
{| border=1 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 class="toccolours" style="float: right; width: 300px; clear: both; margin: 0.5em 0 1em 1em; border-style: solid; border: 1px solid #7f7f7f; border-right-width: 2px; border-bottom-width: 2px; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;" |+Autonomna Pokrajina Vojvodina
Аутономна Покрајина Војводина
Autonomous Province of Vojvodina |- | style="background: #ffffff;" align=center colspan=2 | {| border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 |- | align=center width=142 |
Flag of Vojvodina | align=center width=142 |
Coat of Arms of Vojvodina |} |- style="border-top: 2px solid gray;" | align=center | | |- | valign=top | Official languages | Serbian language, Hungarian language, Slovak language, Romanian language, Croatian language, Rusyn language1 |- | Capital | Novi Sad |- | Area
– Total
– % water |
21,500 km²
n/a |- | valign=top | Population
– Total (2002)
– Population density
|
2,031,992
94.51/km² |- | valign=top | List of ethnic groups
(2002) | Serbs: 65.05%
Hungarians: 14.28%
Slovaks: 2.79%
Croats: 2.78%
Others: 15.1% |- | Time zone | UTC +1 |- | colspan=2 | 1 All of the official languages are used in the provincial government, Serbian is used in all municipality governments, others are used in selected municipality governments, and few minority languages are used outside official documents |} The Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (Serbian language: ''Аутономна Покрајина Војводина/Autonomna Pokrajina Vojvodina'', Hungarian language: ''Vajdaság Autonóm Tartomány'', Slovak language: ''Autonómna Provincia Vojvodina'', Romanian language: ''Provincia Autonomă Voivodina'', Croatian language: ''Autonomna Pokrajina Vojvodina'', Rusyn language: ''Автономна Покраїна Войводина'') is the northern province of Serbia. Its capital is Novi Sad and the second largest city is Subotica. Vojvodina is ethnically diverse, with more than 26 different ethnic groups. It has no less than six official languages, reflecting the region's great cultural and linguistic diversity. The Executive Council of Vojvodina is founder of several newspapers and magazines in Vojvodina's official lagnuages: "''Дневник''" (''Daily news'') in Serbian and "''Magyar Szó''" (''Hungarian Word'') in Hungarian are daily newspapers, and weekly magazines are "''Hrvatska riječ''" (''Croatian Word'') in Croatian, "''Hlas Ľudu''" (''The Voice of the People'') in Slovak, "''Libertatea''" (''Freedom'') in Romanian and "''Руске слово''" (''Rusyn Word'') in Rusyn. Vojvodina is one of two autonomous provinces of Serbia, the other being Kosovo and Metohija. ==History== ''See also: Rulers of Vojvodina, History of Serbia'' Vojvodina is the Serbian name for the territory of Northern Serbia, consisting of the southern part of the Pannonian Plain. Throughout history it has been a part of Dacia, the Roman Empire, the Huns Empire, the Eurasian Avars, the Gepids Kingdom, the Byzantine Empire, Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Yugoslavia, and finally Serbia & Montenegro. The name \"Vojvodina\" in the Serbian language simply means "dukedom". Its historical name was "Serbian Dukedom", but since Vojvodina is now part of Serbia, there is no need for the prefix "Serbian" anymore. The Serbian language uses two more varieties of the word Vojvodina. These varieties are Vojvodovina and Vojvodstvo, which is equivalent to the Polish word wojewodztwo (province). The area of Vojvodina has been inhabited since the Paleolithic period. Before the Roman conquest in the 1st century BC, the region was inhabited by Illyrian, Thracian and Celtic tribes. The most important Illyrian tribe from this region was the Pannonians. Roman Pannonia was named after them. [[Image:Traianus Decius.jpg|thumb|left|Decius, Roman Emperor (249-251), born in village Budalia near Sirmium]] Romans conquered this region in the 1st century BC. Opposing the Roman rule, Illyrian tribes started uprising in 6 AD. Leaders of this uprising were Baton and Pines, the first named individuals from the present-day Vojvodina territory recorded in history. Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica) was an important Ancient Rome town. It was the main city of Roman Pannonia and one of four capital cities of Roman Empire. Six Roman Emperors were born in this city or in its surroundings: Decius (249-251), Aurelian (270-275), Probus (276-282), Maximian (285-310), Constantius II (337-361) and Gratian (367-383). These emperors were Romanized Illyrians by origin. The Huns drove the Romans out of Pannonia after A.D. 395. The rule of the Huns lasted a little over half a century, and the region become part of the Byzantine Empire. Pannonia (a province of the Byzantine Empire) existed in Srem in the 6th century; its capital was Sirmium. During the early medieval migrations, Slavs (Severans, Abodrites, Branicevci, and Serbs) settled today's Vojvodina in the 6th century and 7th century centuries, but pockets of Romanised Illyrians remained in the area. In the 9th century, what is now Vojvodina was part of Bulgaria. Salan, a Bulgarian duke, ruled the territory of Backa, and his capital city was Titel. Another Bulgarian duke, Glad (duke), ruled in Banat. His residence was city Vidin in the territory of present day Bulgaria. His descendant was Ahtum, duke of Banat, the last ruler who opposed to the establishment of Hungarian kingdom. In the 11th century, the ruler of Srem was Sermon (ruler), a vassal of the Bulgarian emperor Samuil. Sermon produced his own golden coins in present day Sremska Mitrovica. After Bulgarians were defeated by Byzantine Empire, Sermon was captured and killed, because he didn’t want to comply with new authorities. The Hungarians or Magyars arrived in the Pannonian Plain during the last decade of the 9th century. Hungarian rule was established in the territory of present day Vojvodina beginning in the 10th century. Backa came under Hungarian rule in the 10th century, after Hungarians defeated Salan. Banat came under Hungarian rule in the 11th century after the defeat of Ahtum, and Srem came under Hungarian rule in the 12th century after the Kingdom of Hungary conquered it from the Byzantines. Before the Hungarian conquest, a province of the Byzantine Empire named Theme Sirmium existed in the territory of Srem. Between 1282 and 1316 the Serbian King Stefan Dragutin ruled the Kingdom of Srem, which consisted of Srem, Slavonija, Macva, Usora (Bosnia) and Soli (Bosnia). His capital city was Debrc (between Belgrade and Sabac). Dragutin was succeeded by his son, King Stefan Vladislav II (1316-1325). Though Serbs were part of the aboriginal Slavic population in the territory of Vojvodina (especially in Srem), an increasing number of Serbs began settling from the 14th century onward. By 1483, according to a Hungarian source, as much as half of the population of the Vojvodina territory of the Kingdom of Hungary at the time consisted of Serbs. After the Ottoman Empire conquered Serbia (in 1459), Serbian despots ruled in parts of Vojvodina as vassals of the Hungarian kings. The residence of the despots was Kupinik (today Kupinovo) in Srem (region). The Serbian despots were: Vuk Grgurevic (1471-1485), Djordje Brankovic (1486-1496), Jovan Brankovic (1496-1502), Ivanis Berislav (1504-1514), Stevan Berislav (1520-1535), Radic Bozic (1527-1528), Pavle Bakic (1537) and Stefan Stiljanovic (1537-1540). The last three did not rule in the territory of present day Vojvodina, but had possessions in the territories of present day Romania, Hungary and Croatia. The fact that Despots of Serbia ruled in the territory of present day Vojvodina, but also the presence of large Serbian population, are reasons because in many historical records and maps, which were written and drawn between 15th century and 18th century centuries, territory of present day Vojvodina was known as Rascia (Raska, Serbia) and Little Raska (Little Serbia). The Ottoman Empire took control of Vojvodina following the Battle of Mohács of 1526 and the fall of Banat in 1552. This turbulent period caused a massive depopulation of this region. Soon after the Battle of Mohács, Emperor Jovan Nenad, a leader of Serbian mercenaries, established his rule in Backa, northern Banat and a small part of Srem. He created an ephemeral independent state, with Subotica as its capital. At the pitch of his power, Jovan Nenad proclaimed himself "Serbian Emperor" in Subotica. Taking advantage of the extremely confused military and political situation, the Hungarian noblemen from the region joined forces against him and defeated the Serbian troops in the summer of 1527. "Emperor" Jovan Nenad was assassinated and his state collapsed. During the Ottoman rule, more than 90% of inhabitants of the Vojvodina region were Serbs. In that time, villages were mostly populated with Serbs, while cities were populated with Serbs and Muslims (mostly Turks, but also converted Serbs, among others). The northern parts of the region were populated with Bunjevci. Elayet of Temesvar (Turkish province) existed in Banat after 1552, while the Sanjak of Srem and the Sanjak of Segedin existed in Srem and Backa. In 1594 Serbs in Banat started a large uprising opposing Turkish rule. This was one of three largest Serbian uprisings in history, and the largest one before the First Serbian Uprising led by Karadjordje. The Habsburg Empire took control of Vojvodina among other lands by the treaties of Treaty of Karlowitz (1699) and Treaty_of_Passarowitz (1718). The areas adjacent to the Turkish territory in the south were incorporated into the Military Frontier (its Slavonian and Banat sections). The Banat was established as a province of Austria in 1718, but this province was abolished in 1778. The end of Ottoman rule dramatically altered the demographic character of the region, as much of the Serbian population had been decimated through warfare. The Serbian patriarch, Arsenije III Čarnojević, fearing the revenge of the Turks, immigrated in the last decade of the 17th century to the Habsburg Empire with as many as 36,000 families. The Habsburg Emperor promised them religious freedom as well as the right to elect their own "voivod" (military governor), and incorporated much of the region where they settled, later known as Vojvodina, into the military border. The emperor also recognized Serbs as one of the official nations of the Habsburg Empire and he recognized the right of Serbs to have territorial autonomy. This right, however, was not realized before the Revolutions of 1848. During the Kurucs (1703-1711) of Francis II R%E1k%F3czi, the territory of present day Vojvodina was a battlefield between Hungarian rebels and local Serbs who fought on the side of the Habsburg Emperor. Serbs in Backa have suffered the greatest losses. Hungarian rebels burned Serbian villages and many Serbs were expelled from Backa. Darvas, the prime military commander of Hungarian rebels, which fought against Serbs in Backa, wrote: "We burned all large places of Rascia, on the both banks of rivers Danube and Tisa". During the Austrian rule many colonists settled in the territory of present day Vojvodina. They were mainly (Roman Catholic) German people and Magyar people, but also Ruthenians, Slovaks, Romanians, and others. The ''Donauschwaben'', or Danube Swabians established many settlements in the area during the reign of Maria Theresa. Because of this colonization, Serbs lost the absolute ethnic majority in the region, and Vojvodina become one of the most ethnically diverse regions of Europe. However, there was also some emigration from Vojvodina: after the Tisa-Moris section of the military frontier was abolished, Serbs from the northeastern part of Backa left this region and immigrated to Russia in 1752, and this region was then populated with new Hungarian settlers. Many Hungarians come after 1867, when Hungary became autonomous part of Habsburg Empire (Then renamed to Austria-Hungary). Serbs, however, remained the single largest ethnic group in Vojvodina, until the second half of 20th century, when they become the absolute majority again. The "long 19th century" (1789-1914) was marked by rapid population increase, prosperity, sustained economic development, expansion of the transportation infrastructure, and despite the birth of the various national and reform movements also of relatively peaceful interethnic relations and the reconstruction of the educational system. It was a period of reintegration into Europe, both economically and spirtitually. Between the 16th century and 19th century centuries, Vojvodina was the cultural centre of the Serbian people. Especially important cultural centres were: Novi Sad, Sremski Karlovci, and the monasteries of Fruska Gora. In the first half of the 19th century, Novi Sad was the largest Serb city; in 1820 this city had about 20,000 inhabitants, of which 2/3 were Serbs. Novi Sad had an elected mayor that was alternately German or Serb. The Matica Srpska moved to that town from Budapest in 1864. The Serbian gymnasiums of Novi Sad and Sremski Karlovci were at the time considered to be among the best in the Hungarian Kingdom. Novi Sad was being called the "Serb Athens". This development was only interrupted by the Revolutions of 1848 in 1848-1849. The human and material losses in the Backa and Banat regions were the greatest in the entire Habsburg Empire. During the Revolution, the Hungarians demanded national rights and autonomy for them within the Habsburg Empire. However, they did not recognize the national rights of other nationalities which lived in Hungary in that time; according to data from 1842, only 38% of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary were Magyars. Wishing to express their national individuality and confronted with new Hungarian authorities, Serbs declared the constitution of the Serbian Vojvodina (Serbian Dukedom) at the May Assembly in Sremski Karlovci (May 13-May 15, 1848). The Serbian Dukedom consisted of Srem, Backa, Banat, and Baranja. The Serbs also formed a political alliance with the Croats "based on freedom and perfect equality". They also recognized the Romanian nationality. The metropolitan of Sremski Karlovci, Josif Rajacic, was elected for patriarch, while Stevan Supljikac for the first duke. A National committee was formed as the new government of Serbian Vojvodina. Instead of the old feudal regime a new reign was founded based on the national boards with the Head Serbian national board presiding. The Hungarian government replied by the use of force: on June 12th 1848, a war between Serbs and