonian Dukes for kings of Bosnia. You must never forget that they have even ruled part of Bosnia se they has better claim.

--Rjecina 15:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a single place in this article that mention Serbian Despotate. This speak about despots of Serbia who ruled as local rulers in parts of Vojvodina no matter that their despotate did not existed. And please do not delete mention of name Rascia without any explanation. Thank you. PANONIAN 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not know you knowledge of titles but signification of title de jure despot is that he is despot which do not control despotat or you claim that he has controled despotat ? --Rjecina 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
On your answer that you do not see a single placa in article that mention Serbian despotate, my answer is that I do not see any place in article where is writen that Vojvodina is part of Hungary between 1324 and 1525 ? You need also to say something about county they have "ruled". Name of county who has been before count of something else (duke ?) of county which they have ruled. --Rjecina 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"De jure despot" is just not a description that have meaning in English language, this could be rather described as "titular despots" - of course the question of these despots could be better described but not with so bad English grammar. Regarding Hungarian rule, I do not think that you read this whole section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vojvodina#Kingdom_of_Hungary And I am sorry, but I really do not understand the meaning of your last sentence. PANONIAN 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If we look for right words because I know more or less history of Vojvodina I have learned that titular despots of Serbia are having fief in Vojvodina in second half of XV century. On other side you are writing that they are vassals of Hungary. Sorry but you are playing with words to create thinking that despots are having state in Vojvodina and not fief which will think must of people which do not know history of your region. Example of that is not writing that they are titular despots and writing that they are vassals of Hungarian king. In Hungary they are nothing more of less but simple noble with fiefdom. To give you example of that (I am sure that you know that but..) Edward III of England has been in european politics king of England, but in internal French politics he is Duke of Aquitaine because his fiefdom in France if Aquitaine. My question about that has been what is fiefdom of Titular Serbia despot in Hungary kingdom(in Vojvodina) and how they have recieved fiefdom (gift of Hungary king ?) ? About Hungary you have not tell me where is writen after this:

"Vladislav II was defeated by the king of Serbia, Stefan Dečanski, in 1324, and after this, Lower Syrmia became a subject of dispute between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Hungary."

that Vojvodina is part of Hungary until 1526 ? Maybe I reading this bad but you are again playing with words so that readers think how between 1324 and 1526 this territory is under dispute so owner (Hungary or Serbia) is not known. Your only comment is about vassals but even this is playing with words because vassals on Balcans has then been Moldova and Walachia but not Serbia (second part of XV century) --Rjecina 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

First, Vojvodina was never part of Hungary - Hungary (Mađarska) was created in 1918 and it is very different from Kingdom of Hungary (Ugarska) that existed before 1918 (the difference between two terms is very well known in Croatian literature too and you should know this difference if you ever went to school). Second, I already provided to you a link to part of this article where Kingdom of Hungary is mentioned and it is your choice whether you would read this link or not, but you certainly should read it before asking me again about it. Third, titular Serbian despots in Syrmia had their possessions in Vojvodina where they ruled as local rulers and since there was no Serbian state in that time, their possessions in Vojvodina were in that time cultural and political centre of the whole Serbian people. I also do not see how description that they "were vassals of Hungarian king" could be wrong - perhaps you should improve your knowledge of English terms and learn something about meaning of the word "vassal"? I also do not see that article say that such despots had "state" in Vojvodina. I also do not see any connection between this case and case of England and France. PANONIAN 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
this is false. And not just because your popular fallacy about the Hungarian state continuity. A suggest to read the history of WWII. --fz22 06:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not false - it is the way how Yugoslav historiography see it: Mađarska and Ugarska were two completelly different states according to Yugoslav historiography. Therefore, Mađarska was a state created in 1918 and Vojvodina did not belonged to this state ever during World War II because Axis occupation and partion of Yugoslavia during World War II was considered illegal by both, Yugoslavs and international community, thus the only internationally recognized state that existed in the territory of Yugoslavia from 1941 to 1945 was Yugoslavia itself. PANONIAN 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My question is simple and you do not want to answer. What has been fiefdom of Titular Despots of Serbia in Vojvodina ? Way in which is now writen do not say anything because there is no name of possesions. Do they even exist ? --Rjecina 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The posssessions of Serbian despots included various cities in Syrmia, Banat and Bačka, but their residence was in Kupinik. I can mention names of these cities of course, when I find time to expand this article. PANONIAN 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Problem solved. Look how ease has been to find that they have been hungarian barons.--Rjecina 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Barons? Not quite. They were despots of Serbia, however, their despotate did not existed. PANONIAN 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is vandalism. You have source from Vojvodina from town which has been "capitol" of titular despots which say that they have been barons and you ..... This is clear case of vandalism.--Rjecina 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It say only that Đurađ Branković was baron, not others. PANONIAN 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian baron

