| Revision as of 23:50, 23 December 2005 editCeltmist (talk | contribs)543 edits →Second Paragraph Ammendment← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:09, 2 November 2024 edit undoCrazyFruitBat911 (talk | contribs)292 edits →Readd Hungarian to native names: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (409 intermediate revisions by 93 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
==Political status and the table== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Rusyns|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(365d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Vojvodina/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 3 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Readd Hungarian to native names == |
|
Igor, you say: "Executive Council president is not a head of 'state', Vojvodina is not even a state, so no need for president". How then do you propose that we say who is the senior government official in Vojvodina? http://www.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/Engleski/Vece/predsednik.htm calls Djukic the "President", so I'm only going by what the region's government says. -- ] 01:21, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I added the Hungarian name for Vojvodina (Vajdaság), but it was removed under the pretext of it "not being a native name". I don't understand as Hungarians constitute the largest ethnic minority in Serbia, at around 2.8% of the country, and in Vojvodina constitute about 10.5-10.6% of it's population, not to mention the lands of modern Vojvodina were largely under Hungarian rule for several hundred years until early 1919, and Hungarian culture is still very strong there. Why then was it removed? Please provide an explanation as to why it isn't a native name when Serbia had not owned territories in Vojvodina(for long periods of time) for about 6 centuries until 1918-1919. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 20:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
: No it does not, the page clearly says that he is the President of the '''Executive Council'''. There is not senior government official in Vojvodina not any more than a senior government official in the ], there were no presidential elections in Vojvodina, Djukic was never directly elected by the people. I repeat, Vojvodina is not a state and hence needs no person to be presented as its head of state. The very fact that I am tolerating this table and your treating of Vojvodina as a quasi-independent subject is my way of avoiding a useless editing war. Vojvodina's status within Serbia is yet to be resolved, the new ] constitution will sort it out. --] |
|
|
|
:Because Vojvodina is part of Serbia, not Hungary, the majority of population which lives there is Serbian, the culture there is Serbian, the name also came from the Serbs who inhabited that region for the last 500 years, meaning Duchy-Vojvodstvo, if we are to follow the logic of the past times, then we should add Serbian names to a number of Hungarian cities which had Serbian majority in the past. Also what is the most important part, all the official names of Vojvodina are already present in the name section where it belongs, including Hungarian name, and since there are several official languages in Vojvodina, posting Hungarian name in front of other names gives ] ] (]) 20:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Ah right I didn't see that thanks for the clarification I meant purely since they were the largest ethnic minority in the region. ] (]) 21:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: Okay. The article doesn't have any information on Vojvodina's political status (the restoration of autonomy, etc), so maybe you could add something? BTW, I've also done a summary table for Kosovo which is under discussion at ] (it's only on that page at the moment) - I'd welcome your comments. -- ] 01:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::I thought it would have made sense ] (]) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:: That's not at issue, the issue is whether or not these table formats are even warranted for? Vojvodina is not a state and therefore should not and can not have a table that ressembles that of an independent country. --] |
|
|
|
|
|
::: The summary table is a fairly standard template for ]. Just to give you a few random examples, see ], ] or ], France. If such tables are used for Vojvodina and Kosovo, that would simply bring these Serbian provinces into line with the way that subnational divisions are covered in articles on many other European countries. It has nothing to do with whether they are states or not. In fact, ] probably has less political independence than Vojvodina does now, but it also has a summary table. -- ] 02:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Name of Vojvodina?== |
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't we add that ethnic Vojvodina ] refer to their region as ''Vajdaság''? --] 16:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If it's one of the official names for the region, yes. What about the other ethnic minorities? The article lists Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian, Ruthenian and Croatian as the official languages so presumably there must be (five?) variants of the name? -- ] 16:50, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's actually ''Vájdaság'', but I doubt it's official (and will check out asap). Slovaks would use ''Vojvodina'', as well as the Croats (the lovely ] is my mother tongue!), whereas Romanians tend to use 'Voivodina'. Ruthenians? Gotta ask my ex. She's one. ] 19:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Just to derive a bit, the amount of ] showed in the list of population seems be a bit low (and the amount of ] somehow too high). From where was taken that figure? Is that an objective source? --] 21:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Data is official data from 2002 census. In census, everyone can freely declare nationality, even a non-existant one. ] 06:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The link to the source is right there at the bottom of the article. --] |
|
|
|
|
|
The language mentioned is not Slovak, it's Slovenian. ] 13:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: No, it is not Slovenian, it is Slovak. --] 18:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Languages == |
|
|
|
|
|
Boraczek, do you have a reference to a statute saying that they're all equal everywhere? As far as I know, Croatian is only used in a couple of municipalities, as are several others, only Hungarian comes close to Serbian when it comes to distribution. --] 11:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Hello, Shallot! Well, the article 6 of the Statute of AP Vojvodina says: |
|
|
: ''U Autonomnoj Pokrajini Vojvodini su, u ravnopravnoj službenoj upotrebi srpski, mađarski, hrvatski, slovački, rumunski, i rusinski jezik i pisma.'' |
|
|
: You're probably right that most of the municipalities don't use Croatian, but I think that's not the point. The point is that Croatian is legally established as an official language of '''whole''' Vojvodina and as equal (''ravnopravna upotreba'') to Serbian. Do you agree? Kind regards. ] 16:42, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm talking off the top of my head here, but I think this may mean that these are the official languages of the provincial government. They are not necessarily officila for local business in all municipalities. ] 03:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: A local person contacted us recently on ] and explained that this is simply a possibility of equality in official municipality documents, not actual use everywhere. Hence I don't think the current phrasing is correct and I'll amend it. --] 13:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Disputed == |
|
|
|
|
|
As a reminder, from Misplaced Pages: How to edit a page; Tips on editing: |
|
|
*'''"Please use a neutral point of view, as Misplaced Pages is not a place to promote points of view."''' |
|
|
*'''"Please cite your sources so others can check and extend your work."''' |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Let's show some respect for each others work, shall we?''' |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Changes ar OK, but let’s discuss it here. Use arguments and sources. Provide data, not opinions. Look at it from different perspectives, not an exclusive one.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
I made the following changes in the "history" section: |
|
|
(I don't mention minor spelling and grammar changes such as deleting the word "latter" used inapropriately) |
|
|
*Added Vojvodina’s geological location in the '''Pannonian Plain''', with it’s alternative names. |
|
|
*Removed '''Dacia'''. This is covered by '''Roman Empire''', of which D. was a province. |
|
|
*'''Regnum Gepidorum''' > '''Gepid Kingdom'''. There is no point in using the Latin form, all other entities are mentioned in their English form. |
|
|
*'''Bulgarian Empire''' > '''Bulgar Empire'''. In the period in question, the early 10th century, the Bulgars were still a Turkic people. The name Bulgarian is normally reserved for the period after they became slavicized. |
|
|
*Included '''Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes''', which was the official name of the country before it was renamed '''Yugoslavia''' in 1929. |
|
|
*Removed ...has been inhabited '''continuously''' since the Paleolithic and '''Neolithic''' periods... because there is no evidence for continuous habitation, but it is also not very relevant and the the Neolithic period followed the paleolithic, which makes mentioning it rather superfluous... |
|
|
*Removed '''Thracian''', as there is no evidence of any substantial such population. |
|
|
*Removed '''Illyrian uprising AD 6''', because of limited relevance. |
