Talk:Axis occupation of Vojvodina

POV
POV-tagged. Carl Savich writes on a very pro-Serbian bias. The reference (External links) is Serb ultra nationalistic sites.
 * Article written by Carl Savich is not main source for this Wkkipedia article - in fact, it was not used at all as a source. It is listed in the external links only for further reading because there are useful information there like pictures of the victims. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tag
You taged this article as "unsourced and POV", so, you should see that I listed my sources:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_crimes_of_the_occupants_in_Vojvodina%2C_1941-1944#Notes
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_crimes_of_the_occupants_in_Vojvodina%2C_1941-1944#External_links

And the second thing: why you consider it POV? It is from official state sources dealing with Axis war crimes in Vojvodina. PANONIAN  (talk)  20:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * PANONIAN, thanks for your entry on Wikipedia. The reference notes you enclosed are connected to three specific statements in your article, but other sections remain unsourced. As for the "official state sources" you mention here, the article mentions none. Also, please provide a translation for the titles in your references! Thanks and keep up the good work. Nehwyn 20:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The entire article is based on the 3 references that I quoted, so if you suggest that should mention source in every section of the article, no problem for it. Also, the data found in the source that I quoted came from the Yugoslav state commision that investigated war crimes of the Axis troops on the territory of Vojvodina during the war. I do not see what is POV here. And regarding translation for my references, I do not see a point of it if these books itself are not translated in English. The titles are: "Number of inhabitants of Vojvodina", "Raid in southern Bačka in 1942" and "Encyclopaedia of Novi Sad", all 3 dealing with WW2 events. PANONIAN   (talk)  21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And by the way, you mainly addressed the question about sources, but what exactly you consider POV here? If something is POV, we should correct it. PANONIAN   (talk)  21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The article fails to mention one important detail: the perpetrators of the Újvidék atrocities (Feketehalmy-Czeydner, Grassy) were tried and convicted shortly afterwards by a Hungarian military court. This, however, would change the generalizing picture about brutal and cruel Hungarians. Árpád 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Article speak about brutal and cruel fascists, no matter of their ethnic origin and, by the way, the trial to those persons was false, they were not punished after this trial. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong information, they were tried and convicted but escaped to Germany to evade punishment. On the other hand, after the war, the Yugoslav People's Court executed several innocent men like the Chief of Staff Szombathelyi (who had nothing to do with the massacres) or the Mayor of Újvidék Miklós Nagy or the Serbian Popovic whose only crime was that he was a member of the Hungarian parliament (strange fascist oppression to have Serbian representatives in our parliament, don't you think?) Another important detail is that the massacres (yes, I am calling them massacres, just as the mass murders committed by Titoist partisans) were promted by clandestine violent actions against the local population (burning of crops, brutal killing of soldiers). Furthermore, Hungary's reannexation of the Délvidék cannot be legally considered as an occupation of Yugoslavia since it only happened after Croatia declared its independence and Yugoslavia de jure ceased to exist. (Hungarian politicians were highly aware of this and they only commenced the reoccupation (or liberation, maybe semantics) of the Délvidék by the time Yugoslavia had dissolved itself. Moreover, the raid had a preventive nature as well because Yugoslav partisans (Chetniks and Communists together) had planned a major massacre of the Hungarian and German population of Délvidék for January 9, 1942 (date of the Serbian Christmas) which was also prevented by Hungarian military action. Árpád 21:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, the trial was false: it was organized only for eyes of the World (to mask the true nature of Hungarian fascist "state") and state simply allowed to those "convicted" persons to escape. Same thing with that Serb member of Hungarian parliament (he was not legal representative of the Serb people, but puppet of the Hungarian government, which placed him there only to hide true character of the fascist "state"). Regarding legality of Hungarian fascist occupation, Yugoslavia never de jure ceased to exist as a state. After Axis Powers occupied Yugoslavia the only legal government of the whole that area recognized by the international community was a Yugoslav government in exile. All other regimes and troops that existed on the Yugoslav soil during the war (including "Independent State of Croatia") were there illegally. Also, partisans (there were no chetniks in Vojvodina) never planed massacre of Hungarian and German populations - that was only fascists propaganda and we know very well who commited massacre against whom in 1942, so please refrain from such ridiculous claims. PANONIAN   (talk)  14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Vince...
