File talk:Vojvodina03.png

Same reasons as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Serbia02.png Imbris 22:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And what these reasons would be? You claimed there that same colour is a problem? Here the colour is not same, so to what exactly you object here? PANONIAN   (talk)  23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * False representation of the countries surrounding Serbian Vojvodina, and using too much of a different colour for Serbia from the colour of Ottoman Emprire. Imbris 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Biased map. Imbris 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I see nothing false there because the map does not show "countries surrounding Serbian Vojvodina" - it show just Serbian Vojvodina and for example Austrian Empire shown here is not a surrounding country because Serbian Vojvodina never declared its independence from the empire. The map simply had purpose to show borders of Serbian Vojvodina as well as main cities in it, and IT DID NOT HAD PURPOSE to show political status of Serbian Vojvodina - it is article about Serbian Vojvodina that speak about this and map is nothing but illustration. Regarding colour used for Serbia, why we should use same colour for Serbia and for Ottoman Empire - as I said, the map have no intention to show political status of any of those teritories, just their locations and I really do not see what possibly could be biased there. PANONIAN   (talk)  11:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Proclaimed borders, not real ones. Only real boundary is between Austrian and Ottoman Empire. Even in that sole point your map is biased and portrays wrong historical point of view. If you wanted to portray ONLY the place of Serbian Vojvodina on the map (along with some cities) you should have done this on a plain physical map, not using colours that imply connections with Serbia. You created a political map, you know it. Serbian Vojvodina had no borders it was a self proclaimed entity in political conection to Croatia. The map you created usess colour to connect Serbian Vojvodina with Serbia (false connection) and to disconnect Serbia (Principality) from the Ottoman Empire. Your illustration is what is the problem, you fabricate facts and history. Location is not to be mixed with political colouring. First heard of that nonsenss here. Imbris 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But the purpose of this map is exactly TO SHOW PROCLAIMED BORDERS OF SERBIAN VOJVODINA - why you cannot understand this? The purpose of the map is not to show borders between countries, but just a borders of Serbian Vojvodina. And I also do not understand to what "wrong historical point of view" you refer to? Regarding colours: THE COLOURS ARE DIFFERENT AND THEY DO NOT IMPLY CONNECTION WITH SERBIA - if that was my intention, then I certainly would use same (not similar) colour. Those two colours are similar only by pure coincidence, but even if colours could imply connection with Serbia I do not see problem with that because there is indeed connection between them as both were historical homelands of the Serb people and political predecessors of the modern republic of Serbia. Regarding political union of Serbian Vojvodina and Croatia, it was just union of two equal political entities and has nothing to do with this map whose purpose is to show only Serbian Vojvodina. Of course, location of Serbia is also shown on this map, because both, Serbian Vojvodina and Principality of Serbia, are important for the Serbian history, while Kingdom of Croatia is not important for the Serbian history, and therefore I do not see a reason to show it here - same could be said for the Ottoman Empire. You must understand that those maps were made with the purpose to show some things from the SERBIAN HISTORY and therefore things from Ottoman or Croatian history are completelly irrelevant here - there are other articles and maps about them. PANONIAN   (talk)  00:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Self proclaimed, slightly more administrative and unproven borders of Serbian Vojvodina proper. There are other borders on the map, real ones, portrayed on the map in the same colour and same width as self proclaimed etc. borders of Serbian Vojvodina.
 * So, why all borders cannot be in the same colour? I really do not understand what problem you have with colours. Do you understand that maps are just illustrations for the articles and not a places where every single historical question should be presented. And what you mean with "unproven borders" - those are same borders as in the map from my historical atlas, in fact map in that atlas was a base for this map. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing is just a illustration. The picture is worth 1000 word, but not to a historian just to the public you want to mislead. Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not answer to this pathetic accusation - I already answered all in my previous posts and I have no time to discuss stupidities with frustrated kids. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Colour of Serbia, in that time (time of the map) 1848-1849 an semi-autonomous Principality of the Ottoman Empire must not be so different from the colour of Ottoman Empire, because that would be lying and not NPOV.