|
|
*Deleted '''capital city of Roman Pannonia and one of four capital cities of Roman Empire'''. The capital of Pannonia was Aquincum, and later when P. was split, the capital of P. Superior was Carnuntum, while Aquincum remained the capital of P. Inferior. |
|
|
*Added '''Gepids''' in the 5th century. |
|
|
*Deleted the specification '''Severans, Abodrites, Branicevci and Serbs''', as this is uncertain at best. |
|
|
*Removed the reference to the Bulgaric '''Duke Salan''' (and map) since he was not a major historical figure (neither by length nor importance of his reign). |
|
|
*Removed the reference to '''Dragutin''', because |
|
|
#He was a Hungarian vasal (see the Misplaced Pages entry under his name) and |
|
|
#He ruled only over Srem, the smallest of Vojvodina’s 3 constituent parts |
|
|
*Removed the reference to a '''Serbian majority''' of 200.000 as early as the 14th century as this is highly disputed. The 2 Hungarian references are … ? According to Encyclopedia Brittanica People > Serbia > Ethnic groups: “After Ottoman armies overran this region in the 14th century, many Serb families fled the southern basins and found shelter northward in the hills of Šumadija.” Which makes it rather unlikely that Serbs were already the majority of the population ever further north. |
|
|
*Pointed out that '''Serbs''' arrived in (still) free Hungary where they '''received land in exchange for millitary services'''. |
|
|
*Removed the reference to '''”Emperor Jovan”''' with map. The reference to a “Serbian Empire” that lasted one whole year is rather preposterous. |
|
|
*Added for the sake of completeness that '''Srem and Backa''' were ruled by the Turks from Buda. |
|
|
*Removed the reference to '''12th century monasteries''', as it may or may not be true (haven’t checked), but chronologically it has no place here. |
|
|
*Made a distinction between '''colonization before 1779''' (no Hungarians and Jews) and thereafter. According to Johann Jakob Ehrler in his 1774 report on Banat there were only 2.400 Hungarians & Bulgarians (0,64%) and 340 Jews (0,09%). |
|
|
*Added that the '''Matica Srpska''' moved to Novi Sad from Budapest. |
|
|
*Added the information that the '''Hungarian revolution''' was inspired by the Hungary’s aspirations for independence from Austria, which is important because it is the action that caused the reaction by Austria and their aides, Hungary’s minorities. |
|
|
*Clarified that the emphasis of the revolution was at first on '''liberation of the peasantry''', which was supported by the nationalitied, and only after most of it’s goals were reached (the major one being the abolition of serfdom), it became a struggle for power between the Hungarians and the minorities. |
|
|
*Deleted the portion starting with '''The Hungarian government replied''', as it has a very one-sided Serb perspective. Besides, the notion that Austria initially supported the Hungarian uprising only to oppose it at a later stage is nonsense. |
|
|
*Addition concerning the '''industrial, commercial development''' in the 2nd half of the 19th century. |
|
|
*Replaced the text concerning the '''“Serbian assembly”''', which as it’s name indicates consisted of mainly Serbs, a few Germans and exactly one (1) Hungarian, with a reference to the Treaty of Trianon, which sealed the transfer of the region from Hungary to the Kingdom of S. C. & S. |
|
|
*Specified the status of the three parts of '''Vojvodina during WW II''' |
|
|
--] 22:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
For Najroda: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Please use a neutral point of view, as Misplaced Pages is not a place to promote points of view." |
|
|
|
|
|
Original article was neutral, and then you come here and changed this. I retrieved original article and put more facts there. |
|
|
Second thing: your point of view is NOT NEUTRAL but largely ANTI-SERB and ANTI-VOJVODINIAN. You deleting all political history of Serbs and political history of Vojvodina and I will not allow this. |
|
|
Vojvodina is part of Serbia and every attempt to delete political history of Serbs in this region is vandalism. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Please cite your sources so others can check and extend your work." |
|
|
|
|
|
I will do this. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Let's show some respect for each others work, shall we?" |
|
|
|
|
|
You first show respect for political history of Serbs and political history of Vojvodina, and then we will discuss other things. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Added Vojvodina’s geological location in the Pannonian Plain, with it’s alternative names" |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Removed Dacia. This is covered by Roman Empire, of which D. was a province" |
|
|
|
|
|
Vojvodina was part of independent Dacia before Roman Empire conquered it. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Regnum Gepidorum > Gepid Kingdom. There is no point in using the Latin form, all other entities are mentioned in their English form" |
|
|
|
|
|
I will change this. Original name in my source was: Regnum Gepidorum. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Bulgarian Empire > Bulgar Empire. In the period in question, the early 10th century, the Bulgars were still a Turkic people. The name Bulgarian is normally reserved for the period after they became slavicized" |
|
|
|
|
|
In maps I have from this time period, it is: Bulgaria. So, I will change this. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Included Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which was the official name of the country before it was renamed Yugoslavia in 1929" |
|
|
|
|
|
Still, it was only different name of same country; there is no reason to include both names. But, if you insist, I will do this. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Removed ...has been inhabited continuously since the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods... because there is no evidence for continuous habitation, but it is also not very relevant and the the Neolithic period followed the paleolithic, which makes mentioning it rather superfluous..." |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Removed Thracian, as there is no evidence of any substantial such population" |
|
|
|
|
|
Dacians were Thracian tribe, and they lived in Banat. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Removed Illyrian uprising AD 6, because of limited relevance" |
|
|
|
|
|
I do not agree. It has big relevance, because it shows that people in this region fought for their freedom in that time. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Deleted capital city of Roman Pannonia and one of four capital cities of Roman Empire. The capital of Pannonia was Aquincum, and later when P. was split, the capital of P. Superior was Carnuntum, while Aquincum remained the capital of P. Inferior" |
|
|
|
|
|
I argue about this with you before, and I proved that you are wrong. Pannonia had several capitals, and one of them was Sirmium. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Added Gepids in the 5th century" |
|
|
|
|
|
No big relevance for this. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Deleted the specification Severans, Abodrites, Branicevci and Serbs, as this is uncertain at best" |
|
|
|
|
|
In the end of article I will post my sources, where I found this facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Removed the reference to the Bulgaric Duke Salan (and map) since he was not a major historical figure (neither by length nor importance of his reign)" |
|
|
|
|
|
He is very important figure for political history of Vojvodina. We can search for origins of political subjectivity of Vojvodina in Dukedom of Salan. Every political creation whose capital city was located in Vojvodina is very important for history of Vojvodina. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Removed the reference to Dragutin, because |
|
|
He was a Hungarian vasal (see the Misplaced Pages entry under his name) and |
|
|
He ruled only over Srem, the smallest of Vojvodina’s 3 constituent parts" |
|
|
|
|
|
My sources say that he was independent ruler (at least during one part of his rule), and that he ruled large territory. And, again, this is very relevant for political history of Vojvodina. I know what you trying to do here: you want to present that Vojvodina do not have any political history at all (which is not true), so you deleting everything about political history of Vojvodina and you want to present your own personal view about history, to show that Vojvodina only belonged to Hungary in history. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Removed the reference to a Serbian majority of 200.000 as early as the 14th century as this is highly disputed. The 2 Hungarian references are … ? According to Encyclopedia Brittanica People > Serbia > Ethnic groups: “After Ottoman armies overran this region in the 14th century, many Serb families fled the southern basins and found shelter northward in the hills of Šumadija.” Which makes it rather unlikely that Serbs were already the majority of the population ever further north" |
|
|
|
|
|
I didn’t post this part about Serbs, but my sources confirming this. There were 200,000 Serbs settlers in all of Hungary (not only in Vojvodina). So, I will change this. Second, this part does not say that there were Serbian majority in that time, but that Serbs were about (or almost) half of population, which is close to truth. |
|
|
First historical sources, which mention Vojvodina under name Rascia (Serbia), are from XV century. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Pointed out that Serbs arrived in (still) free Hungary where they received land in exchange for millitary services" |
|
|
|
|
|
There is part of text where is mentioned that Hungary ruled in Vojvodina until the XVI century. There is no reason to repeat this. |