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I do not know if user PANONIAN read serbian but I will try: "У периоду када се Сланкамен налазио под Угарском, угарски краљ Сигмунд због напредовања Турака према Угарској територији, да би боље организовао одбрану, уговором 1404 године даје деспоту Стевану Лазаревићу градове : Купиново, Земун,Митровицу и Сланкамен. Смрћу деспота Стевана Лазаревића, сестрић Стеванов Ђурађ Бранковић добија титулу барона и признаје се за законитог наследника Стевановог. У доба владавине Бранковића (али под угарском влашћу) над Сланкаменом, деспот Вук Бранковић је подигао Православну цркву 1468 године са иконостасом од 55 икона које је радио Димитрије Бачевић"

I am sure that user PANONIAN will say that he do not understand this text or that towns of Vojvodina write wrong history that about themself. This is take from webpage of town Slankamen !!.--Rjecina 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Show me link to that web page, I cannot find it on google search: [3] PANONIAN 20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Link has been in deleted text. But he is her again:http://www.slankamen.org.yu/slankamen/ss.html --Rjecina 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see it now, but much of your previos post was simply your own construction that has nothing to do with text in that source. I added now to the article relevant information from that source (including information from Dr. Aleksa Ivić, Istorija Srba u Vojvodini, Novi Sad, 1929). PANONIAN 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that you are making constructions. Example of that are this: "Lower Syrmia became a subject of dispute between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Hungary" Where is that dispute ? When it has finished ! I know that Stefan Uroš IV Dušan has never ruled in Lower Syrmia and that this territory has been part of Hungary kingdom

Wrong. Stefan Dušan ruled over Lower Syrmia (as you can see here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Dusanova_Srbija200.jpg ) - it was a subject of dispute between Serbian and Hungarian state for very long time. PANONIAN 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Second constuctrion: You write how : "titular despots of Serbia ruled in parts of the territory of present-day Vojvodina (mostly in Syrmia) as vassals of the Hungarian kings"

but web site of Slamkamen write other story: У доба владавине Бранковића (али под угарском влашћу) над Сланкаменом !

Difference is very great because there is clear writen that lands of titular despots have been part of Hungary !!!--Rjecina 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly that is written - perhaps you should learn English better? PANONIAN 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Ok, fz, I see that you changed map but it still cannot be here because it is incorrect. The Slavs were majority in this whole area while Avars were just ruling caste that ruled over Slavs but did not formed majority in the area. In another words, map is nothing but science fiction. PANONIAN 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is proof that map is false and that Slavs were majority in this area: http://curug.rastko.net/karte/img/5_varvari_vizantija.jpg PANONIAN 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Proof? Must be kidding ... And what about the Langobards, Gepids, Huns, Avars, Onogurs-maybe Magyars(680). I gave you a map with locations of the most important archeological findings ... --fz22 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW One source I picked up randomly. a german page with interesting images (Awarische Besiedlungsgeschichte ): http://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/NHM/prehist/Stadler/Halbturn96/AwarischeBeitraege/Index.html --fz22 21:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kidding? Fz, I have also another source (Prof. dr. Radmilo Petrović, Vojvodina, Beograd, 2003) that contain a detailed map of archaeological locations in Vojvodina with traces of Slavs dating from 5th-7th century, so your map that show that there were no Slavs in Vojvodina is simply false. Your map might be partially correct regarding traces of Avars and area that they settled, but important thing is that Avars lived TOGETHER WITH SLAVS IN THIS AREA and you created a map that show that there were no Slavs at all in Vojvodina in this time which is false. Of course, your map could be acceptable if you modify it to reflect correct historical situation: 1. you can either remove any mention of Slavs in this map, so then the map would show only the traces of Avars, or 2. you can make it to reflect traces of Slavs as well. In current form, the map is incorrect an unacceptable especially because you posted it in the article about an Slavic country. Regarding the link that you provided, I cannot read German and I do not see to what on that web page you refer to. Also, why you removed a map of duchy of Salan from this article? Finally, there is a separate article named Demographic history of Vojvodina and even your modified map would belong to that article, not to this one that dealing mainly with political history of Vojvodina. PANONIAN 14:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I modified now your map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vojvodina_avars008.png Also, I posted this into Demographic history of Vojvodina together with other similar maps (if other maps from that article are not here there is no reason for this one to be here as well). Basically, I changed 2 things in your map: 1. reduced area showed on map to reflect the subject of the article which is Vojvodina and not Carpathian Basin, and 2. removed all reference to Slavs in this map, so it now show only traces of Avars. Traces of Slavs are showed on separate map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Slavs_vojvodina009.png PANONIAN

16:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what's bothering you in a map about the Carpathian basin ... but this is your problem ... Back to our original question: the Avars were the dominant ethnic group in Vojvodina, and they were the aboriginals in the 6th century :) They took this land from the Gepids (a people who secured both CB and the E-Roman Empire from the Slavic migration during their reign - even the Avars were forced to circumvent the Carpathians Mnts) and the Slavic population was settled as a frontier guard between them - Avars - and the Byzantine Empire. The Avars got slavicized in the 9th century but this is also contestable (just think on why the Magyars - suppposed to be a small warrior clan by some non-Magyar scholars - were not slavicised at all, but in contrary they were able to magyarized more then a half a million slavic population existed in the Carphatian basin in the 10th century - according to the same scholars :) Regards --fz22 20:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not article about Carpathian Basin, but about Vojvodina, thus by showing entire Carpathian Basin in this map you in fact showing the proposed borders of Greater Hungary - if these articles speak about Vojvodina then you have no reason to show entire Carpathian Basin on these maps - I will change all your similar maps. Also, the Avars were not dominant ethnic group in Vojvodina and were not aboriginals - they only ruled over this land, but main part of population of the land were Slavs (or do you think that Slavs that lived in this area after Avar state was destroyed came from another planet?). PANONIAN 14:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, this is a map about Vojvodina, however in the KOH paragraph a wider map -representing the political unit Vojvodina belonged to - is not a very devil thing :). --fz22 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you did not represented "the political unit Vojvodina belonged to", but Carpathian Basin with clear implication of connection with Kingdom of Hungary that by the way did not existed in the time of Gepids and Avars. Also: 1. all demographics maps are already placed in Demographic history of Vojvodina and there is no reason to post them here, 2. this is article about Vojvodina and the maps that we should post here are maps of local political entities that existed in the territory of Vojvodina in the past, not maps of states to which Vojvodina belonged to because you have separate articles about these states to post maps of their territory, 3. You still did not said why you removed map of the duchy of Salan. PANONIAN 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Then you misunderstand me. These are not demographic maps but political. The Kingdom of the Gepids, the Avar Empire both had theirs core territories in present day Vojvodina. On the Avar maps the yellow area indicates the lands inhabitated by the Avars (of course it wasnt ethnicaly homogenous), and the dark yellow line represents the sphere of influence /in other words the borders/ of the Avar Empire ... )
BTW the political appartenence of present day Vojvodina is: Goths(c 83 year); Huns (75), Langobards (79), Gepides (120), Avars (237).
The Duchy of Salan is a fairy tail taken from the GH ... --fz22 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Let see: the Avar hring was not in present-day Vojvodina, thus it would not be correct to say that core territory of Avar state was in Vojvodina. Also, the Avar map is both, political and demographical one, and thus since the core of Avar state was not in Vojvodina, the demographic part of map is more important than political one. Regarding Gepid state, the centre of that state was indeed Sirmium, but your map of Gepid state is not very good one, thus perhaps I will draw another map of this state and perhaps I will post it in the article about Gepids. Regarding question whether map of Gepide state (the one that perhaps I will draw) should be posted into this article as well, I am not 100% against it, but the Gepide state was simply too big and largely located outside of this region - I would rather keep here maps of regions or states that were more local and thus more identical with territory of modern Vojvodina. Big states or provinces like Gepide state or Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum were simply too big to be identified with modern territory of Vojvodina. Regarding duchy of Salan, there is no proof that it is "fairy tail" because some parts of GH story about Salan (like war between Hungarians and Byzantines and Bulgarians) were confirmed by other sources. Therefore, despite the fact about possible wrong data in GH, the duchy of Salan is very significant for the history of Vojvodina because (if GH data is correct) it was the first Slavic province in this area. PANONIAN 20:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Here you have better map of Gepide state: http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/cbig/Gepidak.jpg I thought to make new map from that one if I find free time. Also, perhaps you can translate from that map some data about Gepide state - it would be useful anyway... PANONIAN 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

National assembly in 1918

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

According to book: Drago M. Njegovan: Prisajedinjenje Srema, Banata, Backe i Baranje Srbiji, dokumenti i prilozi; Drugo, dopunjeno izdanje, Novi Sad 2001: In the assembly there were: 757 members among them: 578 Serb, 84 Bunyevac, 62 Slovak, 21 Ruthenian, 3 Sokac, 2 Croat, 6 German és 1 Hungarian. Furthermore the Bunyevac, Slovak and Ruthenian members were appointed by a Serbian Commitee. --Koppany 10:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So? what is your point? PANONIAN 11:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


I guess he (Koppany) was refering that datas should be precise; in case they are mentioned...


Also, the article is focused too much on the serbian point i guess, which makes the article untrustful: Huge emphesism on the ancient times (Cak s etc...); than unexplainable jump (seems to me it did not even happened) or brief summary only on the previous 1000 years; and than again focus on the 19th and 20th century. Whats wrong with the period from 900-1800? (Which is the far most significant in the history of modern Europe?) Were Serbians not dominating the area?

Actually, Serbs (together with Turks) did dominated area from 1526 to 1699, but this historical period is still not well enough researched by the historians. We should hope that more interesting facts about this time period will be put to light in the future. 212.69.2.147 (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is still just about a period of 150 years (and which - as stated - 'is still not well enough researched'). The argument and the criticism was exactly about this; taking out periods, which are suitable and leaving anything which aren't, in order to justify facts. (<- "Whats wrong with the period from 900-1800? Is it not Serbian enough?")