Claim that raid was performed by "some disloyal Hungarian officers" is complete lie that was proved wrong by the historians. It was proved that Horthy himself was aware that raid will happen, i.e. the order for that came from the highest place. Also, their trial was false and was performed with exact purpose to hide a role of the state in those events. So, Vince, please do not use false statements that were used as part of fascist World War II propaganda in Hungary. PANONIAN  (talk)  11:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Source? But no books please, especially not without a page number. WP:CITE, WP:Verify. Online. Funny thing calling "lie" a memoir, critically commented by a well known historian. Wrong historians? I'm intrested in your ideology. If you can prove it, than it can be reverted, untill that time, removing of cited facts will be considered as vandalism. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I call it lie - do you uderstand that you used as a source a memoirs of Miklos Horthy??? It would be same if you used memoirs of Adolpf Hitler who claim there that he is not responsible for killed Jews. I really do not understand how some people even today can have Hitler or Horthy as their idols. Regarding page numbers, I added them, no matter that it is stupid to add page number of the book that entirely speak about 1942 raid. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Zvonimir Golubović???? LOL!!! That's everithying, but objective. Don't joke. [http://www.regiofolyoirat.hu/newspaper/1994/1/06MESZAROS_SANDOR.DOC. Criticizm of the book.] for you, the sources on the lower part is more than enough. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 14:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The link that you provided is empty, mister Vince, so we have only your word that he is not objective - he is certainly more objective than the greatest Hungarian fascist himself - Miklos Horthy. PANONIAN   (talk)  15:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Right click: save as. BTW I know Golubovic's "work" well, and you proved again your absolute dilletntism to history, by stating " greatest Hungarian fascist himself - Miklos Horthy." This is LOL. Just ask a hungarian jew. For ex, ... never mind. Read after it, since you're stuck in the Serbian fascist, irredentist literature. Vince 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Golubović is respected historian and his work about crimes of the fascist against Jewish and Serb civilians in Vojvodina during World War II is also respectable. On the other hand, Miklos Horthy was a leader of fascist Hungary and proven war criminal and you used his memoirs as a source (that is realy incredible). By the way, I have book written by Golubović, and there is nothing "fascist or irredentist" there. On the contrary, members of Jewish community have appreciate his work. Do you want to say that all authors who wrotte about killed Jews in World War II are fascists, while real fascists like Horthy and Hitler (who killed those Jews) were in fact angels? Come one, I cannot believe that I have this kind of converzation with somebody. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Respected by Serb radicals. You are absolutely nowhere near reality, abt Horthy the era, and in fact everything abt it :), so you wont get closer to reality by a letter, but despite this, I ask you, to read enwiki's Miklós Horthy article, or at least, check section "H" in this category: XXX. Or you know what? Read this. --195.56.14.113 21:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, you claim that Golubović is fascist? Prove it! Try to quote his words that sound fascist? If you cannot quote this, then you have no right to say that. As for Horthy, he was leader of fascist state, allie of Adolph Hitler during WWII, and during his rule many Jews were killed. Do you need any more proof? And wiki article about Miklós Horthy is not reliable source especially if it is written by nationalist Hungarian users. I am sure that those Jews that were killed in south Bačka in 1942 are very happy because Horthy "helped" them - this is outrage cinism to say that a man who is war criminal and who was responsible for killed Jews is among "People who helped Jews during the Holocaust". PANONIAN   (talk)  15:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, I did not said that. I said, that you're wrong, and you continue to push your POV. I presented you the israeli viewpoint abt Horthy, what you did not read, as you proved to me right now. Your stupidity and POV pushing just don't know limits. --91.120.82.124 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You showed to me something expressed by ONE JEW who was not aware of the role that Horthy had in genocide against Jewish civilians in Bačka in 1942. If he was aware of this role, he would say something very different, believe me... And please, just continue with your personal insults - all of them will be recorded and presented at the right place when the time come... PANONIAN   (talk)  20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont play this game. Golubovic spoke in the name of all jews? And the true one, from israel is not? LOL. Try not to rewrite history. --91.120.82.124 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I've got some jewish descent, relatives, friends, and I KNOW, that this is a fucking big Serbian radicalist lie. --91.120.82.124 22:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want proofs in hebrew? Huh? You know what, I give you only hungarian ones. The Holocaustmuseum's entry about Horthy. Find your hungarian-serbian dictionary and translate it to the last word: http://www.holokausztmagyarorszagon.hu/index.php?section=1&type=portrait#horthy. Especially this line: "(...)1944. júliusában leállította a zsidók kiszállítását és ezzel megmentette a budapesti zsidóságot." --91.120.82.124 22:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked you to provide proof that Golubivić is a Serbian radical and you did not done it. And since I cannot read Hungarian and do not know how to translate it into Serbian or English, I cannot speak about your source, but the one thing what I see is that your source speak about 1944, and not about 1942. Even if Horthy helped to some Jews in 1944 could be simply a consequence of guilt that he felt because he was responsible for Jews killed in 1942. Please do not mix events from 1942 and 1944. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not proven that Horthy or Keresztes-Fischer was informed previously about the rail. --Koppany 12:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is your proof that it was not proved? PANONIAN  If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 15:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)P