|
|
And you deleted part about Serbian despots who ruled in Vojvodina as vassals of Hungarian kings. Why? |
|
|
|
|
|
"Removed the reference to ”Emperor Jovan” with map. The reference to a “Serbian Empire” that lasted one whole year is rather preposterous" |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, he was not real Emperor, but he called himself Emperor, and he is mentioned in history only under this title, which was false of course. But, fact is that he was independent ruler at least during a part of his rule. You can’t delete this, because this is historical fact. There are streets named after him in cities in Serbia, and there is also his monument in Subotica. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Added for the sake of completeness that Srem and Backa were ruled by the Turks from Buda" |
|
|
|
|
|
I do not see relevance of this. I will add here that Sandzak of Srem and Sandzak of Segedin existed in territory of Vojvodina (That would be more relevant). |
|
|
|
|
|
"Removed the reference to 12th century monasteries, as it may or may not be true (haven’t checked), but chronologically it has no place here" |
|
|
|
|
|
I said that only oldest Serbian monastery was built in XII century (Which is truth). This is Privina Glava monastery. In history about this monastery is clearly stated that it was build in XII century. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Made a distinction between colonization before 1779 (no Hungarians and Jews) and thereafter. According to Johann Jakob Ehrler in his 1774 report on Banat there were only 2.400 Hungarians & Bulgarians (0,64%) and 340 Jews (0,09%)" |
|
|
|
|
|
I read that Hungarian colonisation began after 1718. And you already said that there were 2.400 Hungarians in 1774 (They obviously migrated after 1718). |
|
|
|
|
|
"Added that the Matica Srpska moved to Novi Sad from Budapest" |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Added the information that the Hungarian revolution was inspired by the Hungary’s aspirations for independence from Austria, which is important because it is the action that caused the reaction by Austria and their aides, Hungary’s minorities" |
|
|
|
|
|
You added that Vienna court turned the Serb settlers and border guards against the Hungarians, which is not truth. Hungarians wanted independence for Hungary, but they didn’t recognised rights of other nationalities (Hungarians were only minority of 37 % in Hungary, according to 1840 data). So, Serbs, Croats and others fought for their rights, which were not recognised by the Hungarians. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Clarified that the emphasis of the revolution was at first on liberation of the peasantry, which was supported by the nationalitied, and only after most of it’s goals were reached (the major one being the abolition of serfdom), it became a struggle for power between the Hungarians and the minorities" |
|
|
|
|
|
No relevance for this. Hungary and Vojvodina were enemies in that time, and that is only Hungarian point of view. Serbs fought for their national freedom in that time. |
|
|
Since this is history of Vojvodina, and not history of Hungary, there is no reason to post the view of Vojvodina`s enemy in that time. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Deleted the portion starting with The Hungarian government replied, as it has a very one-sided Serb perspective. Besides, the notion that Austria initially supported the Hungarian uprising only to oppose it at a later stage is nonsense" |
|
|
|
|
|
As I said, this is history of Vojvodina and this is official history, which is thought in schools in Vojvodina and Serbia. History of Vojvodina is part of history of Serbia and this history should to stand here. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Addition concerning the industrial, commercial development in the 2nd half of the 19th century" |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Replaced the text concerning the “Serbian assembly”, which as it’s name indicates consisted of mainly Serbs, a few Germans and exactly one (1) Hungarian, with a reference to the Treaty of Trianon, which sealed the transfer of the region from Hungary to the Kingdom of S. C. & S" |
|
|
|
|
|
You statement about Trianon is false. Vojvodina united with Serbia in 1918, and Trianon in 1920 only defined exact borders between Vojvodina and Hungary. So, Trianon is not relevant at all for this subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Specified the status of the three parts of Vojvodina during WW II" |
|
|
|
|
|
You didn’t. You didn’t state that Vojvodina was OCCUPIED by Hungary and Croatia. Axis occupation of Yugoslavia (and Vojvodina) was illegal. Yugoslavia was legally internationally recognised as sovereign independent state during the Axis occupation. I will not allow here that somebody defend Axis point of view, because we all know where that can lead. |
|
|
|
|
|
PANONIAN |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
One more thing: you playing dirty: you protected your own page. |
|
|
You have to protect page as it was before you changed it, because your page is DISPUTED. |
|
|
I want to hear what other members of Misplaced Pages think about this. |
|
|
|
|
|
PANONIAN |
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
Now, I am willing to discuss what history would be accepted by both of us and what changes should to happen in this original page before any of us come here. |
|
|
Your opinion? |
|
|
|
|
|
PANONIAN |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
::Panonian, you may argue that the original article (I assume that by that you mean the last version before I edited it) was neutral, but it wasn't. It was very one-sided from a Serb perspective. Even in it's wording it is highly pejorative. For example in one paragraph it said "The Hungarian government replied by the use of force" and "the Serbian army fought courageously". Neither the content nor the form were neutral. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Do not mistake the fact that I do not subscribe to your one-sided Serb perspective, rather to a more accurate and balanced account, for "anti-serbness". Yes, I deleted some details, because they created the false impression that there has been a political continuity in the territory we today call Vojvodina for the last 2000 years. This simply is not true. I do not deny that there is a Serb political history in the region, but presenting it while omiting or twisting the political history of other nations is not acceptable. About your accusation that I do not show respect for the history of the Serbs, I believe I have shown much more respect for it than you have ever shown for Hungarian history. That's probably because I realize that Vojvodina's history is not Serb history or Hungarian history, but common history. (but also Austrian, Croatian, Turkish, Slovak, Romanian, etc. history, of course). |
|
|
|
|
|
::About your mentioning of the Illyrian uprising AD 6, well, every nation has fought for it's freedom at one point in time. If you believe it's necessary to mention you should give some more details. But you don't even find the Hungarian freedom fight of just 160 years ago worth mentioning, (except picturing them as aggressors against Serbs) so... |
|
|
|
|
|
::About Duke Salan, you argue that you can "search for origins of autonomy in Vojvodina". I hate to disappoint you, but there was no Vojvodina at that time, as ther would not be for almost another millenium. If there was an overlap in territory with the Vojvodina of today than that's rather coincidental. Otherwise there is no connection, politically, ethnically, or in any other way. Any historian can tell you that you should never write history in retrospect. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I don't think you are serious about your accusation that I intend to show Vojvodina as only having belonged to Hungary, as the opposite should become clear instantly when reading my additions to the article. Remember that the history section before I edited it, started with "Vojvodina is the Serbian name for the territory of Northern Serbia, which belonged to Austria-Hungary before World War I." I believe that list is subtstantially longer now. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I don't know where you get the idea from that I am a supporter of Greater Hungary. You must be mistaking me for someone else. Or your simply projecting your own sentiments on me. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am glad though that you agree with the large majority of my amendments, as for the few that you don't agree with, this is only because you fail to see that Vojvodina's history is (at least) as much Hungarian as Serbian. With statements such as "Since this is history of Vojvodina, and not history of Hungary, there is no reason to post the view of Vojvodina`s enemy in that time." and "As I said, this is history of Vojvodina and this is official history, which is thought in schools in Vojvodina and Serbia. You go to Misplaced Pages article about Hungary and wrote there this Hungarian point of view. But history of Vojvodina is part of history of Serbia and official Serbian history should to stand here.", you disqualify yourself from this discussion. --] 01:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::OK, here's the idea. I'll strip the article to those parts that are not disputed. I'll leave out or only mention in very general and neutral terms those events of which the relevance, accuracy or both are disputed, like the 1848-1849 revolutionary years. I suggest no one should include disputed subjects, before we discuss them here and reach some form of consensus. I have requested for comment on ] to get more input and a better quality of consensus. --] 08:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