 * No, it is not lie - Principality of Serbia was autonomous entity and therefore it did not had same political status as rest of the Ottoman Empire, which was divided into vilayets. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there any vilayets shown in the map. There is The Ottoman Empire and The Principality of Serbia (semi-independent from the latter). I do not want you to draw vilayets, but if you want, who am I to stop you. But all of the vilayets should still be portrayed within Ottoman Empire, eg. using the simmilar colour at least. Your colour choice for Serbia is not NPOV, it's biased on the highest scale. Principality of Serbia must be in the simmilar colour with Ottoman Empire. Serbian Vojvodina must be in the simmilar colour with Kingdom of Croatia within Austrian Empire. Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Map is just illustration and nothing else: my intention was to show two historical provinces that are predecessors of modern Serbia and the question what will be written on map for the lands outside of those two is completelly irrelevant - I could writte there just Europe instead Ottoman or Austrian Empire because of basic fact that purpose of the map IS NOT TO SHOW Ottomam or Austrian Emprire, but Serbian Vojvodina and Serbia - nothing more, nothing less. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The map doesn't just portray the location, it shows much more, and therefore your conclusion that it's not biased is false. If you wanted to show just the location, you should have used a physical map. Physical map is a map with rivers, hills, towns, etc. that do not show colouring of entities even not borders with some other entities. Then at that physical plain map you should have entered the borders of Serbian Vojvodina, better yet Serb Vojvodina.
 * Do you know how much work is needed if one want to draw physical map? A lot, believe me. But, I really do not see that something is wrong with this map that I draw - it show proclaimed borders of Serbian Vojvodina, it show Serbia (another Serbian political entity) and surrounding political entities - I do not see what possibly could be wrong with that. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Self proclaimed and not recognized borders should be of a smaller witdh than international borders (AT THE TIME), so this is not just an location map/picture it is a historical map. Rules applly. Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, since the main purpose of the map was to show proclaimed borders, then if we use logic those proclaimed borders should be of larger witdh than any other borders, but anyway, I do not see a problem that they are of same witdh. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Every discrepancy between the facts and your map is a "wrong historical point of view" the not NPOV.
 * I do not uderstand the meaning of "wrong historical point of view". Who will decide what is wrong and what is right historical point of view? You perhaps? When you read all those books that I told you to read, we can talk equally, but you lack of knowledge is real problem for serious discussion here. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not a forth grade teacher to preach me about books that I haven't read. Documents are the judge and the jury and the wittnesses. Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As equalls - never. You may be very popular with Wikipedia but this, this what you are doing just know - this will dimminish some of your great reputation. I am not happy about it, but I am sure of it. If only you have been more cooperative, not forcing your POV and dissmising someones that's not your own. Archives preserve the past, not Wikipedia, not you, nor me, but documents, and the TRUTHImbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is fact that you did not read those books and that is a reason why you speak stupidities here. Regarding "my reputation", you know nothing about it - my reputation here is the fact that I can deal with "silent vandals" like you who pretending that they are serious users, but they are in fact here to use Wikipedia for their own suspicious political goals and personal frustrations. In another words, I am not pushing my POV but stopping you to push YOURS (It is interesting how all POV-pushers use word "truth" for their POV - once you stop trying to push your "truth" and once you start becoming more cooperative I can be more cooperative too). For start, you can accept facts written by best Vojvodinian historian D.J. Popović. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ommiting Croatia from the map, and not mentioning in the Article about VOJVODINA (for the period 1848-49) is not NPOV.
 * Why? I do not see why we should mention Croatia here? Croatia is completelly irrelevant for the subject. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Serbian Vojvodina was in pollitical union with the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia at that time, and Kingdom of Croatia and Slavoina were addministred from Zagreb, by ban and baron Josip Jelachich who had all the power in Kingdom of Croatia and Slavoina, Kingdom of Dalmatia, Gubernature of Rijeka, Millitary and Civil Commandment of Military Border in Slavonia and Bannate, Millitary Commandment of Bandom Border of Croatia (Civil Commandment was in the hand of Croatian Parliament in Zagreb - Croatian and Slavonian Parliaments merged in 15th century), Conqurered Hungarians and returned Medjimurje and Prekodravlje to the motherland. This was a country ruled by ban and baron Jelachich from 1848-50. Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, Serbian Vojvodina was not administered from Zagreb, and as I said, the Kingdom of Croatioa is not relevant for the Serbian history. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The map should as better as it can portray fact neccesary for description of VOJVODINA'S history.
 * The map should portray location, borders and large cities of Vojvodina, everything else belong in the article, not in the map. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not enough for a NPOV. Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is enough - and first learn what word NPOV mean because it is obvious that you do not understand this. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the article about HISTORY of SERBIA you can use whatever you want neccesary fot better description of SERBIA'S history. Your maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vojvodina03.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serbia02.png have a place for displayment. It is an article about SERBIA, and SERBIAN history, and atlas of SERBIA. Not article about VOJVODINA, VOJVODINIAN history and atlas of VOJVODINA.