(& JUST SOME XTRA REMARK) The two different words (Ugarska and Madaska) for Hungary, doesnt exist in any other languages in the world, except in serbian - croatian, rumanian and czech - slovakian. (not in german, hungarian, turkish) May be the yugoslavian historians trying to create a proof of existance? Or the academic education and language of the world should be modified (maybe with creating couple of new words) to be called school-educated in your terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion00 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps different words Ugarska and Madjarska do not exist in languages such is English, but it is only because English language was influenced by Hungarian sources that emphasized the opinion about Hungarian continuity instead the opposite opinion about discontinuity, but the fact is that both historical opinions are used in historical schools in Central Europe, and the fact that English language do not have two different words for the subject does not mean that historical school that emphasize discontinuity is a priori wrong. 212.69.2.147 (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

However, PANONIAN throughout the article and on the discussion pages argued, purely according to the 'discountinuity' view of the Central European minority - which, as so, is far to be seen as a neutral point of view.

Moving data from Vojvodina article

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following list was in the Vojvodina article, which I think in no way should be in the article, very ugly, but its data however, can be researched and added (in prose) to this article.--Zoupan (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

History list

Banat, Bačka and Syrmia: throughout history, the territory of present day Vojvodina (including regions of Banat, Bačka and Syrmia) has been (entirely or partially) a part of:

References

  1. ^ Skordisci: istorija i kultura, Jovan Todorović, Institut za izučavanje istorije Vojvodine, 1974, page 268.
  2. ^ The Roman war of Antiochos the Great, John D. Grainger, BRILL, 2002, page 82.
  3. ^ The Celtic Encyclopedia, Том 1, Harry Mountain, Universal-Publishers, 1998, page 215.
  4. ^ http://histoiremesure.revues.org/880
  5. ^ http://usuarios.multimania.es/superjulio/IMPERIOS%20BALCANICOS/Mapas%20Imperiales%20Imperio%20de%20Burebista%20de%20Dacia2.jpg
  6. ^ http://usuarios.multimania.es/superjulio/IMPERIOS%20BALCANICOS/Mapas%20Imperiales%20Imperio%20de%20Burebista%20de%20Dacia1.jpg
  7. ^ http://talcuireapocalipsa.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/dacia-burebista.jpg
  8. ^ http://juriscult.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/burebistahartadacia1.jpg
  9. ^ http://www.mdn.md/biblioteca/images/05DaciaBurebista-01-01.jpg
  10. ^ http://keptar.niif.hu/000500/000586/magyaro-honf-terkep_nagykep.jpg
  11. ^ http://www.crohis.com/srkulj1/trpimir.jpg
  12. ^ http://www.zeitlerweb.com/img/775pxGreat_Moravia.jpg
  13. ^ http://nd01.jxs.cz/988/783/895de26d69_51179296_o2.jpg
  14. ^ http://www.provitacz.cz/public/upload/products/3183_velka_morava.jpg
  15. ^ http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z5j3wjkIaUw/THPQKJT_QpI/AAAAAAAAAZ8/V1VKogfh4eU/s1600/1986_86-01_08_Puspoki1_original.jpg
  16. ^ http://keptar.niif.hu/000500/000586/magyaro-honf-terkep_nagykep.jpg
  17. ^ http://keptar.niif.hu/000500/000586/magyaro-honf-terkep_nagykep.jpg
  18. ^ The Austrian military border: its political and cultural impact, Liviu Maior, Nicolae Bocșan, Ioan Bolovan, Glasul Bucovinei, 1994, page 66.
  19. ^ Slavonic encyclopaedia, Joseph Slabey Rouček, Philosophical Library, 1949, page 505.
  20. ^ Srpsko srednjevekovno selo, Branko Peruničić, Naučna kniga, 1956, page 49.
  21. ^ Srbi u Rumuniji, Ljubivoje Cerović, Ljubomir Stepanov, Savez Srba u Rumuniji, 2000, page 29.
  22. ^ Arhivski pregled, Društvo arhivskih radnika SR Srbije, Državna arhiva NR Srbije, 1990, page 88.
  23. ^ Farrow's military encyclopedia: a dictionary of military knowledge, Edward Samuel Farrow, Military-Naval Publishing Company, 1895, page 345.
  24. ^ Encyclopaedia Britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, and general literature, Том 12, William Harrison De Puy, R.S. Peale, 1891, page 361.
  25. ^ The World's History: South-eastern and eastern Europe, Viscount James Bryce Bryce, William Heinemann, 1907, page 303.
  26. ^ The Catholic encyclopedia: an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic church, Том 4, Charles George Herbermann, The Catholic Encyclopedia Inc., 1913, page 512.
  27. ^ http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/181815ge.gif
  28. ^ http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/cbig/DissolutionMilitayFrontier.jpg
  29. ^ http://www.bosnjaci.net/foto/Bosna_i_Evropa1.jpg