For Najroda: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, I deleted some details, because they created the false impression that there has been a political continuity in the territory we today call Vojvodina for the last 2000 years" |
|
|
|
|
|
I do not agree that this creating false impression about political continuity. This only shows that this region had some political meaning in some parts of history. For example, Dukedom of Salan have no political continuity with present day Vojvodina, but this fact showing that this region was important in that time. To say that territory of Vojvodina was part of some countries (Turkey, Hungary or Roman Empire) is more history of these countries then history of Vojvodina. Only autochthon political creations, which had political centre in territory of present day Vojvodina are really important for its history. If you, for example, wrote about history of Bulgaria, you will not wrote that Bulgaria was part of Turkey or Byzantium Empire, but you will wrote about time periods when Bulgaria was independent or autonomous. There is clearly no political continuity between medieval and modern Bulgaria, but medieval Bulgaria is part of history of modern Bulgaria. In the same way, Roman Pannonia, Dukedom of Salan and "Empire" of Jovan Nenad are parts of history of modern Vojvodina and we should to include this here. |
|
|
|
|
|
"I do not deny that there is a Serb political history in the region, but presenting it while omiting or twisting the political history of other nations is not acceptable" |
|
|
|
|
|
Can we do this: I will write about political history of Serbs and you write about political history of Hungarians, and we will put both things in text. I want to put only these things: Dukedom of Salan (including map), King Dragutin, Serbian despots and Jovan Nenad. As for war in 1848/1849, let find some neutral view about this. Now, what would you write about history of Hungarians? |
|
|
|
|
|
"I am glad though that you agree with the large majority of my amendments, as for the few that you don't agree with, this is only because you fail to see that Vojvodina's history is (at least) as much Hungarian as Serbian" |
|
|
|
|
|
But you wrote these things in non-neutral way. Change the way in which you saying that, and I will not object. |
|
|
|
|
|
"you disqualify yourself from this discussion" |
|
|
|
|
|
I only defend official history instead of the alternative one. But I will accept all your reasonable arguments against official version of history. |
|
|
|
|
|
"OK, here's the idea. I'll strip the article to those parts that are not disputed. I'll leave out or only mention in very general and neutral terms those events of which the relevance, accuracy or both are disputed, like the 1848-1849 revolutionary years. I suggest no one should include disputed subjects, before we discuss them here and reach some form of consensus" |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
"I have requested for comment on ] to get more input and a better quality of consensus" |
|
|
|
|
|
Let try first to find consensus between us, and if this doesn’t work, then ask for help (I am really get tired of this revert war between us). |
|
|
|
|
|
PANONIAN |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think that the current version is as complete as possible, without the disputed parts. I'm sure we can find consensus on the rest too. --] 21:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
----- |
|
|
Just a note: the same stuff about empire of Jovan and whatnot is at ]. --] 22:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
I still have objections. |
|
|
Seems that you didn’t modified original page, but your own. |
|
|
There are still too much disputed statements that I have to edit this page again. |
|
|
I will try to make this page to be neutral now, and you are free to say if it is not. |
|
|
As for Backa, we will discuss that latter (But original article about Backa was not neutral, that is why I changed it). |
|
|
|
|
|
PANONIAN |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
|
|
What is the "original" page? Your own? You have very pecualiar idea about neutrality. I will tackle your "neautral" changes one by one below. Besides that, your "original" version is packed with serious grammatical and/or spelling errors and so are most of your changes, which cause extra work for others to correct. |
|
|
*You changed ''the region became and integral part of Hungary'' into ''The region was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, which ruled over it until the 16th century.'' Which suggests that Vojvodina was already a political entity between the 9th and 16th century, occupied by Hungary ("rule over"), which is simply not true. |
|
|
*You deleted the background of the Serb immigration from the 14th century onward. Why? |
|
|
*You deleted the reference to the separation of the military frontiers from Hungary. I'm starting to wonder if you consider any reference to Hungary not neutral? If you're serious about that, we should delete all references to Serbia too. Shall I? |
|
|
*You changed ''Vojvodina and the Banat were reintegrated into Hungary'' into ''these territories were incorporated into Hungary'', as if they had not been part of Hungary for centuries... |
|
|
*I wonder why you deleted the ethnic break-down of Vojvodina in 1920. |
|
|
If I were as childish as you I guess I should be shouting "stop vandalism and anti-Hungarian propaganda"... --] 10:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
For Najroda: |
|
|
|
|
|
"What is the "original" page? Your own? You have very pecualiar idea about neutrality" |
|
|
|
|
|
I can say same thing for you, because your "neutral" page is totally pro-Hungarian (You put word "Hungary" in almost every sentence, where it was not necessary to mention it). |
|
|
|
|
|
"You changed the region became and integral part of Hungary into The region was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, which ruled over it until the 16th century. Which suggests that Vojvodina was already a political entity between the 9th and 16th century, occupied by Hungary ("rule over"), which is simply not true" |
|
|
|
|
|
It is true that Hungary ruled over it, because, original inhabitants of this region were Slavs, Bulgarians and Vlachs, who fought against Hungarian rule. Hungary enslaved them and ruled over their land. So, it was not integral part of Hungary, but it was more a colony. |
|
|
|
|
|
"You deleted the background of the Serb immigration from the 14th century onward. Why?" |
|
|
|
|
|
It was not true. |
|
|
|
|
|
"You deleted the reference to the separation of the military frontiers from Hungary. I'm starting to wonder if you consider any reference to Hungary not neutral? If you're serious about that, we should delete all references to Serbia too. Shall I?" |
|
|
|
|
|
It was not separated from Hungary. You objected that original article was pro-Serb. Well, you make it to be pro-Hungarian. |
|
|
|
|
|
"You changed Vojvodina and the Banat were reintegrated into Hungary into these territories were incorporated into Hungary, as if they had not been part of Hungary for centuries..." |
|
|
|
|
|
It is more political then historical statement. Vojvodina only was ruled by Hungary, not part of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
"I wonder why you deleted the ethnic break-down of Vojvodina in 1920" |
|
|
|
|
|
Because it creates a false impression that Vojvodina existed with present day borders in 1920, which is not true. It was ethnic breakdown of non-existing territory. I will also delete ethnic map from 1910 because of same reason, and because this map is inaccurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
"If I were as childish as you I guess I should be shouting "stop vandalism and anti- Hungarian propaganda"." |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you to make this article really neutral (not pro-Serb), but I didn’t agree to make it pro-Hungarian. Let work more in this direction. |
|
|
By the way, I accepted large majority of your arguments. You do not expect from me to accept all, do you? Did you hear for the word compromise? |
|
|
|
|
|
PANONIAN |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to bring you the news, but your "contributions" do this article little good. For example the line "Serbs started to settling in this region in large number from the 14th century onward." contains no less than 3 grammatical errors... |
|
|
|
|
|
*"You put word "Hungary" in many places, where it was not necessary to mention it." Not necessary or unwanted from a Serb point of view? |
|
|
*"It is true that Hungary ruled over it, because, original inhabitants of this region were Slavs, Bulgarians and Vlachs". So what? That happened all the time. This argument has zero relevance, especially if you consider that we are discussing the era of the great migrations. Besides, if you look at it now, Slavs were also relative newcomers, which makes your argument even more ridiculous. |
|
|
*"who fought against Hungarian occupation". You just say this, but don't know it. Or come up with some sources. The border of proof is on you and I ask you not to revert this section. |
|
|
*"Hungary enslaved them and ruled over their land. So, it was not integral part of Hungary, but it was more a colony." Same here. Don't just make wild claims, but back them up. BTW if the Slavs had such a terrible time in Hungary, how come the Slavic Serbs came to Hungary in such large numbers? Again, burden of proof, don't revert unless backed by facts. |
|
|