edit war
Here I will explain my edits - Peacemaker67 is try to promote in Wikipedia name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I looked recent edits in some articles and I see that this name was personally included into these pages by this user. This name almost do not exist in English sources outside of Wikipedia -. Name that I use instead, Military Administration in Serbia, is used much more -. Also, Peacemaker67 abused one of the references that he promote. This is reference that he use as support for name that he push - Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2002). Serbia: the History behind the Name. we see that this reference do not use name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia but instead it use Territorry of the German military commander, Serbia -. Peacemaker67 abuse this source trying to make false impression that name that he promote is referenced. He also placed these 2 references into article bibliography but they are not bibliography for this page. This page is about occupation of Vojvodina and bibliography on this page should have books about that. Two books that Peacemaker67 placed there are not even distantly connected to occupation of Vojvodina and because of that these books are not bibliography for this page. Nemambrata (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You should take that up on the talk page of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, why you revert me? Did you read my comment on this page? Problems with page “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” are not same as problems with this page. There are 3 problems:

1.Bibliography. Page with name “Occupation of Vojvodina” should have bibliography that speak about occupation of Vojvodina. Books of Hehn, Paul N and Pavlowitch, Stevan K do not speak about occupation of Vojvodina and are not bibliography for this page. If one want to use two books to support some name in article text, he should use them as footnotes not as bibliography.

2.Book of Pavlowitch, Stevan K use name “Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia” not name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia”. If someone want to support name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” why he do not use only author Hehn who use this name? Why author Pavlowitch who do not use this name is also here?

3.If page “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” have that name, we have no reason to use that name in all pages in Wikipedia. Name of that page is supported by only one source which is 40 years old and name is disputed not only by me but by most other users on “Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia”. Because name is disputed, I say that it should not be used all over Wikipedia. If someone read comments of DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 he can see that these two try to convince others that this territory was not Serbia. I do not understand why they try to do this, but description that I propose in this page do not contradict to POV of two users and I do not see any reason why they revert me. Is any of users able to say what is wrong with description “area governed by the Military Administration in Serbia”? It redirect to same page and we can use redirects in pages. Nemambrata (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unclear notability
Could editors that are interested in this article show that the Axis occupation of the territory of the current Serbian province of Vojvodina has significant coverage in WP:RS per WP:WHYN? I believe the notability of this article's subject is unclear at best, as all texts regarding the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia that I am possession of provide coverage of a. the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia or b. the military occupation of the clearly defined Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, the Hungarian occupation of Bačka, or the Yugoslav territory included in the Independent State of Croatia, not the current province of Vojvodina in the current state of Serbia. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * even the occupation of the historical (but poorly defined) 'region of Vojvodina' during WWII is of unclear notability. A Google Books search gets 11 hits, but when they are examined, only five actually relate to this time period, one ('Avotaynu guide to Jewish genealogy') is not in any way a historical text, that leave four hits, as follows:

None of the above are clearly WP:RS, and therefore the notability of this subject is unclear. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * a mention of a journal article on p. 170 of Tomasevich (2001). The article was called Vojvodina u borbi, 1941-1945 (Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941-1945) and was apparently written by Atanaković, and was published in 1965 in the journal Vojnoistorijski glasnik along with a very critical review. The article and critical review are obviously in Serbo-Croat, and not available for examination.
 * a book by Kosta St Pavlović (1943) called 'The struggle of the Serbs' published in 1943, p. 62. It is only available in snippet view, and the book appears on first glance to be of questionable reliability and independence.