Wikiproject Banners

Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

This is the article about the History of Vojvodina, and as such it has historical relations with Hungary therefore the WikiHu banner. Please check other examples, for instance History of Transylvania which today is only a geographical region (not autonomous province like Vojvodina) it contains on the talk page WikiProjectHu ([[4]]) for the same historical reasons. Adrian (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Page about Transylvania should not have WP Hungary as well. But, that article is not interesting to me. Let discuss this one: Province of Vojvodina was formed in 1945 and it have no any relation to Hungary. I understand that this article mention some events before 1945 to inform readers what preceeded formation of Vojvodina, but it is not reason that wrong WP teplate is included here. Also, former multi-ethnic country with name Kingdom of Hungary and modern Hungary of ethnic Hungarians are two different countries. Another problem is that many countries ruled in Vojvodina and only WP Hungary was adeed. Why? It is wrong. Why you did not add templates Turkey, Austria, Bulgaria, Great Moravia, Yugoslavia? Why only Hungary? And if we follow this logic we can add more than 20 WP templates because of similar reason why you add WP Hungary. Oldhouse2012 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
You stole mu arguments :)
  • Vojvodina and many other territories made a part of the Kingdom of Hungary, on that we agree because you said it yourself. It was a multilingual, multiethnic and multinational country of course but it was the Kingdom of Hungary, not Kingdom of Serbia, Romania, Croatia... etc.. Also they share the same (or very similar) national identifiers (flag,language) and as the final argument, Hungarians didn`t settled here yesterday :), they live in the Panonian plain since the year 900 (approximately) therefore denying the relations of the Kingdom of Hungary with modern Hungary is not valid. Vojvodina is one of the territories that fulfill this relations. Also bare in mind that Vojvodina is related to the "newly" created state of Hungary (Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)) where a big part of Vojvodina was under Hungarian administration.
  • By the same criteria, today Istanbul (Costantinopole) contains wikiProject Greece ([[5]]). Also [[6]]. You can notice many other examples on wikipedia.
  • About adding other wikiProjects of countries that have a relation with Vojvodina is welcomed of course, wikiProjectHu is added now so that`s a start. This user wanted to add only WikiProject Hu and that`s ok, maybe he is not aware of other connections with Vojvodina. Feel free to add other wikiProjects countries that are relative to this article. We are talking about history of Vojvodina, not about the present time. Adrian (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the real answer here is, what Wiki Projects are listed as being interested in a particular article is of very little importance. There is no reason not to be fairly inclusive about it. If a project listed is just plainly wrong - say, "Wikiproject:History of Hungary" on an article about sharks - then it should be removed. If it is arguable that those interested in Hungarian history would be useful and interested in helping maintain an article, then by all means it should be left there, unless persons associated with that project decide that it isn't in their area of interest and remove it.Brianyoumans (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That`s what I was trying to say (only I elaborated it a bit :) ), per wikiProjectHu this is related.Adrian (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more, it's self-evident why WikiProject Hungary would have an interest in this article. I've replaced the banner. Oldhouse2012, any further removal against the clear consensus of Iadrian yu, Brianyoumans and myself about this will be reported for admin attention. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Now Peacemaker67 removing other WP-s. Why? Iadrian yu is say that "other WPs are welcomed of course". Oldhouse2012 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN - "Many editors place banners on behalf of a WikiProject that they are not members of. This practice is normally welcomed by WikiProjects as it brings to their attention new and interesting articles." - it say that my action is welcomed by WikiProjects. Peacemaker67 have no reason to remove WPs. Article is in scope of them all. Oldhouse2012 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 is not member of WPs that he remove. Oldhouse2012 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
(copy & pasted from my talk page) How about not disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT? Your motives are clearly not pure, as you first tried to remove Hungary and now you want to put every WikiProject that ever had anything to do with this territory on the talk page, essentially because you don't want Hungary there alongside Serbia. You are being disruptive in order to make a (nationalistic) point, and if there's any more of this rot I'm happy to take it to an admin for their view. Just pull your head in! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oldhouse2012, you are quoting very selectively from WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. It goes on to say:

Please be judicious in making such placements by minimizing the number of outside banners that you place on an article and by carefully reviewing the scope of the project. Information about the project's scope is often available on the WikiProject's main page, and sometimes also on documentation associated with the template. If you are uncertain that the placement will be welcomed, then leave a note on the project's talk page instead of placing the banner yourself.
If you place a banner for an outside WikiProject, and a member of that project removes it, do not replace the banner. A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Has anyone here actually contacted these various projects to ask them whether they would consider this to be wiithin their scope? Ultimately, they have the last word here. Project banners are not categories. Please also read the following section in the WikiProject Council Guide titled: Overtagging is disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The only one I contacted is WikiProject Hungary asking them to assess and rate the importance of this article to them. It surely must fall to User:Oldhouse2012 to contact the 16 other WikiProjects to ask them, given he's added them without doing so (I checked the first three still there, and no sign on the talk pages). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. The addition of all these project banners to make a point is not only disruptive, but a great discourtesy to the projects invovled. Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Update Even though Oldhouse2012 should have done it, I've gone ahead and notified all the other projects, apart from Hungary (already notified) and Serbia (already accepted as in the project's scope). Voceditenore (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You are very good to do that, but at least one of those WikiProjects is barely active, or is not active (Illyria). He has treated project banners like categories, and I think if there isn't a response in a week from any of those projects, they should probably be culled. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I also left a note on the Illyria Project, specifically asking them if they were still active. If there is no reply, I'm going to mark the project as inactive. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like we have a method for removing some of the WP tags. I will stop my own process of culling them.Brianyoumans (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • WikiProjects Illyria and Croatia have responded on the projects' talk pages that they do not consider this article in their scope [7], [8]. I have removed the banners. Voceditenore (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Archving