Hungarians started. Austria took the side of Hungary at first, demanding from the Serbs to "go back to being obedient". Serbs were aided by volunteers from Serbia. A consequence of this war, was the expansion of the conservative factions. Since the Austrian court turned against the Hungarians in the later stage of revolution, the feudal and clerical circles of Vojvodina formed an alliance with Austria and became a tool of the Vienna government. Serbian troops from Vojvodina then joined the Habsburg army and helped in crushing the revolution in Hungary. With the help of Imperial Russia, the forces of reaction smothered the revolution in the summer of 1849, defeating all the national and social movements in the Habsburg monarchy. After the defeat of the revolution, by a decision of the Austrian emperor, in November 1849, an Austrian crownland known as Vojvodina of Serbia and Tamis Banat (German_language: ''Woiwodschaft Serbien und Temescher Banat'') was formed (consisting of Banat, Backa and Srem). An Austrian governor seated in Temesvar ruled the area, and the title of Duke belonged to the emperor himself. The full title of the emperor was "Great duke of Vojvodina of Serbia" (German: ''Großwoiwode der Woiwodschaft Serbien''). Even after this province was abolished, the emperor kept this title until the end of Habsbzrg Empire in 1918. After the Austrian and Hungarian authorities signed an agreement, the development of capitalism and democratic parliamentary rule had the necessary conditions to develop. The Vojvodina's two official languages became German and "Illyrian" (what would become Serbo-Croatian language), but in practice it was mainly German. In 1860 this crownland was abolished and its territory was incorporated into Hungary, although the real Hungarian rule has begun only in 1867, when Hungary became autonomous part of Habsburg Empire. After Vojvodina was abolished, one Serbian politician, Svetozar Miletic, appeared in the political sphere. He demanded national rights for Serbs and other non-Hungarian nationalities of Hungary, and that was the reason why he was arrested and locked up in prison. During the second half of the 19th century the region's Hungarian, German, Serb, Croat, and Slovak farmers turned it into the most productive agricultural region of the Kingdom, and it's excellent products were exported all over Europe. At the end of World War I, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed. In 1918, Banat Republic was proclaimed in Timisoara, and government of Hungary has recognized its independence, but it was short-lived. After several days, Serbian troops entered Banat, and that was the end of the Banat Republic. On November 25, 1918 the Serbian Assembly of Novi Sad proclaimed the union of Vojvodina with the Kingdom of Serbia. Between 1929 and 1941, ''Dunavska banovina'' (Danubian Banat) was a province of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The capital city was Novi Sad. Dunavska banovina consisted of Srem (region), Backa, Banat, Baranja and Sumadija. Population of this region was: Serbs and Croats (56,9%), Hungarians (18,2%), Germans (16,3%). The Axis Powers occupied region between 1941 and 1944. Backa and Baranja were attached to Hungary, while Srem was attached to the Independent State of Croatia. A smaller Dunavska banovina (including Banat and Sumadija) existed as part of Serbia between 1941 and 1944 whose administrative centre was Smederevo. However, Banat itself was a separate autonomous region ruled by its German minority. The occupying powers committed numerous crimes against the civilian population, especially against Serbs and Jews; the Jewish population of Vojvodina was almost completely killed. Vojvodina was liberated in 1944 and the region was politically restored in 1945 as a province of Serbia (incorporating Srem, Banat, and Backa). Instead of the previous name (Dunavska Banovina), the region regained its historical name of Vojvodina, while its capital city remained Novi Sad. It was only nominally autonomous at first but enjoyed extensive rights of self-rule under the 1974 constitution, which also gave it voting rights equivalent to Serbia itself on the country's collective presidency. Under the rule of the Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, Vojvodina and Kosovo lost most of their autonomy in September 1990. The outbreak of the Yugoslav wars contributed to the increase of ethnic tensions, with many refugee Serbs who were driven from Croatia and Bosnia being resettled in Vojvodina. The fall of Milošević in 2000 created a new climate for reform in Vojvodina, with the province's ethnic minorities strongly supporting the new democratic government in Belgrade. Following talks between the parties, the province's autonomy was partially restored by the omnibus law in 2002. Vojvodina's new flag was also introduced in 2004. == Some sources for history of Vojvodina == # Dr. Aleksa Ivic, ''Istorija Srba u Vojvodini'', Novi Sad, 1929. # Milan Tutorov, ''Mala Raška a u Banatu'', Zrenjanin, 1991. # Drago Njegovan, ''Prisajedinjenje Vojvodine Srbiji'', Novi Sad, 2004. # Lazo M. Kostic, ''Srpska Vojvodina i njene manjine'', Novi Sad, 1999. # Radmilo Petrovic, ''Vojvodina'', Beograd, 2003. # Predrag Medovic, ''Praistorija na tlu Vojvodine'', Novi Sad, 2001. # Jovan M. Pejin, ''Iz prošlosti Kikinde'', Kikinda, 2000. # Peter Rokai, Zoltan Djere, Tibor Pal, Aleksandar Kasas, ''Istorija Madjara'', Beograd, 2002. # Nikola Gavrilovic, ''Srbi i Rumuni: Srpsko-Rumunske veze kroz vekove : zbornik radova'', Prometej, 1997. # Karl von Möller, ''Die Werschetzer Tat'', 1938. # Georges G. Mironesco, ''Le Probleme Du Banat'', Paris, 1919. # Severe Bocou, ''Question Du Banat'', Paris, 1919. # Rupert von Schumacher, ''Des Reiches Hofzaun - Geschichte der deutschen Militärgrenze im Südosten''. # Martinović Z., ''Nemački uticaj na ishranu Srba u Banatu'', Mali Nemo. # Spasović Ivana, ''Banatska vojna granica i njeno ukidanje 1872. godine'', Istorijski arhiv u Pančevu. ==Geography== The region is traditionally divided by the Danube and Tisa rivers into: Backa in the northwest, Banat in the east and Srem, Serbia and Croatia in the southwest. A small part of the Macva region is also located in Vojvodina, in the Srem District. Today, the western part of Srem, Serbia and Croatia is in Croatia, the northern part of Bačka is in Hungary, the eastern part of Banat is in Romania (with a small piece in Hungary), while Baranja (which is between the Danube and the Drava) is in Hungary and Croatia. Vojvodina has a total surface area of 21,500 square kilometre (8,299 square mile). ==Districts== The districts of Serbia in Vojvodina are: * West Backa District * North Backa District * South Backa District * North Banat District * Central Banat District * South Banat District * Srem District ==Demographics== ''Main article: Demographic history of Vojvodina'' Population by national or ethnic groups: * 1,321,807 Serbs (65.05%) * 290,207 Hungarians (14.28%) * 56,637 Slovaks (2.79%) * 56,546 Croats (2.78%) * 55,016 undeclared (2.71%) * 49,881 Yugoslavs (2.45%) * 35,513 Montenegrins (people) (1.75%) * 30,419 Romanians (1.50%) * 29,057 Roma and Sinti (1.43%) * 19,766 Bunjevci (0.97%) * 15,626 Rusyns (0.77%) * 11,785 Macedonian Slavs (0.58%) * 10,154 regional