*"It was not true." Again, easy to say. The migration of the a large Serb population is very relevant to the history of Vojvodina. I gave one, and you simply deny, without even giving an alternative view. That makes the article incomplete. This is what RADOS LJUSIC says in "The History of Serbian Culture" (featured on the website of the Serb unity Congress): ''"The Turkish conquest of the Balkans and Danube basin were preceded and followed by migrations of the Serbian people. As the Turks penetrated into the land the Serbs withdrew. The Serbs migrated ahead of the invading Turks because they did not want to live under the Turkish rule, and they sought protection in the neighbouring Christian states who welcomed them to settle along the deserted borderlands... and the Serbs participated in their wars."'' |
|
|
*"It was not separated from Hungary." It was a part of Hungary before the Turkish occupation. Even you don't deny this. Yet, after the Turkish conquest when Hungary was admninistrativelyb restored (even if ruled by Vienna), certain parts, like the military frontier, Banat, Transylvania were not ruled from Budapest but directly from Vienna. How do you call this if not seperated? |
|
|
*"It (reintegrated into Hungary) is more political then historical statement. Vojvodina only was occupied by Hungary, not part of it." Yet you say "After World War II Vojvodina was restored as a province of Serbia". but of course that's a neutral remark, right? Sorry pal, but you're measuring with double standards! |
|
|
*"Because it creates a false impression that Vojvodina existed with present day borders in 1920, which is not true. It was ethnic breakdown of non-existing territory." You speak about Vojvodina, even in a medieval context, but of course only when it suits you... But of course the fact that only 1/3 of the population at the time was Serb is anti-Serb propaganda, right?" |
|
|
*"You do not expect from me to accept all, do you?" I expect you to accept them if they are backed by facts, and reliable sources. So far yo keep reverting, but haven't named one reliable source yet... --] 18:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
I won't go into discussions about content here, as I don't presume to know enough about the history of Vojvodina. But, I would like to ask both Najroda and PANONIAN to take a deep breath and count to 10. Then, please read ]. Then, please consider stopping the tit-for-tat point-by-point exchange. Try to establish what facts you both agree on, and then try to provide a balanced representation of sources for things that you don't agree on. That should make a decent article. ] 18:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
Zocky, |
|
|
|
|
|
I deleted now all disputed parts, and I expect that Najroda not put anything in this article, if there is no consensus about that. |
|
|
And I read your link: "One country's days of glory can be another country's age of foreign occupation". |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with this statement. For Serbs, Hungarian rule was only foreign occupation. PANONIAN |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
|
|
Panonian, you're an idiot. You have crossed a line now. I never rehabilitated fascists (quote where you think I did that!). My father was a forced labourer in Nazi Germany and he nearly died there of pleurisy. Nevertheless I don't equate Germans with Nazis. In your simplistic mind though Hungarians equal Fascists and occupiers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever considered that Hungarians may consider Serbs (at least ones like you) as occupiers? Doesn't it bother you that Serbs were granted asylum in Hungary when they were fleeing from the Turks? And now they're behaving as if God gave it them exclusively? Doesn't it bother you that prior to WW II Vojvodina never had a Serb majority, and that it now has only because of ethnical cleansing? |
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it does. Otherwise you would not frantically delete every bit of information that discloses these facts.--] 20:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Is that a new record? Revereted in 2 minutes. Congratulations! You know what? You can have your fucking Vojvodina page. Ruin it if you like with your simplistic schoolbook history (Nota Bene you probably don't realize you grew up in one of Europe's most nationalistic countries and that history books aren't exactly conisdered reliable there to put it mildly) and your terrible English. You even manage to deny facts that are confirmed by Serb historians. You've pretty much disclosed yourself with your nonsense about national pride. Here's one for your nationalistic pride: Sayonara stupid balkanic donkey. You must have an awful lot of friends. No one has been able to piss me off like his in years. Puke. --] 21:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
"You can have your Vojvodina page" |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
PANONIAN |
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
Errr, maybe you should both go do something else for a while and come back to this article next year. ] 01:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
Najroda, |
|
|
|
|
|
"Serbs started to settling in this region in large number from the 14th century onward." contains no less than 3 grammatical errors" |
|
|
|
|
|
Then change the errors, but not change the statement, because your statement about this is false. You say that Serbs started to settle here in 14 century and that is not truth, because Serbs live in Vojvodina in smaller numbers since 7th century. They only started to come here in large numbers in 14th century. |
|
|
|
|
|
"You put word "Hungary" in many places, where it was not necessary to mention it." Not necessary or unwanted from a Serb point of view?" |
|
|
|
|
|
You deleted mention of Serbian Vojvodina in 1848/1849 and everything else about political history of Vojvodina and political history of Serbs. Unwanted from your point of view? |
|
|
|
|
|
"Again, easy to say" |
|
|
|
|
|
Statement that Serbs were only peasants serving to Hungary is false. Serbs also were Despots and Dukes, and majority of Serbs settled in Vojvodina because those Despots and Dukes invited them to come here. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Yet, after the Turkish conquest when Hungary was admninistrativelyb restored (even if ruled by Vienna)" |
|
|
|
|
|
That is the point; it was not Hungary, but Austria. |
|
|
|
|
|
"But of course the fact that only 1/3 of the population at the time was Serb is anti-Serb propaganda, right?" |
|
|
|
|
|
If this territory didn’t existed in that time, then it is anti-Serb propaganda. However, Hungary existed as province of Austria in XIX century, but Hungarians in that Hungary were only minority of 37 %. Why you didn’t write this? |
|
|
|
|
|
"I expect you to accept them if they are backed by facts, and reliable sources. So far yo keep reverting, but haven't named one reliable source yet" |
|
|
|
|
|
My sources are posted in the end of the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
"In your simplistic mind though Hungarians equal Fascists and occupiers" |
|
|
|
|
|
I have nothing against Hungarians, but what can I think about those Hungarians who deleting everything about political history of Vojvodina and Serbs? |
|
|
|
|
|
"Doesn't it bother you that prior to WW II Vojvodina never had a Serb majority" |
|
|
|
|
|
During Turkish rule, Serbian population was about 90% of inhabitants of Vojvodina. It is truth that Serbs were not absolute majority in Vojvodina during Austrian rule, but still, they were relative majority (largest ethnic group). |
|
|
|
|
|
PANONIAN |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
Zocky, |
|
|
|
|
|
"Errr, maybe you should both go do something else for a while and come back to this article next year" |
|
|
|
|
|
I was willing to find compromise, and that is why I deleted all disputed parts until consensus about them was found, but Najroda reverted again disputed parts and claimed that his version of page is neutral (and it was not). |
|
|
So, what can I say more? Since he called me a donkey and give up, I was free to change article in way I think it is the best (But I still accepted many reasonable arguments of Najroda). |
|
|
P.S. If my English is so bad, you people are free to change grammatical errors in text. |
|
|
|
|
|
PANONIAN |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
|
|
== Jovan Nenad == |
|
|
|
|
|
This "emperor" has a fair bit of space for such a small and relatively insignificant person. Just because he called himself emperor that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention him like just another local noble, and note the "imperial" status just as a curiosity... Other, more important things should have descriptive maps instead. --] 22:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, let discuss this. |
|
|
I mean, what is important for history of one region such is Vojvodina if not parts of history when that region was autonomous or independent? |
|
|
If we search in history for political entities, which existed in the territory of Vojvodina in the past, we can’t miss to mention the Empire of Jovan Nenad or Dukedom of Salan (Those are important parts of autochthon regional history). |
|
|
For example, this book is important source about Jovan Nenad: Dr Aleksa Ivic, Srbi u Vojvodini, Novi Sad, 1929. Author of this book wrote that Jovan Nenad was architect (začetnik) of present day Vojvodina. It was first Serbian political creation in history, which originally existed in the territory of Vojvodina. That is why this is important. |
|
|
But fact is that there is not much text about him here (only two sentences and map). |
|
|
You said that other more important things should to have descriptive maps here. |
|
|
What things? What are your suggestions? |
|
|
My intention with those maps was to show all autochthon political creations, which existed in the territory of Vojvodina in history. For example, here is map of modern Vojvodina, then map of Serbian Vojvodina in 1849, then map of Empire of Jovan Nenad and map of Dukedom of Salan. Ok, I didn’t upload map of Dunavska Banovina or map of Vojvodina as it was in 1848 (very different borders then those in 1849), but it would be too many maps here if I done this. My thought was that those 4 maps are the most important. PANONIAN |