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page was hugely long and taking forever to load. I have archived the pre-2007 messages to Talk:History of Vojvodina/Archive 1. Another problem with the loading time is the still excessive number of banners. The sooner the multiple out-of-scope banners which were added in a point attack are removed, the better. Voceditenore (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I added one more project, but it seemed like an appropriate one to add, as it covers former divisions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Move forward

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Now, I accept that I maybe included some WPs that are not fully appropriate, but some WPs that are fully appropriate were removed with no valid reason. WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN page say this: "Many editors place banners on behalf of a WikiProject that they are not members of. This practice is normally welcomed by WikiProjects as it brings to their attention new and interesting articles." It mean that my action is welcomed by WikiProjects. I agree with comment that we should not use WP tags if members of that WP say that article is not in their WP scope (so far, members of WP Croatia and Illyria have say that, right?). But, some valid WPs were removed from this page without confirmation from members of such WPs that article is not in their scope. I speak about WPs:

  • Celts - region was ruled by Celts and there are some important Celtic archeology findings like Židovar
  • Dacia - region was part of Dacia and had population of Dacians
  • Ancient Germanic studies - region was ruled by such peoples - Gepids, Goths, Lombards
  • Bulgaria - region was part of Bulgarian Empire
  • Austria - region was part of Austrian Empire.
  • Yugoslavia - region was part of that country (this WP say that only articles about histories of former Yugoslav countries and regions that do not speak about Yugoslav period in their history are not in WP scope. This article speak about Yugoslav period in history of Vojvodina and it is in that WP scope)

I suggest that WP tags of such WPs ssould be back. I agree for WPs Croatia and Illyria not to be included or some WPs related to ethnic groups that live in Vojvodina that I previously included. However, argument used for WP Hungary (the country ruled in this region in one part of history) fully apply to all other WPs from my list. I suggest that they are not removed unless members of such WPs say that article is not in their WP scope. Oldhouse2012 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I want also to express my concern for some double standards in this area. For example, both countries, Hungary and Croatia, ruled in this region in one part of history. But, according to some, article is part of WP Hungary but is not part of WP Croatia. How so? Which logic and which standard is used for this approach? Also, interested editors should take a look on this article: [9] - all WP tags that I included there were removed by one user: [10]. I accept that some of WPs are overtaging, but other are not. That city was in past part of some countries whose WP tags I included. Here, we have one Hungarian user who include WP Hungary to articles about other countries and we have other Hungarian user who remove WPs of other countries from articles about Hungary. Then about whose nationalism we talk here exactly? I only try to implement some standards and unified approach in this area. Am I nationalist because of that? Oldhouse2012 (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid your motivations are clear from the edit summaries and comments you made when this all began. What you say now is significantly different from what you said then. I have detailed the history of this discussion on ANI and other involved editors have agreed. The consensus here is for removing all WikiProject banners that we don't receive responses from in a week, and that is the course of action we will follow. Feel free to contact the other WikiProjects yourself to clarify these issues, but they have their own reasons for including or not including articles in their WikiProjects, and it is not up to you to judge. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that "my motivations" are not subject of this discussion and I refuse to participate in this childish exchange of insults with you (be free to insult me as much as you want, I will not lower myself to that level). About "week response", I do not see any "consensus" about it. I only see your proposal, but not "consensus" of all users from this page about it. However, your proposal have no base in Wikipedia guidelines. Guideline say that WP tags should be removed if members of WPs say that this article is not in scope of that WP. It do not say that tags should be removed if there is no "responce for a week". Please do not invent your own guidelines in Wikipedia. Many WP tags are included in many articles every day and nobody say there that tags should be removed if there is no "week responce" from WP members. This is ridiculous approach. It is obvious that WP tags Celts, Austria, Yugoslavia, etc are no different from WP Hungary in this article. Do you say that Celts or Austria have not ruled in this region? Oldhouse2012 (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious that we don`t agree with you, and that you are the only one who wants to add this much projects for no valid reason. Adrian (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Peacemaker67, I just saw the consensus about responses in a week. I did`t know about this. I already removed some of the projects, sorry. If needed, I will revert myself. Adrian (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

@Oldhouse2012. There is clear consensus among the following editors that your use of WikiProject banners is inappropriate and is effectively abuse of those WikiProjects. User:Iadrian yu, User:Voceditenore, User:Brianyoumans, User:Joy (on ANI) and I. That is more than enough. If you don't respect consensus, you won't last very long. You've had an admin warning, now would be a good time to pull your head in. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WP banners (again)