affiliation (0.50%) * 4,635 Ukrainians (0.23%) * other Population by mother tongue: * 1,557,020 Serbian language (76.63%) * 284,205 Hungarian language (13.99%) * 55,065 Slovak language (2.71%) * 29,512 Romanian language (1.45%) * 21,939 Roma language (1.08%) * 21,053 Croatian language (1.04%) * 4,152 Macedonian language * 2,369 Albanian language * 920 Bulgarian language Population by religion: * 1,401,475 Eastern Orthodox (68.97%) * 388,313 Catholics (Roman Catholic and Eastern Rite) (19.11%) * 72,159 Protestants (3.55%) * 12,583 atheists * 8,073 Muslims * 329 Jews * 166 Oriental religions (''Buddhism, Hinduism etc.'') * 4,456 others * 418 without religious affiliation * 42,876 unknown * 101,144 undeclared on the question Population by gender: * 984,942 males * 1,047,050 females Population by age groups: * 0-14 years: 15.85% (165332 males, 156873 females) * 15-64 years: 68.62% (693646 males, 700416 females) * 65 years and over: 15.53% (125964 males, 189761 females) Source: [http://www.statserb.sr.gov.yu/Ter/epop.htm Republic Statistical Office of Serbia] ==Politics== * Vojvodina Elections 2004 There are several Regionalisation political parties in Vojvodina. Some of those are: League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina, Reformists of Vojvodina, Vojvodina Coalition, Vojvodinian Movement, Union of Socialists of Vojvodina. Current president of Vojvodinian government is Bojan Pajtić (Democratic Party), while president of Vojvodinian parliament is Bojan Kostreš (League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina). ==See also== *Backa *Banat *Srem_(region) *Ethnic groups of Vojvodina *Serbia *Yugoslavia *History of the Balkans *History of Europe ==External links== * [http://www.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/ Official web site of parliament and government of Autonomous Province of Vojvodina] * [http://www.anem.org.yu/mape/index-en.htm Statistical information about municipalities of Vojvodina] * [http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=1105404318&men=gpro&lng=en&gln=xx&dat=32&geo=-3987&srt=npan&col=aohdq List of largest cities of Vojvodina] Serbia Vojvodina Serbia and Montenegro bs:Vojvodina bs:Vojvodina
==Political status and the table== 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. -- User:ChrisO 01:21, 21 Mar 2004 (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 Istarska zupanija, 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 Serbian constitution will sort it out. --User:Igor :: 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 Talk:Kosovo and Metohia (it's only on that page at the moment) - I'd welcome your comments. -- User:ChrisO 01:36, 21 Mar 2004 (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. --User:Igor ::: The summary table is a fairly standard template for List of subnational entities. Just to give you a few random examples, see Limburg (Netherlands), Southern Finland or Pas-de-Calais, 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, Wales probably has less political independence than Vojvodina does now, but it also has a summary table. -- User:ChrisO 02:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Name of Vojvodina?== Shouldn't we add that ethnic Vojvodina Hungarians refer to their region as ''Vajdaság''? --User:Muhamedmesic 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? -- User:ChrisO 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 Serbo-croatian language is my mother tongue!), whereas Romanians tend to use 'Voivodina'. Ruthenians? Gotta ask my ex. She's one. User:Muhamedmesic 19:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Just to derive a bit, the amount of Hungarians showed in the list of population seems be a bit low (and the amount of Serbians somehow too high). From where was taken that figure? Is that an objective source? --User:Aledeniz 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. User:Nikola Smolenski 06:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: The link to the source is right there at the bottom of the article. --User:Shallot The language mentioned is not Slovak, it's Slovenian. User:158.193.85.212 13:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) : No, it is not Slovenian, it is Slovak. --User:Joy 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. --User:Shallot 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. User:Boraczek 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. User:Zocky 03:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) :: A local person contacted us recently on :hr:Talk:Hrvatski jezik 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. --User:Joy 13:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Disputed == As a reminder, from Wikipedia: How to edit a page; Tips on editing: *\"Please use a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 --User:Najroda 22:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- For Najroda: "Please use a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. --User:Najroda 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment to get more input and a better quality of consensus. --User:Najroda 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 [[1] ] 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. --User:Najroda 21:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) ----- Just a note: the same stuff about empire of Jovan and whatnot is at Backa. --User:Joy 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"... --User:Najroda 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... --User:Najroda 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 user:zocky/Country_bias#That's_not_the_history_I_know. 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. User:Zocky 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.--User:Najroda 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. --User:Najroda 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. User:Zocky 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. --User:Joy 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 semi-independent? If we search in history for political entities, which existed in the territory of Vojvodina in the past, we can’t miss so called 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 (zacetnik) 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 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view of history to concentrate on one and not the other. --User:Joy 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/wiki/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. --User:Steven Zondervan 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. User:PANONIAN ==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. User:PANONIAN ==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. User:193.198.145.40 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). User:PANONIAN
Serbia
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Vojvodina:
Vojvodina
Vojvodina
Vojvodina
Vojvodina02.jpg
Vojvodina03.jpg
Vojvodina10.jpg
Vojvodinaelections2004.jpg
Vojvodina_02.jpg
Vojvodina_big.jpg
Vojvodina_Elections_2004
Vojvodina_ethnic2002.jpg
Vojvodina_map.gif
Vojvodina_maps
Vojvodina_of_Serbia_and_Tamis_Banat
Vojvodina_parliamentary_election,_2004
Vojvodina