 * History of Vojvodina is part of Serbian history and I see no difference between the two. Also, map Serbia02.png had a purpose to show both, Principality of Serbia and Voivodship of Serbia, not only one of them. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone can show a construcion of history of Serbia, showing the two together, but only as a statement of today. When we are talking about history then constructions are not allowed, just facts. When you publish information in the article about Vojvodinian history, and that information is not correct or shows not a NPOV, that is not permissable. Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What construction? History is not only history of political units, but also a history of the GEOGRAPHIC AREA. Therefore, the entire history of the entire geographical area that include modern Serbia is also part of the history of Serbia. I am really sad because you do not understand those simple facts. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In connection with said before I repeat. Vojvodina is a part of Serbia, and it will be in the future to come, but it was not a part of Serbia during complete history. Maps for the history of Vojvodina should describe facts, not someones POV, not mine, not yours.
 * Claim that "Voivodina was not part of Serbia in history" is stupid because Vojvodina itself was known under name Serbia in history, so how it can be part of itself? Since the 15th century, territory of Vojvodina is known under name Rascia (Serbia), so what exactly you do not understand here? PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even so, it was not Serbia, but Rascia from the Hungarian word for Serbs eg. Rac in singular, Raci in plural. When Serbians fled Kosovo, in two occasions they settled in present day Vojvodina, then known for its historical parts Bačka, Banat and Baranya (aphabetically). They settled here after been granted permission from the Crown of St. Stephen lands - that is Hungarian Kingdom. Do not enter unneccesary debates for the theme of 1848-49 in this particular debate about a map portraying Vojvodina in 1848-49.Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But both names Rascia and Serbia were used for medieval Serbian state, so Rascia in this case cannot mean anything else but Serbia. Regarding Serb migration to Vojvodina, it started in the 14th century and those Serbs did not came here from Kosovo, neitrher those who settled here in the time of the Ottomans. Also, those who settled in Vojvodina in 1690 and 1739 did not granted perimsion from Hungarian kingdom but from Austrian emperor. Every time, you showing more and more lack of the knowledge about Vojvodinian history. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Stick to the fact, and you will not hear complaints from anyone.
 * I did not heard complains from any serious editors with good faith. You, on the other hand, are just a temporary bad faith/trolling problem. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting I am the problem, not you. Your present editors are not Gods, and they didn't had information that they do now. Things are going to change to the better and the truth will prevail. I hope for that but in the light of dismissal of the law-suit of Bosnia and Hercegovina in the Hague and declaring Serbia not responsible for breaking the international law and convention about preventing genocide, who knows. Shameful. Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course that you are the problem. Wikipedia editors should have GOOD FAITH in their edits and you do not have it - your goal here is just to start ethnic hate and new Balkan wars and I cannot respect people like you - I can only be sad because there are people like you who live in darkness and the only thing that they do is to express their hate towards people or country that they do not like. If you check my edits, you will see that I never edited any Wiki article with bad faith towards the subject, no matter if I do not like that subject - that is a basic rule of Wikipedia that you have to learn before making any changes. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Neighbours are very important for everyone, just not PANONIAN.
 * Good neighbours are important, bad neighbours are not. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are the good, and who are the bad. Nothing is easy to define and that is probbably most difficult. Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The one who bark like dog is bad and the one who do not bark is good - an easy definition. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Vojvodina became an exlusive part of Serbian history from 1.12.1918. and then in april 1945. for good. No one is trying to say otherwise. My political point of view does not have anything with my historical aparatus and methodology, but yours ...
 * Imbris 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction: Vojvodina became part of Serbian history in the 6th century when Serbs and other Slavs settled in the area and you will have to live with that fact, no matter if you like it or not. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then there was no Serb, no Croats, no Serbia no Croatia, Hungarians even haven't been on the stage in Panonian low-land. You do not know what you are talking about. You are not a historian, but an excellent cartographer though. I mean really, such nonsenss. Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Hungarians settled in Pannonia in the end of 9th century and Serbs and Croats existed long before that. In another words, you are the one who do not know what you are talking about. And the last thing that I need are a compliments from you. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is to similar. Imbris 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. That is not even funny. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are a laughing now, but latter. Imbris 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not laughing at all - in fact I am sad that I have to waste my free time discussing with people who have no goal to improve Wikipedia, but to prove their political points and express their nationalistic frustrations. I am very sad because of this indeed. PANONIAN   (talk)  11:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Insult away. Future historians would use documents, and they will prevail the misinterpretation of you, and every one like you. Future historians will laugh to you, not with you. So you have every right to be sad. Imbris 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the one who started with insults here and you obviously want to continue with them. Also, when you read all historical books that I read then we can speak as equals - until then hardly. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not do such a thing, but because I am so polite I have appologized to the public and the ones a have caused any pain of harth in the debate about State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in the Talk page about Vojvodina (AT THE TIME). Imbris 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why you lie now - you are the one who called me a fascist. If that is polite I do not know what is not. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)