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I have restored the disputed WikiProject banners, now that the page is semi-protected. I'm not sure we need all these banners, but they were left here following the tedious dispute with User:Oldhouse2012 chronicled above. Mostly I object to having them removed for nakedly nationalistic reasons (see my talk page for comments by 200.146.84.52 on the subject). I don't think any of the banners are inappropriate, and if the various WikiProjects want to remove them, they can. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with Brian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree. I can agree to have here WP tags of former countries that ruled Vojvodina, but WP Hungary is tag of current country, not of former country and should not be here. Former country that ruled Vojvodina was called Kingdom of Hungary, not Hungary, and if we had tag for Kingdom of Hungary then we can use it. But because we don't have tag Kingdom of Hungary we should not use tag Hungary as a substitute for non-existing tag. WP Hungary is tag of modern country and it is wrong to use it here as much as it is wrong to use here WP tags Argentina or China. I read entire discussion about this on talk page and I joined all Wiki projects involved in this problem. In that way, excuse of some editors to push POV hiding behind Wiki rules will no longer work. As member of such Wiki projects, I have right to add or remove Wiki tags. I am now removing wrong tag WP Hungary and I am adding tags of former countries that ruled Vojvodina in history. If anybody doesn't agree with my changes, talk page is open for constructive discussion about validity of each WP tag. Baća bez gaća (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)— Baća bez gaća (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have removed the latest batch of banners. This is all discussed above in the previous section. Adding ridiculous numbers of banners to the article just make some sort of point is disruptive. Why not put your energy into improving the article instead of playing games over whose banner is on the talk page (who looks at the talk page, anyways? Only Wikipedia editors.) Brianyoumans (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Baća bez gaća. This is discussed above in the previous section but nothing is solved, We have right to discuss this again. Foodsupply (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)— Foodsupply (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I apologize for deleting talk's comment - I didn't notice that they had added a comment as well as adding the project banners back. Well, OK, let's talk about it. I'm against adding this many banners. It doesn't really matter that much, but what makes it matter to me is that I feel that these are being added as part of a petty nationalistic feud. When Oldhouse2012 was told he couldn't remove the WP:Hungary banner, he then mocked the whole process by adding a dozen banners. People trying to add actual content and improvements to Wikipedia have many better things to do than dealing with petty issues like this. Let's just remove the extra banners and move on.Brianyoumans (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: WP:Hungary (which I just noticed has been removed, again). WP:Hungary lacks a comprehensive description of its scope, but what is says is "Hungary and Hungarians." The article "Hungary" covers the history of the area from before the arrival of the Hungarians to modern times. Needless to say, this includes long periods of time during which Vojvodina was ruled from Hungary, when Hungarian was spoken in Vojvodina, etc. I would say that it is perfectly reasonable to include the project banner.Brianyoumans (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Can we discuss the problem, not aims of other users? Looking at old version of this page as was edited by user Oldhouse2012, it is evident that there indeed was too many Wiki projects, like Croatia, Turkey or Bulgaria, and by my opinion they have no place here. However, by my opinion, if we are to inlclude WP tags of former countries then we should either include WP tags of all former countries either we should not include tags of any of those. This is the only way to do this in NPOV way. Why some tags (like Ottoman Empire) should remain and some other (like Yugoslavia) should be removed? I actually do not believe that you want to remove WP Yugoslavia. Large part of this article is about Yugoslav period in history of Vojvodina. Why you want to remove this WP? Please tell me what is wrong with each of the tags that you want to remove. And if you want WP Hungary here too then please explain how exactly is that WP related to this article? I see no such relation. I already stated that Vojvodina was part of Kingdom of Hungary, not of Hungary. Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary are different countries. I now see that there is actually tag for Kingdom of Hungary, so I propose that it is used instead WP Hungary and there will be no problem with its meaning . Baća bez gaća (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
@Foodsupply. You are clearly an experienced user. Creating an account, making ten edits, waiting the requisite four days then immediately jumping in here is as transparent as Baća bez gaća (who did exactly the same thing). This is clear WP:SPA sock/meat disruption of an ARBMAC article which I am heartily sick of. Please go somewhere else and be constructive instead of wasting other people's time having to report you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said.. lots of pro-Serbian-POV socks appearing lately. Might be worth it to organize a duck hunt, see who's been evading their tb. PANONIAN is from Vojvodina, if I recall. -- Director (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldhouse2012. Feel free to add our friend if you see similarities. I do recall he said or implied he was from Vojvodina at some stage. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Request For Comment re: WikiProject Banners on this page

Latest comment: 11 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

Which WikiProject banners should be included on this talk page? Several new editors wish to add a large number of WikiProject banners (for both active and inactive WikiProjects) to this talkpage but other editors have disagreed with this approach. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