{| border=1 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 class="toccolours" style="float: right; width: 300px; clear: both; margin: 0.5em 0 1em 1em; border-style: solid; border: 1px solid #7f7f7f; border-right-width: 2px; border-bottom-width: 2px; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;" |+Autonomna Pokrajina Vojvodina
Аутономна Покрајина Војводина
Autonomous Province of Vojvodina |- | style="background: #ffffff;" align=center colspan=2 | {| border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 |- | align=center width=142 |
Flag of Vojvodina | align=center width=142 |
Coat of Arms of Vojvodina |} |- style="border-top: 2px solid gray;" | align=center | | |- | valign=top | Official languages | Serbian language, Hungarian language, Slovak language, Romanian language, Croatian language, Rusyn language1 |- | Capital | Novi Sad |- | Area
– Total
– % water |
21,500 km²
n/a |- | valign=top | Population
– Total (2002)
– Population density
|
2,031,992
94.51/km² |- | valign=top | List of ethnic groups
(2002) | Serbs: 65.05%
Hungarians: 14.28%
Slovaks: 2.79%
Croats: 2.78%
Others: 15.1% |- | Time zone | UTC +1 |- | colspan=2 | 1 All of the official languages are used in the provincial government, Serbian is used in all municipality governments, others are used in selected municipality governments, and few minority languages are used outside official documents |} The Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (Serbian language: ''Аутономна Покрајина Војводина/Autonomna Pokrajina Vojvodina'', Hungarian language: ''Vajdaság Autonóm Tartomány'', Slovak language: ''Autonómna Provincia Vojvodina'', Romanian language: ''Provincia Autonomă Voivodina'', Croatian language: ''Autonomna Pokrajina Vojvodina'', Rusyn language: ''Автономна Покраїна Войводина'') is the northern province of Serbia. Its capital is Novi Sad and the second largest city is Subotica. Vojvodina is ethnically diverse, with more than 26 different ethnic groups. It has no less than six official languages, reflecting the region's great cultural and linguistic diversity. The Executive Council of Vojvodina is founder of several newspapers and magazines in Vojvodina's official lagnuages: "''Дневник''" (''Daily news'') in Serbian and "''Magyar Szó''" (''Hungarian Word'') in Hungarian are daily newspapers, and weekly magazines are "''Hrvatska riječ''" (''Croatian Word'') in Croatian, "''Hlas Ľudu''" (''The Voice of the People'') in Slovak, "''Libertatea''" (''Freedom'') in Romanian and "''Руске слово''" (''Rusyn Word'') in Rusyn. Vojvodina is one of two autonomous provinces of Serbia, the other being Kosovo and Metohija. ==History== ''See also: Rulers of Vojvodina, History of Serbia'' Vojvodina is the Serbian name for the territory of Northern Serbia, consisting of the southern part of the Pannonian Plain. Throughout history it has been a part of Dacia, the Roman Empire, the Huns Empire, the Eurasian Avars, the Gepids Kingdom, the Byzantine Empire, Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Yugoslavia, and finally Serbia & Montenegro. The name \"Vojvodina\" in the Serbian language simply means "dukedom". Its historical name was "Serbian Dukedom", but since Vojvodina is now part of Serbia, there is no need for the prefix "Serbian" anymore. The Serbian language uses two more varieties of the word Vojvodina. These varieties are Vojvodovina and Vojvodstvo, which is equivalent to the Polish word wojewodztwo (province). The area of Vojvodina has been inhabited since the Paleolithic period. Before the Roman conquest in the 1st century BC, the region was inhabited by Illyrian, Thracian and Celtic tribes. The most important Illyrian tribe from this region was the Pannonians. Roman Pannonia was named after them. [[Image:Traianus Decius.jpg|thumb|left|Decius, Roman Emperor (249-251), born in village Budalia near Sirmium]] Romans conquered this region in the 1st century BC. Opposing the Roman rule, Illyrian tribes started uprising in 6 AD. Leaders of this uprising were Baton and Pines, the first named individuals from the present-day Vojvodina territory recorded in history. Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica) was an important Ancient Rome town. It was the main city of Roman Pannonia and one of four capital cities of Roman Empire. Six Roman Emperors were born in this city or in its surroundings: Decius (249-251), Aurelian (270-275), Probus (276-282), Maximian (285-310), Constantius II (337-361) and Gratian (367-383). These emperors were Romanized Illyrians by origin. The Huns drove the Romans out of Pannonia after A.D. 395. The rule of the Huns lasted a little over half a century, and the region become part of the Byzantine Empire. Pannonia (a province of the Byzantine Empire) existed in Srem in the 6th century; its capital was Sirmium. During the early medieval migrations, Slavs (Severans, Abodrites, Branicevci, and Serbs) settled today's Vojvodina in the 6th century and 7th century centuries, but pockets of Romanised Illyrians remained in the area. In the 9th century, what is now Vojvodina was part of Bulgaria. Salan, a Bulgarian duke, ruled the territory of Backa, and his capital city was Titel. Another Bulgarian duke, Glad (duke), ruled in Banat. His residence was city Vidin in the territory of present day Bulgaria. His descendant was Ahtum, duke of Banat, the last ruler who opposed to the establishment of Hungarian kingdom. In the 11th century, the ruler of Srem was Sermon (ruler), a vassal of the Bulgarian emperor Samuil. Sermon produced his own golden coins in present day Sremska Mitrovica. After Bulgarians were defeated by Byzantine Empire, Sermon was captured and killed, because he didn’t want to comply with new authorities. The Hungarians or Magyars arrived in the Pannonian Plain during the last decade of the 9th century. Hungarian rule was established in the territory of present day Vojvodina beginning in the 10th century. Backa came under Hungarian rule in the 10th century, after Hungarians defeated Salan. Banat came under Hungarian rule in the 11th century after the defeat of Ahtum, and Srem came under Hungarian rule in the 12th century after the Kingdom of Hungary conquered it from the Byzantines. Before the Hungarian conquest, a province of the Byzantine Empire named Theme Sirmium existed in the territory of Srem. Between 1282 and 1316 the Serbian King Stefan Dragutin ruled the Kingdom of Srem, which consisted of Srem, Slavonija, Macva, Usora (Bosnia) and Soli (Bosnia). His capital city was Debrc (between Belgrade and Sabac). Dragutin was succeeded by his son, King Stefan Vladislav II (1316-1325). Though Serbs were part of the aboriginal Slavic population in the territory of Vojvodina (especially in Srem), an increasing number of Serbs began settling from the 14th century onward. By 1483, according to a Hungarian source, as much as half of the population of the Vojvodina territory of the Kingdom of Hungary at the time consisted of Serbs. After the Ottoman Empire conquered Serbia (in 1459), Serbian despots ruled in parts of Vojvodina as vassals of the Hungarian kings. The residence of the despots was Kupinik (today Kupinovo) in Srem (region). The Serbian despots were: Vuk Grgurevic (1471-1485), Djordje Brankovic (1486-1496), Jovan Brankovic (1496-1502), Ivanis Berislav (1504-1514), Stevan Berislav (1520-1535), Radic