 * a book by Nándor F. Dreisziger (1998) called 'Hungary in the age of total war (1938-1948)'. It is only available in snippet view, and the reference is 'The Hungarian nation would not have tolerated the occupation of Vojvodina by German troops, and its transformation into a German Gau under a Nazi Gauleiter.'. This is a reference to the occupation of Vojvodina in terms of a possibility, not as a fact.
 * a book by Christopher Smart (1990) called 'The emerging security structures of East Europe: girding for Europe's next wars'. It is only available in snippet view, and the reference is '...the Second World War when the Dr. Petru Groza Government accepted the settlement in Transylvania of 200000 Hungarians driven out of Yugoslavia for their crimes during the Horthyist occupation of Vojvodina.' This clearly only refers to the Hungarian occupation of parts of Vojvodina (Bačka), not of the whole modern province of Vojvodina, and appears to be the work of Radio Free Europe, an anti-communist propaganda station.
 * Given the size of the article and the size of the corresponding section of the History of Vojvodina article, I see no reason why the material in this article shouldn't be merged there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Look that this page in the beginning had name “Crimes of the occupiers in Vojvodina” and was because of some reason moved to “Occupation of Vojvodina”:. Axis war crimes in Vojvodina are notable subject and we should not delete this page. By my opinion current title of page is bad and page should be moved to this new title: “Axis war crimes in Vojvodina”. After this, page should be expanded with more data. This is one of few pages in Wikipedia that are speak about war crimes against Serbs. Perhaps you think that some pages about some massacres from this template should be merged to page Bosnian war? There is no notable number of sources to support names of these pages about massacres in Bosnian war. Axis war crimes in Vojvodina are more notable and if we have pages about massacres in Bosnian war then we should have page about Axis war crimes in Vojvodina. Example: there is page Doboj massacre when 2,300 people was dead. In Vojvodina Axis armies killed 50,000 people and you say that it is not notable? Is that not notable because of ethnicity of victims? Nemambrata (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't proposed a merge. I have suggested one based on the title and current scope. If you think it should be called something else, with a different scope, propose it. As it is, I believe it should be merged. As far as the war crimes are concerned, they occurred in an area which is 'now' called Vojvodina. It wasn't called that then. Based on my personal experiences, I would like all war crimes to receive appropriate coverage on WP, but the geographical designations need to be the historical ones from the period in question, not the current name. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In the time of occupation this region had name Vojvodina. Why else leadership of resistance army had name Main Board of Liberation of Vojvodina -. But I also think that page with name Axis occupation of Vojvodina should not exist because this should be covered in page Axis occupation of Serbia. This page speak mostly about Axis war crimes and should be kept with name that I proposed. Nemambrata (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What about merging into Axis occupation of Serbia and History of Vojvodina, then make "Axis war crimes in Vojvodina" a redirect with categories Category:World War II crimes in Yugoslavia, etc. There is --Z oupan 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be merging anything into Axis occupation of Serbia because the title and scope of that article are ahistorical (like this one). However, I believe merging into History of Vojvodina is what should happen. I agree that the war crimes committed in this region are notable, but they should be covered in the relevant articles, Banat, 1941-1944 and Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941-1944. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merging proposal: I am against merging this article into History of Vojvodina. According to WP:SIZESPLIT the article about History of Vojvodina should probably be splitted (its size is > 50k) not merged. The text of the existing article is not very short and it will be expanded within a reasonable amount of time so merging proposal is not supported by wikipedia rules.