|
|
|
|
|
: A map of king Dragutin's areas would be useful, because he's an actual Serbian king recognized in the lineage and one that lasted for 32 years. Maps of Vojvodina inbetween those periods of independence/autonomy should also be provided, because they were notable too. A map of the Turkish provinces, a map closing up on the parts of the Military Frontier in Vojvodina, and that one that has the 1867 comitatuses too. All these things lasted much longer than Jovan Nenad so it's not painting a ] of history to concentrate on one and not the other. --] 11:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
Ok, let see, you want to put some other maps here. Fair enough, but that doesn’t mean that we should to remove map, which show empire of Jovan Nenad. I can upload more maps here, but tell me, how would article look like in esthetical sense if there is 9-10 maps in it? It is pretty good now in esthetical point of view (5 maps and 3 pictures). Of course, somebody may not agree with this. So, you suggest uploading more maps, right? |
|
|
Other thing, I do not like that map I posted in article about Srem, which shows territory ruled by king Dragutin, because it shows only a part of his territory (I want to upload another map, which shows all of territory ruled by him). |
|
|
|
|
|
Now about Jovan Nenad. Your argument here was that he was unimportant person. Well, that might not be correct. He is partially controversial historical figure, but he is not so insignificant as you think. I will show you some quotes about him (Those quotes are in Serbo-Croatian, but since you are from Croatia, you will be able to read them, and I do not have time to translate them into English). I already posted some English quotes about him in talk page about Backa and I will not repeat those, but post some other. |
|
|
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Backa |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-bl/istorija/corovic/istorija/6_1_l.html |
|
|
Za Zapolju se izjasnio i "car" Jovan Nenad, jedna neobicna i jos uvek misteriozna licnost, koja se pojavila u ovaj mah medju Srbima. On je izbio na povrsinu posle turskog povlacenja, koje je u juznim oblastima ostavilo pravu pustos. |
|
|
On se sam izdavao za potomka srpskih i vizantiskih vladara i uzeo je naziv cara. Ime Jovan kao da je dodao iz bugarske vladarske tradicije. |
|
|
Turske cete i posede, koje su se nalazile u Backoj, nisu bile mnogoborojne i Jovan Nenad nije imao mnogo muke da ih savlada i protera. Ali to mu je diglo ugled i raznelo glas. Za svoju prestonicu izabrao je Suboticu, koju je njen gospodar bezeci ispred Turaka, bio napustio. Tu je stvorio svoj dvor; organizovao svoju telesnu strazu od 600 mladica, koje je prozvao janicarima; i ponasao se kao pravi vladar. Iz Backe on je potom prosirio svoju akciju i na Srem. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.visitvojvodina.com/engine.php/Srpski/Osnovne%20informacije/Istorija |
|
|
U vreme kada se vodila borba za ugarski presto, u Banatu je Jovan Nenad 1526. godine poveo oslobodilacku borbu srpskog naroda. Osvojivsi veci deo (juzne) Ugarske, proglasio se carem u Subotici, stvorivsi srpsko narodno jezgro, koje je, pod udarima ugarskog plemstva, nepunu godinu kasnije unisteno. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.homolje.co.yu/srbrumun.htm |
|
|
U dramaticnim okolnostima, posle mohacke katastrofe, na podrucju Lipove na Morisu 1526. godine izrastao je oslobodilacki pokret srpskog naroda, kojem je na celo stao Jovan Nenad. Imajuci u to vreme najmocniju vojnu silu na panonskom prostoru sa 15.000 naoruzanih ljudi, za kratko vreme osvojivsi teritoriju istocnog i juznog dela Panonske nizije, stvorio je snazno srpsko etnicko jezgro. |
|
|
Na vrhuncu moci, pozivajuci se na vizantijske i srpske tradicije, Jovan Nenad se, u svojoj prestonici Subotici, proglasio carem. Da bi uspesno vladao sirokim prostranstvom, ustanovio je i drugu prestonicu - Comu na Tamisu u blizini Temisvara. Nepunu godinu dana kasnije, 1527. godine, oslobodilacki pokret srpskog naroda u Panonskoj niziji, pod vodstvom cara Jovana Nenada, udruzenim snagama ugarskog plemstva u krvi je ugusen. Jovan Nenad je mucki ubijen. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.zarez.hr/59/z_putopis.htm |
|
|
za Srbe je on dalekovidni preteca sjevernog protezanja njihove danasnje drzave |
|
|
|
|
|
http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.co.yu/arhiva/2001/03/05/pisma/srpski/pisma.shtml |
|
|
Car Jovan Nenad Crni ostvario je obnovu srpskog carstva na panonskim prostorima, a u Subotici je podigao dvorac, te Suboticu proglasio prestonim gradom srpske carevine. |
|
|
Ilarion Ruvarac, istoricar, je o njemu zapisao "da je najznacajnija istorijska figura svog doba". Hiljadu petsto dvadeset sedme godine Madjari su ubili cara Jovana Nenada Crnog, odsekli mu glavu i poslali je u Budim. |
|
|
S obzirom na istorijski znacaj licnosti cara Jovana Nenada po oslobodjenju ovih krajeva, podignut mu je spomenik, na gradskom trgu u Subotici 1927. godine. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry if this text is too large, but I tried to be as brief as possible. I have also 3 historical books with much more information about Jovan Nenad. I posted only 2 sentences about him in the article, but that is because most sources about him are in Serbo-Croatian and I do not have time to translate those into English at this time (I will do that in the latter time and I will open separate article about Jovan Nenad and post more information there, including map and picture of his statue in Subotica). |
|
|
|
|
|
I will not comment much my quotes above (you can read them for yourself). I will only note that Jovan Nenad appeared in the time when Zapolja and Ferdinand (2 pretenders to Hungarian crown) fought each other. Jovan Nenad was loyal to Zapolja at first, but latter he refused to obey him, and declared himself independent ruler (Emperor). He defeated army sent by Zapolja against him. So, at one point of time, he got larger army then Zapolja and Ferdinand. That can show how important Jovan Nenad actually was in that time. |
|
|
|
|
|
Your argument was that he ruled for only small period of time and that he is not important because of that. But many historians in Vojvodina and Serbia consider him to be architect of present day Vojvodina. There is inscription on his statue in Subotica, which says: "Your idea has won" (His idea is present day Vojvodina). That is why he is so important for history of Vojvodina. You may argue that king Dragutin actually was first Serbian ruler, who ruled here, but residence of king Dragutin was Debrc (in Macva) and latter moved to Belgrade (And Belgrade is current capital of Serbia). So, territory of king Dragutin is more political ancestor of Serbia as a whole, then political ancestor of Vojvodina. |
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, I do not insist that map of Empire of Jovan Nenad should to stand in this article. I will open new article about him and post this map there. Just to explain what was my intention in this article. My thought was that it would be non-esthetical if I post both, map and picture, about one specific historical question. For example, I posted pictures of Roman Emperor Traian, king Dragutin and Stevan Supljikac. I also could to post map of Pannonia, map of Kingdom of Srem and map of Serbian Vojvodina in 1848 instead of this (But my thought was that article would be better if there are no maps together with pictures of same question). I also could to post picture of statue of Jovan Nenad instead of map. Ok, tell me your opinion what to post where? Where should be better to be picture of ruler and where should be better to be a map? PANONIAN |
|
|
|
|
|
== time zone == |
|
|
|
|
|
== time zone == |
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't Vojvodina under CET, thus UTC+1? |
|
|
|
|
|
==History== |
|
|
|
|
|
I realize this is a delicate issue, but the history section needs a more NPOV. I don't see the relevance of the reference to several local rulers, as it is not made clear why they are more relevant to the history of the region than others, except for the fact that they were Serbs in a period when most rulers (and the majority of the population) were not. In some cases, like Dragutin, the territory he ruled doesn't even coincide or only minimally (Srem) with present day Vojvodina, and since he ruled from Belgrade, it is more appropriate to mention him under Serb history. I see there is already consensus that the self-proclaimed "emperor" Jovan Nenad moves to an entirely seperate section. |
|
|
I also suggest to ommit references to the region's demographic make-up, as there already is a seperate section dedicated to it. |
|
|
A reference to Illyrian and Serb uprisings against the Roman and Turkish rule, respectively, is fine, but does not that need some context? I suggest to remove those references untill further elaboration. |
|
|
The dealing with the 1848 revolution seems very pro-Serb biased, this urgently needs to be written NPOV or balanced with alternate (Austrian, Hungarian, Croatian) POV's. --] 00:43, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