Bozic (1527-1528), Pavle Bakic (1537) and Stefan Stiljanovic (1537-1540). The last three did not rule in the territory of present day Vojvodina, but had possessions in the territories of present day Romania, Hungary and Croatia. The fact that Despots of Serbia ruled in the territory of present day Vojvodina, but also the presence of large Serbian population, are reasons because in many historical records and maps, which were written and drawn between 15th century and 18th century centuries, territory of present day Vojvodina was known as Rascia (Raska, Serbia) and Little Raska (Little Serbia). The Ottoman Empire took control of Vojvodina following the Battle of Mohács of 1526 and the fall of Banat in 1552. This turbulent period caused a massive depopulation of this region. Soon after the Battle of Mohács, Emperor Jovan Nenad, a leader of Serbian mercenaries, established his rule in Backa, northern Banat and a small part of Srem. He created an ephemeral independent state, with Subotica as its capital. At the pitch of his power, Jovan Nenad proclaimed himself "Serbian Emperor" in Subotica. Taking advantage of the extremely confused military and political situation, the Hungarian noblemen from the region joined forces against him and defeated the Serbian troops in the summer of 1527. "Emperor" Jovan Nenad was assassinated and his state collapsed. During the Ottoman rule, more than 90% of inhabitants of the Vojvodina region were Serbs. In that time, villages were mostly populated with Serbs, while cities were populated with Serbs and Muslims (mostly Turks, but also converted Serbs, among others). The northern parts of the region were populated with Bunjevci. Elayet of Temesvar (Turkish province) existed in Banat after 1552, while the Sanjak of Srem and the Sanjak of Segedin existed in Srem and Backa. In 1594 Serbs in Banat started a large uprising opposing Turkish rule. This was one of three largest Serbian uprisings in history, and the largest one before the First Serbian Uprising led by Karadjordje. The Habsburg Empire took control of Vojvodina among other lands by the treaties of Treaty of Karlowitz (1699) and Treaty_of_Passarowitz (1718). The areas adjacent to the Turkish territory in the south were incorporated into the Military Frontier (its Slavonian and Banat sections). The Banat was established as a province of Austria in 1718, but this province was abolished in 1778. The end of Ottoman rule dramatically altered the demographic character of the region, as much of the Serbian population had been decimated through warfare. The Serbian patriarch, Arsenije III Čarnojević, fearing the revenge of the Turks, immigrated in the last decade of the 17th century to the Habsburg Empire with as many as 36,000 families. The Habsburg Emperor promised them religious freedom as well as the right to elect their own "voivod" (military governor), and incorporated much of the region where they settled, later known as Vojvodina, into the military border. The emperor also recognized Serbs as one of the official nations of the Habsburg Empire and he recognized the right of Serbs to have territorial autonomy. This right, however, was not realized before the Revolutions of 1848. During the Kurucs (1703-1711) of Francis II R%E1k%F3czi, the territory of present day Vojvodina was a battlefield between Hungarian rebels and local Serbs who fought on the side of the Habsburg Emperor. Serbs in Backa have suffered the greatest losses. Hungarian rebels burned Serbian villages and many Serbs were expelled from Backa. Darvas, the prime military commander of Hungarian rebels, which fought against Serbs in Backa, wrote: "We burned all large places of Rascia, on the both banks of rivers Danube and Tisa". During the Austrian rule many colonists settled in the territory of present day Vojvodina. They were mainly (Roman Catholic) German people and Magyar people, but also Ruthenians, Slovaks, Romanians, and others. The ''Donauschwaben'', or Danube Swabians established many settlements in the area during the reign of Maria Theresa. Because of this colonization, Serbs lost the absolute ethnic majority in the region, and Vojvodina become one of the most ethnically diverse regions of Europe. However, there was also some emigration from Vojvodina: after the Tisa-Moris section of the military frontier was abolished, Serbs from the northeastern part of Backa left this region and immigrated to Russia in 1752, and this region was then populated with new Hungarian settlers. Many Hungarians come after 1867, when Hungary became autonomous part of Habsburg Empire (Then renamed to Austria-Hungary). Serbs, however, remained the single largest ethnic group in Vojvodina, until the second half of 20th century, when they become the absolute majority again. The "long 19th century" (1789-1914) was marked by rapid population increase, prosperity, sustained economic development, expansion of the transportation infrastructure, and despite the birth of the various national and reform movements also of relatively peaceful interethnic relations and the reconstruction of the educational system. It was a period of reintegration into Europe, both economically and spirtitually. Between the 16th century and 19th century centuries, Vojvodina was the cultural centre of the Serbian people. Especially important cultural centres were: Novi Sad, Sremski Karlovci, and the monasteries of Fruska Gora. In the first half of the 19th century, Novi Sad was the largest Serb city; in 1820 this city had about 20,000 inhabitants, of which 2/3 were Serbs. Novi Sad had an elected mayor that was alternately German or Serb. The Matica Srpska moved to that town from Budapest in 1864. The Serbian gymnasiums of Novi Sad and Sremski Karlovci were at the time considered to be among the best in the Hungarian Kingdom. Novi Sad was being called the "Serb Athens". This development was only interrupted by the Revolutions of 1848 in 1848-1849. The human and material losses in the Backa and Banat regions were the greatest in the entire Habsburg Empire. During the Revolution, the Hungarians demanded national rights and autonomy for them within the Habsburg Empire. However, they did not recognize the national rights of other nationalities which lived in Hungary in that time; according to data from 1842, only 38% of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary were Magyars. Wishing to express their national individuality and confronted with new Hungarian authorities, Serbs declared the constitution of the Serbian Vojvodina (Serbian Dukedom) at the May Assembly in Sremski Karlovci (May 13-May 15, 1848). The Serbian Dukedom consisted of Srem, Backa, Banat, and Baranja. The Serbs also formed a political alliance with the Croats "based on freedom and perfect equality". They also recognized the Romanian nationality. The metropolitan of Sremski Karlovci, Josif Rajacic, was elected for patriarch, while Stevan Supljikac for the first duke. A National committee was formed as the new government of Serbian Vojvodina. Instead of the old feudal regime a new reign was founded based on the national boards with the Head Serbian national board presiding. The Hungarian government replied by the use of force: on June 12th 1848, a war between Serbs and Hungarians started. Austria took the side