 * Notability: Vojvodina was occupied during WWII. That is clearly notable event covered by RS. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't read my posts. I have shown above that the scope this article is of unclear notability. It is also ahistorical. The areas now a province of Serbia called Vojvodina were then called Backa, Baranja and Banat, or even Danube Banovina, not Vojvodina. If History of Vojvodina is too big, then the content should just be merged into the other two articles I mentioned. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, it is not truth that name Vojvodina was not in use in that period. See sources - Borbe u Vojvodini 1941-1944 Battles in Vojvodina 1941-1944, The Holocaust in Vojvodina, 1941-1944, Opozicione partije i autonomija Vojvodine: 1929-1941 / Oposition parties and autonomy of Vojvodina 1929-1941. This show that name Vojvodina was used before and during war. Nemambrata (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Zoupan, I am against merge of this page because then people could not to find easy page about war crimes. If info about war crimes is moved into some long text about history of Vojvodina that will undermine notability of this thing. All war crimes that were done by Serbs are very emphasized in many pages in Wikipedia and there are pages about massacres where few hundred people was killed. In Vojvodina 50,000 people was killed and that mean that this page is even more important than page Srebrenica massacre where about 8,000 was killed. Nemambrata (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Nemambrata, the three sources you linked to include one in Serbian, one by Carl Savich, a nationalist rightwing blogger, which could not be considered reliable, and one that appears to be in English and might be reliable. There are hundreds of WP:RS about the occupation of Backa, Baranja and Banat. Vojvodina is clearly not the contemporary WP:COMMONNAME for the area in question. You can't have it both ways. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Vojvodina is COMMONNAME for the region occupied by Axis forces. There is no other more common name for this territory If you think there is/was more commonname of Vojvodina you are free to Request Move.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What source do you have for that? I'll be lodging merges on this article and Axis occupation of Serbia shortly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * around 706,000 GBS hits for Vojvodina--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * straw man. What is not notable is the subject of this article, not Vojvodina itself. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is occupation of Vojvodina by Axis. I am sorry, but I don't believe that you really think that Vojvodina was not occupied by Axis, or that it is not very notable event.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * it is not my belief, it is whether there are sufficient sources for it to meet WP:NOTABILITY, and there aren't. It is also ahistorical and rewriting history in the same way as the Axis occupation of Serbia article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources for such notable recent events like Axis occupation of different parts of Serbia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have clearly shown above that there are not for this article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC:Is this article subject notable, and if so, is it an acceptable fork of existing articles?
Is Axis occupation of Vojvodina firstly WP:NOTABLE, and secondly, if so, is it an acceptable WP:CONTENTFORK or not? My concerns are due to redundant content and inconsistency between its title and content and WP:NPOV. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This article purports to be about the Axis occupation of the area of Yugoslavian territory now comprising the clearly defined province of modern-day Serbia called Vojvodina, but during the period 1941-1944. I consider that this subject does not have significant coverage in WP:RS per WP:WHYN, and therefore consider the notability of this subject is quite unclear, and would like views on that from the community. I consider that if the community considers its subject is notable, this article is probably an unacceptable fork and should be merged into Banat, 1941-1944, Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941-1944 and Independent State of Croatia.
 * In terms of its WP:NOTABILITY, A Google Books search for "Occupation of Vojvodina" gets 11 hits, but when they are examined, only five actually relate to this time period, one ('Avotaynu guide to Jewish genealogy') is not in any way a historical text, that leave four hits, as follows:
 * a mention of a journal article on p. 170 of Tomasevich (2001). The article was called Vojvodina u borbi, 1941-1945 (Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941-1945) and was apparently written by Atanaković, and was published in 1965 in the journal Vojnoistorijski glasnik along with a very critical review. The article and critical review are obviously in Serbo-Croat, are not available on Google Books and therefore not available for examination.
 * a book by Kosta St Pavlović (1943) called 'The struggle of the Serbs' published in 1943, p. 62. It is only available in snippet view, and the book appears on the very limited first glance to be potentially biased.
 * a book by Nándor F. Dreisziger (1998) called 'Hungary in the age of total war (1938-1948)'. It is only available in snippet view, and the reference is 'The Hungarian nation would not have tolerated the occupation of Vojvodina by German troops, and its transformation into a German Gau under a Nazi Gauleiter.'. This is a reference to the occupation of Vojvodina in terms of a possibility, not as a fact.
 * a book by Christopher Smart (1990) called 'The emerging security structures of East Europe: girding for Europe's next wars'. It is only available in snippet view, and the reference is '...the Second World War when the Dr. Petru Groza Government accepted the settlement in Transylvania of 200000 Hungarians driven out of Yugoslavia for their crimes during the Horthyist occupation of Vojvodina.' This clearly only refers to the Hungarian occupation of parts of Vojvodina (Bačka), not of the whole modern province of Vojvodina, and appears to be the work of Radio Free Europe, which I understand to be an anti-communist propaganda station.