For Steven Zonderman: first one question: are you Najroda who come under different nickname? I bet that you are. Second: I regard every deleting of history of Serbs in Vojvodina as vandalism; so if you want to improve this article, try to do that with no deleting history of Serbs. You see no relevance of the reference to several local rulers because you probably do not understand meaning of the words: regionalism and regional history. This is local history and that is why reference to local rulers is important. Every region in this World has two histories: autochthon history and imposed history. Autochthon history is history of region in the time periods when this region was independent or autonomous (or ruled by local rulers). Imposed history is history of the region in the time periods when region was under foreign rule or not ruled by local rulers. Only autochthon history is a true history of every region of this Earth. Also, it is not truth that majority of the population were not Serbs when these local Serb rulers ruled. All territories where they ruled had Serbian ethnic majority in that time. As for king Dragutin, it is important to mention him because his state was called Kingdom of Srem, and Srem is one of three regions of present day Vojvodina. Also, there is separate section about Jovan Nenad, but there should be also mention of him here because he is one of the most important persons from history of Vojvodina (Perhaps he was the most important person of all). I do not see a reason to omit references about demographic make up of the region. People who read the article could find that interesting and it does not comprise much space that we should to remove it because of that. As for context of Illyrian and Serbian uprising, it would not be bad that this had wider context, but since it has not, it should stand here in the way it stand now until wider context is written. And what exact is biased in 1848 events? Serbs were the one who created Vojvodina in 1848 (not Hungarians). Hungarians fought against it in that time. If you didn’t noticed, this is article about Vojvodina, not about Hungary. I am open to hear your proposals how to improve this article, but only if this does not include deleting history of Serbs or deleting autochthon history of the region. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Historical sources== |
|
|
For anonymous user (65.208.210.97): I originally posted only few most important sources for history of Vojvodina (I could to post more than 50 books in this list, but my thought was that only most important sources should be mentioned here). So, I do not want to argue are sources posted by you important or not, but since you posted them, at least provide all 4 bibliographical references for them (name of author, name of book, place of publishing, year of publishing). If possible, please provide these references. |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
==History again== |
|
|
I don't want do drag about, but there are some facts in this article that are historcly doubtfull. Perhaps it is better to say that they are not in the right context. For example there is slim mention of the local Croats, and Srijem (wich is one of the three parts of voivodina, other two beeing Backa & Banat) was part of Croat kindom. Perhaps it is important to say that northern Backa was first included in Kingdom SHS because of high percentige of Croats in it(it's capital Subotica had a croat majority then(it was smaller than off course:)) Also, that the part of Backa which is now in Hungary (socalled "Bajski trokut" -Baja triangle)also had a croatian majority, and because of that was left to Hungary, in words of N.Pasic(serbian pm) "We have too much catolics already". Also some of the serbian states in high midlle ages in this territory were serbian only in the fact that theirs ruler was ethnic serb, vasal of the hungarian king, and not because of the population in their soil. Also, there is no mention of rebelion in the early 7th century by croat dux Ljudevit against the Frankish and Bulgarian control of the region(rebelion wasn't strictly ethnic as it included territory from today Austria to Bulgaria(and southern Vojvodina,which is important in this context). I know that primarly aspect of this article is serbian part in history of that region, but I think that is important to underline it ethnic diversity, and historicly serbians had been ethnicly present in significant numbers only after 1690 (great migrations of the serbs) and not necesary a majority (Vojvodina was colonised by many people in the Habsouburg empire, it even had a german minority! (witch was banished after ww2)) So my greatest complaint on this article is that is ethnicly exclusive and that it does not comprehends whole history of this teritory. ] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
I do not see a problem that you include mention of Ljudevit rebellion or mention that Croats were majority in Subotica. However, you are wrong about Serbian population of Vojvodina. Serbs are majority in Vojvodina since 1526 (not since 1690) and there were also many Serbs in Vojvodina before 1526 (especially in Srem). ] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
History doubtful or not, this article needs serious rebalancing. "History" section takes about 2/3 of it and IMO it should be moved to a separate article, with just a couple of paragraphs left in for a casual reader. Ditto for other sections (Geography, Politics) -- they need a couple of brief paragraphs to give a reader an idea about it. For example, "Politics" section should definitely mention the broad spectrum of opinions about Province's authonomy, regardless of whether it's mentioned in another articles. ] 13:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
Ok, I just moved most of the history section to the new article: ], and left here the shorter version. As for the opinions about autonomy there is so much different opinions about this, that entire new article should be written to cover them all. ] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
I just wrote article ]. I hope this will cover the subject. ] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
== The map is wrong == |
|
|
|
|
|
The map "Dukedom of Salan" is a <strike>piece of crap</strike>. Since when is Romania part of Bulgaria, and since when is Glad Bulgarian? Glad and Morut were some of the first '''Romanians''' to rule that area. Change the map! It should say Romania, or nothing at all, because Romania didn't exist as a state back then, but it also wasn't part of Bulgaria, that's for sure! |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 23:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
* According to ], Salan and Glad were vassals of Bulgaria. Various historical maps show that entire region was part of Bulgaria in that time. Here is the article about history of Bulgaria: |
|
|
* http://en.wikipedia.org/First_Bulgarian_Empire#The_First_Bulgarian_Empire |
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: "Under the warrior Khan Krum (802-814), also known as Crummus and Keanus Magnus, Bulgaria expanded northwest and southwards, occupying the lands between middle Danube and Moldova, the whole territory of present-day Romania" |
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: "By the late 9th and the begining of the 10th century Bulgaria extended to Epirus and Thessally in the south, Bosnia in the west and controlled the whole of present-day Romania and eastern Hungary to the north." |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, you should read the book of Neagu Djuvara, a Romanian historian (O scurta istorie a romanilor, povestita celor tineri de Neagu Djuvara, Bucuresti, 2002). He claim that Glad was a Bulgarian. |
|
|
|
|
|
I will change map if you show me what else to write instead of Bulgaria (Romania did not existed in that time, and it is not good idea to write nothing). If you have some sources which claim that somebody else ruled over the area, please post these sources here. ] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
You seem to have studied this issue a lot. I have to admit that I wasn't really prepared with facts for this discussion. I blame it on the Romanian junior high school history books, which talk about Glad and Morut (and Gelu) as the first Romanians to establish independent states. I also apologize for the harsh language used in my first intervention on this talk page. I think I was having a bad day that time :-) (And I really didn't know that the map was made by you. You are a respected user who has contributed a lot of excellent articles, and I wouldn't even have thought to call your map what I called it. Sorry, and I want to thank you for keeping your calm despite my language.) --] 22:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Apparently of the three, only Gelu was Romanian. Back then there were some Bulgarians in what is now Romania and there were some Romanians in what is now Bulgaria. :-) ] 23:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== For Ragusan == |
|
|
Ok, here is why some of your edits are wrong: |
|
|
|
|
|
* "northern-most province of Serbia and Montenegro" |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Vojvodina is province of Serbia, not of Serbia-Montenegro, while Serbia have only 2 provinces: the one is northern, and the other is southern, so the word "northern-most" is not appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "six languages which all enjoy officialdom to a varying degree" |
|
|
|
|
|
All these 6 languages are official on provincial level, so it is wrong to write that they "enjoy officialdom to a varying degree", since they all enjoy officialdom to a SAME degree. Also, to write that "It has no fewer than six languages" is wrong too, since it has many languages, and these 6 are only official ones. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "the founder of several newspapers and magazines in Vojvodina's national languages" |
|
|
|
|
|
The term "national language" is simply not used in Serbia, so please do not change this. ] ] 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
== For Ragusan or Celtmist or who that anonymous user might be == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just to explain difference between official and national language: "National languge" could be a language of nation (country) or language of nation (ethnic group). It is clear that Vojvodina is not a country, while Serbia is not defined as a national country. Officially, Serbia is a state of CITIZENS, not a state of nations, thus official languages of Serbia are OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF CITIZENS, not a "national languages of ethnic groups". ] ] 01:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