of Hungary at first, demanding from the Serbs to "go back to being obedient". Serbs were aided by volunteers from Serbia. A consequence of this war, was the expansion of the conservative factions. Since the Austrian court turned against the Hungarians in the later stage of revolution, the feudal and clerical circles of Vojvodina formed an alliance with Austria and became a tool of the Vienna government. Serbian troops from Vojvodina then joined the Habsburg army and helped in crushing the revolution in Hungary. With the help of Imperial Russia, the forces of reaction smothered the revolution in the summer of 1849, defeating all the national and social movements in the Habsburg monarchy. After the defeat of the revolution, by a decision of the Austrian emperor, in November 1849, an Austrian crownland known as Vojvodina of Serbia and Tamis Banat (German_language: ''Woiwodschaft Serbien und Temescher Banat'') was formed (consisting of Banat, Backa and Srem). An Austrian governor seated in Temesvar ruled the area, and the title of Duke belonged to the emperor himself. The full title of the emperor was "Great duke of Vojvodina of Serbia" (German: ''Großwoiwode der Woiwodschaft Serbien''). Even after this province was abolished, the emperor kept this title until the end of Habsbzrg Empire in 1918. After the Austrian and Hungarian authorities signed an agreement, the development of capitalism and democratic parliamentary rule had the necessary conditions to develop. The Vojvodina's two official languages became German and "Illyrian" (what would become Serbo-Croatian language), but in practice it was mainly German. In 1860 this crownland was abolished and its territory was incorporated into Hungary, although the real Hungarian rule has begun only in 1867, when Hungary became autonomous part of Habsburg Empire. After Vojvodina was abolished, one Serbian politician, Svetozar Miletic, appeared in the political sphere. He demanded national rights for Serbs and other non-Hungarian nationalities of Hungary, and that was the reason why he was arrested and locked up in prison. During the second half of the 19th century the region's Hungarian, German, Serb, Croat, and Slovak farmers turned it into the most productive agricultural region of the Kingdom, and it's excellent products were exported all over Europe. At the end of World War I, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed. In 1918, Banat Republic was proclaimed in Timisoara, and government of Hungary has recognized its independence, but it was short-lived. After several days, Serbian troops entered Banat, and that was the end of the Banat Republic. On November 25, 1918 the Serbian Assembly of Novi Sad proclaimed the union of Vojvodina with the Kingdom of Serbia. Between 1929 and 1941, ''Dunavska banovina'' (Danubian Banat) was a province of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The capital city was Novi Sad. Dunavska banovina consisted of Srem (region), Backa, Banat, Baranja and Sumadija. Population of this region was: Serbs and Croats (56,9%), Hungarians (18,2%), Germans (16,3%). The Axis Powers occupied region between 1941 and 1944. Backa and Baranja were attached to Hungary, while Srem was attached to the Independent State of Croatia. A smaller Dunavska banovina (including Banat and Sumadija) existed as part of Serbia between 1941 and 1944 whose administrative centre was Smederevo. However, Banat itself was a separate autonomous region ruled by its German minority. The occupying powers committed numerous crimes against the civilian population, especially against Serbs and Jews; the Jewish population of Vojvodina was almost completely killed. Vojvodina was liberated in 1944 and the region was politically restored in 1945 as a province of Serbia (incorporating Srem, Banat, and Backa). Instead of the previous name (Dunavska Banovina), the region regained its historical name of Vojvodina, while its capital city remained Novi Sad. It was only nominally autonomous at first but enjoyed extensive rights of self-rule under the 1974 constitution, which also gave it voting rights equivalent to Serbia itself on the country's collective presidency. Under the rule of the Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, Vojvodina and Kosovo lost most of their autonomy in September 1990. The outbreak of the Yugoslav wars contributed to the increase of ethnic tensions, with many refugee Serbs who were driven from Croatia and Bosnia being resettled in Vojvodina. The fall of Milošević in 2000 created a new climate for reform in Vojvodina, with the province's ethnic minorities strongly supporting the new democratic government in Belgrade. Following talks between the parties, the province's autonomy was partially restored by the omnibus law in 2002. Vojvodina's new flag was also introduced in 2004. == Some sources for history of Vojvodina == # Dr. Aleksa Ivic, ''Istorija Srba u Vojvodini'', Novi Sad, 1929. # Milan Tutorov, ''Mala Raška a u Banatu'', Zrenjanin, 1991. # Drago Njegovan, ''Prisajedinjenje Vojvodine Srbiji'', Novi Sad, 2004. # Lazo M. Kostic, ''Srpska Vojvodina i njene manjine'', Novi Sad, 1999. # Radmilo Petrovic, ''Vojvodina'', Beograd, 2003. # Predrag Medovic, ''Praistorija na tlu Vojvodine'', Novi Sad, 2001. # Jovan M. Pejin, ''Iz prošlosti Kikinde'', Kikinda, 2000. # Peter Rokai, Zoltan Djere, Tibor Pal, Aleksandar Kasas, ''Istorija Madjara'', Beograd, 2002. # Nikola Gavrilovic, ''Srbi i Rumuni: Srpsko-Rumunske veze kroz vekove : zbornik radova'', Prometej, 1997. # Karl von Möller, ''Die Werschetzer Tat'', 1938. # Georges G. Mironesco, ''Le Probleme Du Banat'', Paris, 1919. # Severe Bocou, ''Question Du Banat'', Paris, 1919. # Rupert von Schumacher, ''Des Reiches Hofzaun - Geschichte der deutschen Militärgrenze im Südosten''. # Martinović Z., ''Nemački uticaj na ishranu Srba u Banatu'', Mali Nemo. # Spasović Ivana, ''Banatska vojna granica i njeno ukidanje 1872. godine'', Istorijski arhiv u Pančevu. ==Geography== The region is traditionally divided by the Danube and Tisa rivers into: Backa in the northwest, Banat in the east and Srem, Serbia and Croatia in the southwest. A small part of the Macva region is also located in Vojvodina, in the Srem District. Today, the western part of Srem, Serbia and Croatia is in Croatia, the northern part of Bačka is in Hungary, the eastern part of Banat is in Romania (with a small piece in Hungary), while Baranja (which is between the Danube and the Drava) is in Hungary and Croatia. Vojvodina has a total surface area of 21,500 square kilometre (8,299 square mile). ==Districts== The districts of Serbia in Vojvodina are: * West Backa District * North Backa District * South Backa District * North Banat District * Central Banat District * South Banat District * Srem District ==Demographics== ''Main article: Demographic history of Vojvodina'' Population by national or ethnic groups: * 1,321,807 Serbs (65.05%) * 290,207 Hungarians (14.28%) * 56,637 Slovaks (2.79%) * 56,546 Croats (2.78%) * 55,016 undeclared (2.71%) * 49,881 Yugoslavs (2.45%) * 35,513 Montenegrins (people) (1.75%) * 30,419 Romanians (1.50%) * 29,057 Roma and Sinti (1.43%) * 19,766 Bunjevci (0.97%) * 15,626 Rusyns (0.77%) * 11,785 Macedonian Slavs (0.58%) * 10,154 regional affiliation (0.50%) * 4,635 Ukrainians (0.23%) * other Population by mother tongue: * 1,557,020 Serbian language (76.63%) * 284,205 Hungarian language (13.99%) * 55,065 Slovak language (2.71%) * 29,512 Romanian language (1.45%) * 21,939 Roma language (1.08%) * 21,053 Croatian language (1.04%) * 4,152 Macedonian language * 2,369 Albanian language * 920 Bulgarian language Population by religion: * 1,401,475 Eastern Orthodox (68.97%) * 388,313 Catholics (Roman Catholic and Eastern Rite) (19.11%) * 72,159 Protestants (3.55%) * 12,583 atheists * 8,073 Muslims * 329 Jews * 166 Oriental religions (''Buddhism, Hinduism etc.'') * 4,456 others * 418 without religious affiliation * 42,876 unknown * 101,144 undeclared on the question Population by gender: * 984,942 males * 1,047,050 females Population by age groups: * 0-14 years: 15.85% (165332 males, 156873 females) * 15-64 years: 68.62% (693646 males, 700416 females) * 65 years and over: 15.53% (125964 males, 189761 females) Source: [http://www.statserb.sr.gov.yu/Ter/epop.htm Republic Statistical Office of Serbia] ==Politics== * Vojvodina Elections 2004 There are several Regionalisation political parties in Vojvodina. Some of those are: League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina, Reformists of Vojvodina, Vojvodina Coalition, Vojvodinian Movement, Union of Socialists of Vojvodina. Current president of Vojvodinian government is Bojan Pajtić (Democratic Party), while president of Vojvodinian parliament is Bojan Kostreš (League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina). ==See also== *Backa *Banat *Srem_(region) *Ethnic groups of Vojvodina *Serbia *Yugoslavia *History of the Balkans *History of Europe ==External links== * [http://www.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/ Official web site of parliament and government of Autonomous Province of Vojvodina] * [http://www.anem.org.yu/mape/index-en.htm Statistical information about municipalities of Vojvodina] * [http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=1105404318&men=gpro&lng=en&gln=xx&dat=32&geo=-3987&srt=npan&col=aohdq List of largest cities of Vojvodina] Serbia Vojvodina Serbia and Montenegro bs:Vojvodina bs:Vojvodina
Vojvodina
==Political status and the table== 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. -- User:ChrisO 01:21, 21 Mar 2004 (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 Istarska zupanija, 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 Serbian constitution will sort it out. --User:Igor :: 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 Talk:Kosovo and Metohia (it's only on that page at the moment) - I'd welcome your comments. -- User:ChrisO 01:36, 21 Mar 2004 (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. --User:Igor ::: The summary table is a fairly standard template for List of subnational entities. Just to give you a few random examples, see Limburg (Netherlands), Southern Finland or Pas-de-Calais, 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, Wales probably has less political independence than Vojvodina does now, but it also has a summary table. -- User:ChrisO 02:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Name of Vojvodina?== Shouldn't we add that ethnic Vojvodina Hungarians refer to their region as ''Vajdaság''? --User:Muhamedmesic 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? -- User:ChrisO 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 Serbo-croatian language is my mother tongue!), whereas Romanians tend to use 'Voivodina'. Ruthenians? Gotta ask my ex. She's one. User:Muhamedmesic 19:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Just to derive a bit, the amount of Hungarians showed in the list of population seems be a bit low (and the amount of Serbians somehow too high). From where was taken that figure? Is that an objective source? --User:Aledeniz 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. User:Nikola Smolenski 06:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: The link to the source is right there at the bottom of the article. --User:Shallot The language mentioned is not Slovak, it's Slovenian. User:158.193.85.212 13:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) : No, it is not Slovenian, it is Slovak. --User:Joy 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. --User:Shallot 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. User:Boraczek 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. User:Zocky 03:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) :: A local person contacted us recently on :hr:Talk:Hrvatski jezik 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. --User:Joy 13:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Disputed == As a reminder, from Wikipedia: How to edit a page; Tips on editing: *\"Please use a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 --User:Najroda 22:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- For Najroda: "Please use a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. --User:Najroda 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment to get more input and a better quality of consensus. --User:Najroda 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 [[1] ] 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. --User:Najroda 21:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) ----- Just a note: the same stuff about empire of Jovan and whatnot is at Backa. --User:Joy 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"... --User:Najroda 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... --User:Najroda 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 user:zocky/Country_bias#That's_not_the_history_I_know. 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. User:Zocky 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.--User:Najroda 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. --User:Najroda 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. User:Zocky 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. --User:Joy 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 semi-independent? If we search in history for political entities, which existed in the territory of Vojvodina in the past, we can’t miss so called 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 (zacetnik) 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 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view of history to concentrate on one and not the other. --User:Joy 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/wiki/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. --User:Steven Zondervan 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. User:PANONIAN ==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. User:PANONIAN ==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. User:193.198.145.40 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). User:PANONIAN
Vojvodina
Serbia
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
V
Words begining with Vojvodina:
Vojvodina
Vojvodina
Vojvodina
Vojvodina02.jpg
Vojvodina03.jpg
Vojvodina10.jpg
Vojvodinaelections2004.jpg
Vojvodina_02.jpg
Vojvodina_big.jpg
Vojvodina_Elections_2004
Vojvodina_ethnic2002.jpg
Vojvodina_map.gif
Vojvodina_maps
Vojvodina_of_Serbia_and_Tamis_Banat
Vojvodina_parliamentary_election,_2004
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