 * I also consider this article to be ahistorical, as it combines the defined geographical boundaries of a modern territory with an event that occurred in WWII (when there were no such defined boundaries, which were formalised after WWII). This title and content is misleading and anachronistic (and creates a false sense of continuity), and strays from NPOV by providing an unbalanced and modern-day Serbia-centric view of the subject. This is particularly obvious in the maps used. Whilst Vojvodina was a roughly defined geographical region well before WWII, it was not formally organised in that way immediately prior to the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. At that time, Yugoslavia was subdivided into a number of banovina, none of which corresponded exactly with the boundaries of the modern Serbian province of Vojvodina. When Yugoslavia was partitioned by the Axis, each occupant imposed their own occupation policies in their area. For example, what is modern-day Vojvodina was split into three, each of which had a contemporary regional name. These were Banat, Bačka and Baranja, and Syrmia. All of these parts of what is now the province of Vojvodina were occupied by different Axis nations/ puppet states, and separate articles for each already exist as Banat, 1941-1944, Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941-1944, and Syrmia was part of the Independent State of Croatia.

For ease of communication, could editors please use the subsection below under "Threaded discussion" and advise whether they consider the article meets WP:NOTABLE by putting Notable/Not Notable and then either noting that they think it is Acceptable/Not Acceptable as a fork? Please include policy-based reasons for your view? Thanks for reading all of this, and I hope you will contribute. I am looking for at least a week for comments, and will ask for an uninvolved admin to close. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * I agree with Peacemaker67's analysis, and also think that this article is an unwanted fork, hence, it should be merged to the articles mentioned above. K&oelig;rte F a { ταλκ'' }  07:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Peacemaker67's rationale. Readers of wikipedia today have different perspective than people in period 1941-1945. There are two million people living in Vojvodina. They are interested to learn about the territory of Vojvodina during Axis occupation. Occupation of Vojvodina is notable event which is covered in thousands of reliable sources. It would be wrong to force them to look for the information in several other articles.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * just to clarify, Antidiskriminator. Do you have a different version of Google Books than me? I presented the 11 hits for the 'Occupation of Vojvodina' of which only four might be reliable sources. Firstly, it is not covered in 'thousands of reliable sources' at most there are 4. Also, there is no reason why a redirect or disambiguation page could not send them to the right place. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you really believe that Axis occupation of Vojvodina is not notable event.
 * The title of this article is not the official name of the territory. It is descriptive title. Googling descriptive title means nothing. There are thousands of reliable sources about this event.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled that you believe you can read my mind. So now Google Books search results mean nothing? Obviously only when it suits you... lol. The notable events, which are widely covered in sources and already have specific articles, are the Hungarian annexation of Backa and Baranja, the German occupation of the Banat, and the NDH absorption of Syrmia. All different occupants. This is an inappropriate fork which conflates the very different experiences of occupation of three parts of modern Vojvodina. It's ahistorical and misleading because it implies Vojvodina had a political existence immediately before the invasion. It didn't. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You assumed bad faith. I clearly explained that "Googling descriptive title means nothing." There is nothing misleading in the current title which does not imply anything about Vojvodina's political existence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, so did you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Peacemaker67 and I gave explanation for my reasons here - . It is not true that this region was not called Vojvodina in that time and I proved that with sources. Occupation and division of Vojvodina and rest of Serbia by Nazis was illegal. Independent State of Croatia, Hungary and German occupied territory were illegal and we should not promote here illegal Nazi creations and merge this page into pages about illegal Nazi entities. Peacemaker67, you have no consensus to merge this page and do not give yourself freedom to do that with no consensus. Nemambrata (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Axis occupation of Vojvodina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312090306/http://belgrade.indymedia.org:80/print.php?id=17 to http://belgrade.indymedia.org/print.php?id=17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No military casualities?
How is it that in an article about war operations only the number of civilians killed is precisely presented? I understand the resistance (partisan movement) developed slowly, but no regular soldier died in Vojvodina during WWII? As I understand history, before the occupation occured, this was Kingdom of Yugoslavia proper and a certain number of Yugoslav army units guarded Vojvodina and its borders. I also understand that under the pressure of war there was desertion and a number of them flee. But there were fights in the first days of occupation, at least around Novi sad, and in Srem. This article needs to be written from the point of view of a real historian and as a real historic account. And for a proper encyclopedic article, both the number of resistance movement, both of the german/hungarian troops, and Yugoslav army units needs to be in there (also later chetniks, we know that their movement was present at least in Banat). And no reason to omit the Soviet solders numbers (if we have them). I don't have the data but I assume that the person who precisely collected the data about civilians also had access to these, and for some reason still did not include it, which is a proper omission.–Jozefsu (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)