All Wikiprojects with banners currently on this page have been advised. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Um.. all of them? -- Director (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Eh? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Guidelines are very liberal on that. Pretty much whoever wants to add it can add it.. anywhere they want. Unless, I suppose, there is clear opposition from other project members. -- Director (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but if you read the above and have a look at WP:ANI, you will get the sense of why I've put up this RFC. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, will do. But I suggest explaining the gist here in the RfC if anyone else arrives. Though they probably won't. If its not a prominent, mainstream article RfCs don't really help. I recommend DRN, though even that often fails to involve neutral users.
P.S. Btw, Baca bez Gaca ("Baca with No Pants" :)) is likely a sock. -- Director (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, even my crap sh skills picked that up... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
A brief explanation of the issue would be very helpful. In my experience, wikiproject banners don't really end up meaning much anyway, so the question I have (arriving from RfC) is "Who cares?" Why not let all of the wikiproject banners stay? They might invite more editors here to improve the article, but more likely will do nothing at all to harm it. siafu (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll ask again, since it doesn't seem to be getting an answer here. What is the actual problem with having extra WikiProject tags on the talk page? siafu (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the problem with the extra banners is more the way they were added than their existence. They were added, fairly explicitly, as a way of diluting the impact of having the WP:Hungary banner on the page, to say, "Well, if you have this banner, then we should add a whole bunch of banners!" Some of them are vaguely appropriate, some are not. But they were added to make a WP:Point, not because someone thought those particular projects might want to contribute to the article. Note that several editors above have been officially confirmed as socks of Oldhouse2012. These people were not here to contribute, they were here to play politics.Brianyoumans (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this sort of illustrates the point, though. WikiProject tags are harmless, and since wikiprojects don't hold any official status, extra ones (like the Kingdom of Hungary wikiproject) don't really mean anything. The best way to deal with someone trying to prove a point like this is often to ignore it and demonstrate how pointless the point actually is. Removing the tag repeatedly gives it too much attention, has the potential to create an edit war, and overrides the (albeit unlikely) possibility that there is a good faith editor behind it. I would advise NOT removing extra these extra tags for these reasons. The someone might have added the tags for the wrong reasons might have been a good argument for not adding them in the first place, but it does not really lend any weight to the argument for removing them. siafu (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There is problem with behavior of some people. Nobody discuss actual validity of WP tags. Instead, there is discussion about who might be a sock. I think that funny user names are not forbidden, and if my user name is funny it is not "proof" that I am sock. Would you people please stop to discuss about other users and start to discuss problem like reasonable people. First, why tag WP Illyria was removed? Illyrians lived here and city Sirmium, capital of Roman Illyricum was located in Vojvodina. This is very good argument in favor of keeping WP Illyria. Second problem is WP Hugary. If page have WP Kingdom of Hungary (which is related to former country that ruled Vojvodina in part of history) then WP Hungary (which is related to modern country of Hungary which doesn't rule Vojvodina) is redundant and misleading. Can anybody say why both WP tags should be here? What makes connection between History of Vojvodina and WP Hungary? Baća bez gaća (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I think these matters have been explained many times here. The WP:Illyria tag was removed because, when notified, someone from that project replied that they didn't want that tag on the article. That info is either above or in the edit description. WP:Kingdom of Hungary is a brand new WP, created on Jan. 30th. Quite frankly, it looks like it was created for the purposes of this discussion - it was not a decision made by WP:Hungary to split the project up, it was created by User:AnyWay5000 as the very first edit on the account. So, it is not a real WP with actual active members, it is a "straw man". Why WP:Hungary? Because at various times the territory now known as Vojvodina has been ruled by Hungary, has had Hungarian-speaking inhabitants, and modernly lies on the border with Hungary. And the article is not about the history of Vojvodina only in modern times, it clearly starts with pre-historic times and works up to the present. And if long-standing editors of Wikipedia - I have been using this account since 2006 or so - get a little testy with people who have created accounts within the last week solely to push a nationalistic point, I guess that isn't surprising. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The decision of whether a particular WikiProject banner should be added to a particular article is generally up to the WikiProject. If the WikiProjects want to keep their banners here, as long as they're not completely unrelated (and I don't think any of these are), they should stay. Robofish (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, how about this: I will go through and remove any projects that are fairly clearly inappropriate - i.e., the article does not appear to be in the scope of the project. And we will leave the rest, to be removed or not by these projects. OK?Brianyoumans (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Why not just leave them all? There still doesn't seem to be any reason to remove any of them, regardless of their supposed motivations for being added. siafu (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Since WP:DACIA was invited to comment, here is my view. I think there are more advantages in linking articles to relevant projects than not. For example, the "Early history" and "Romans" sections of this article are within the scope of the WP:DACIA project. By adding the banner, it makes the project aware of this article's existence, prompting specialized contributors to assess and contribute to the relevant sections and stirring collaboration. I don't think space or bytes used by WP banners are real issues, since WP:NOTPAPER. Of course, if a banner has no connection whatsoever with the article, it shouldn't be here. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It's slightly OTT to get so involved in the issue of Banners, but the reasons for them being put up is subjective; who can tell what was going through someone's mind when they did so. It's WP:STUFF so can hardly be disruptive. Not sure it deserves an RfC either, but here I am   Basket Feudalist 15:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment:From WP:Hungary: "WikiProject Hungary is a WP:WikiProject whose aim is to increase the quality of articles related to Hungary and Hungarians. From: Hungarians: "The name "Hungarian" has also a wider meaning, as it once referred to all inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary irrespective of their ethnicity." --Cooper42(Talk)(Contr) 22:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing. I think the consensus is that the current crop is fine, this is a storm in a teacup, and was created to deal with the POV-warring attitude of Oldhouse2012, who is now community banned from the site (but keeps on keeping on using IP proxies and sock accounts). Removing the RfC. Thanks to everyone that participated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on History of Vojvodina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Vojvodina/Archive_1&oldid=1190142550"