Now, here you can see about what I talk: |
|
|
* http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=CS |
|
|
|
|
|
Ethnologue is interesting web site about languages, so here is the entry for Serbia-Montenegro: |
|
|
* National or official languages: Serbian; |
|
|
* regional languages: Hungarian, Gheg Albanian, Slovak. |
|
|
|
|
|
You can clearly see that '''only Serbian''' is a national language here, since it is a state language of nation (Serbia-Montenegro). Those languages of Vojvodina are listed here as '''REGIONAL''' languages, not national. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now, here is entry for Hungarian language: |
|
|
* http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=hun |
|
|
|
|
|
Read this part: Serbia and Montenegro - '''Official''' regional status in Vojvodine. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is entry for Slovak: |
|
|
* http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=slk |
|
|
|
|
|
Read: Serbia and Montenegro - '''Official''' regional status in Vojvodine. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, it is clear that those languages are OFFICIAL, and NOT national. ] ] 12:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
==Second Paragraph Ammendment== |
|
|
I have had a go at editing the second paragraph so that it reflects the dispute. I hope you prefer this one Pannonian. But the Anon is right in referring to national languages and not official. Personally, I researched the data you displayed but people CAN get things wrong if they are unaware. In our country, there is but one official language, they call it Serbian - personally, I don't because I speak it and I am not a Serb. Anyhow, my neighbours were a family of Erkels (ethnic Hungarian) who speak a strange dialect of Hungarian. IF you call these people Hungarian AND their language Hungarian, then that is their ''national'' language, as is so whether or not it is recognized. For it to be official, the national constitution MUST be written in the language (not translated) but written...and it is also conventional practice that before a citizen learns a foreign language in university, he MUST speak all official languages of the country...in Switzerland, that means THREE. In Sweden, how many does it mean? NONE...because Sweden has no codified constitution amounting to NO official language, but the courts, professors and newsreaders have to speak in SOMETHING - that is the NATIONAL language. The status of Hungarian, Romanian etc. is 'nationally recognised minority language'. ] refers to no more than 'language of constitution' and is a national issue, not provincial... meanwhile, literature, TV channels, education and governmental announcements in a certain language are not examples of its official status. In Ireland, the official language is IRISH GAELIC, spoken by fewer than 10,000 of its millions of people. As such, the POLICE walk around with the word 'GARDA' written on them and not POLICE in second place, AND all Police MUST speak the language even if English is first. Meanwhile, the next time you take a walk in Subotica or Vrsac, take a look at the first Police car and uniform and see if you can find the word 'Rendõrség', I believe that's the standard Hungarian for POLICE. If you see one, photograph it - tell me, and I'll give you my e-mail address and I want to see it. Unless you have this, its language ''AINT'' official! |
|
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, Hrvatski Rijec, is published in Croatia OR by diaspora from Croatia in Vojvodina, that is NOT me... I dont ever talk ijekavian, it's not applicable to me; it's not because I am influenced by most people who speak EKAVSKI. On the contrary, the whole reason people DO speak EKAVSKI is because of the contributions of people like ME, my family, and other Slavic people in VOJ who have lived there sincle Slavic arrival. I contribute to the language, and am not restricted by its rules and guidelines! ] dec 23.05 |
|
|
---- |
|
|
"IF you call these people Hungarian AND their language Hungarian, then that is their national language, as is so whether or not it is recognized." |
|
|
|
|
|
Listen: Vojvodina have 26 ethnic groups, so all languages of these ethnic groups would be NATIONAL languages. However, only 6 of those are also OFFICIAL languages. This article mention official and not national languages. If you want to write about national languages of Vojvodina too, then you should to mention all 26 of them, but this have nothing to do with official languages. See what is written for ]: "Though distinct from an official language, which is used for political and legal discourse and so designated by a country's government, national languages are often also official languages simultaneously" |
|
|
|
|
|
"For it to be official, the national constitution MUST be written in the language (not translated) but written" |
|
|
|
|
|
Now about claim that a province cannot have official language. Did you read this article: ] Quote: "An official language is a language that is given a unique legal status in a country, state, or '''other territory'''." Vojvodina is "other territory" in this case, and since it does not have constitution, it cannot be written in its official languages. |
|
|
|
|
|
"English is first. Meanwhile, the next time you take a walk in Subotica or Vrsac, take a look at the first Police car and uniform and see if you can find the word 'Rendõrség', I believe that's the standard Hungarian for POLICE." |
|
|
|
|
|
Police is a republic, not a provincial service, thus language used there is only Serbian. Provincial services use all 6 official provincial languges. ] ] 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
Finally, to conclude> |
|
|
* 1. Vojvodina have 6 official and MANY national languages (at least 20). |
|
|
* 2. Not only country, but also "other territory" like Vojvodina could to have its official languages. |
|
|
* 3. Other national languages, which are not official are not used only for "for private and non- governmental publications", but some of them (like Roma or Ukrainian) are also used on the state television sponsored by the government. |
|
|
|
|
|
] ] 20:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
::The second paragraph has been ammended? I don't see where, and as I promised, I shall not touch it. Well it is a hard call Pannonian; this argument is not a matter of 'is Romanian official or not?', it is a case of 'what is and what is ''not'' official?', what does 'official' even mean? The United States is said to have no official language and the CIA World Factbook confirms English and Spanish as both official. Some sources say Eritrea has no official language and others suggest it has so many... the site talks of nationally recognised minority languages then says 'something is co-official' in parts - so what makes it official IF everything we say IS official DOES NOT NECESSARILY make it official? |
|
|
:Are you thinking what I am thinking? |
|
|
|
|
|
Peoples word is a contradiction of terms. If having newspapers in other languages makes them official then English can be added to Serbia and Montenegro's list, and that of many countries. All I can tell you is this. I havn't stopped laughing since reading that Vojvodina is 'other territory'. Coming from Serbia/Yugoslavia etc. you've never had an interest in life beyond your borders. As a Brit, our history is based on it... Vojvodina is just a part of Serbia-Montenegro's ONLY territory... your country HAS no other territory... Britain has, like Gibraltar, or French Guiana to France... Aruba to the Netherlands, THOSE Pannonian, are 'other territories' not 'Shumadia and Kosovo Polje'. Vojvodina is a region within... yes it MAY have more than one official language there if the constitution says so... as such, it will represent a seperate constitutional body (like Montenegro to Serbia), and every operational phenomenon will be bilingual or trilingual on paper: Kurdish Police in Iraq have POLICE written in Kurdish AND Arabic in Mosul but not in Baghdad. Your precious friends down south in Macedonia now have Albanian as a second language, so much so that they go to university in Bulgaria to learn foreign languages. Strange? They swallow their pride and learn Bulgarian, a similar language spoken by nationals of a state that does not recognize Macedonian or the people as not being Bulgarian...but why do they do it? JUST to escape from sitting a single class in Albanian. You don't beleive me? Try and sign on to Skopje university to learn French and wait for the criteria feedback and see if they let you do so without speaking Albanian as well as Macedonian? Living in Novi Sad, has a person got to have a diploma in Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak, Mosniak, Rumanian and Hungarian to learn German? She ought to if these languages are 'official'! ] 23-12-05 |
|
I added the Hungarian name for Vojvodina (Vajdaság), but it was removed under the pretext of it "not being a native name". I don't understand as Hungarians constitute the largest ethnic minority in Serbia, at around 2.8% of the country, and in Vojvodina constitute about 10.5-10.6% of it's population, not to mention the lands of modern Vojvodina were largely under Hungarian rule for several hundred years until early 1919, and Hungarian culture is still very strong there. Why then was it removed? Please provide an explanation as to why it isn't a native name when Serbia had not owned territories in Vojvodina(for long periods of time) for about 6 centuries until 1918-1919. Thank you for your time. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
