Talk:Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Serbian Voivodship

Shouldn't the name of the article be Serbian Voivodship (Srpska vojvodina)? Also, census?:) From where?:) Ceha

---

No, because Serbian Voivodship is another province that existed before this one. The official name of this province was "Voivodship of Serbia", thus the sources which mention it as "Serbian Voivodship" obviously do not understand the difference between the two. As for census results, I have them in two books:

• 1. Sima M. Ćirković, Srbi među evropskim narodima, Beograd, 2004.
• 2. Dr Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjiga 3, Novi Sad, 1990.

PANONIAN (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Serbian Voivodship and Tamiš Banate (at most)

Why you opstructed the user Ceha. He didn't say Serbian Vojvodovina or Serbian Vojvodina, he said Serbian Voivodship (Voivodeship). That is a big difference.

Proofs ARCHIVAL FONDS OF THE ARCHIVES OF VOJVODINA IN NOVI SAD - WHERE YOU LIVE:

• Archival collection (fond) No. 23 - Zemaljska uprava za Srpsko Vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat (Landesverwaltung der Serbischen Woiwodschaft und des Temescher Banats) - Temišvar (1849-1861), English translation Lands administration for the Serb Voivodship and Temescher Banate or in the better spirit of the language Administration of the land for the Serbian Voivodship and Temescher Banate.

• Archival collection (fond) No. 24 - Zemaljska građevinska uprava za Srpsko Vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat (Landesbau - Direktion für die Serbische Woiwodschaft und das Temescher Banat) - Temišvar (1850-1861) Building administration of the land for the Serb Voivodship and of Temescher Banate.

• Archival collection (fond) No. 22 - Zemaljska školska uprava za Srpsko Vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat (K. und K. Landesschulverwaltung für die Serbische Woiwodschaft und das Temescher Banat) - Temišvar (1851-1855) School administration of the land for the Serb Voivodship and of Temescher Banate.

All of the archival materials are in written in German language, I mean official documents. They are not hear-say, and they are very well preserved to last for a dozen centuries. This is a very long time. Imbris 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

First, speak in your own name, not in the name of other users. Second, I already told you that it is nothing but a forgery to present ONLY those documents that use name Serbian Voivodship and NOT TO present those that use name Voivodship of Serbia. Since both kind of documents obviously exist, why you do not search in archive for other documents? (I really want to know your answer). PANONIAN (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have every right to mention someones contributions to the debate, even if those contributions were made before the debate even started. This shows how you work. Ceha may have not known the fact so YOU were able to dismiss him and his (or her's) contributions. Archives do not create fonds - Archives receive documenation and in accordance to international norms for archival description only describe what they have received. Do not portlay false that archives consist of a few (if memory serves me well - YOU mentioned only two documents). On the other hand I have proven that I am not disruptive and waited but this have gone far enough, limit has been reached. In a few days I will have the book written by the archivist of Archives of Vojvodina - Tadija Grosinger - in it I hope to find some facsimiles of documents that I will post as links here. I expect that you will folow thruogh and correct what you have written (on the basis of books) wrong. I expect that you will have the strength and objectivity to understand that even if you have collaborative book and simmilar materials this doesn't mean that those information are correct. Documents are correct. -- Imbris 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you have no right to speak in the name of other users exactly because YOU DO NOT KNOW what those users know or think, so just let them to speak in their name. It is not good to speak about user Ceha if he is not here. Second, you are in fact proved that you are indeed disruptive and that you goal here is to push your POV no matter what sources say and I presented several sources for you that use name Voivodship of Serbia, so what you want more? Regarding archives, the last thing that Wikipedia need is YOU to say what archieves have and what have not - much more relevant persons (historians like D. Popović, S. Ćirković and others) used those archieves and wrotte their books based on those documents and you have no right to dispute what they presented in those books. End of story. And I will tell you this: as long as name Voivodship of Serbia can be found in those books, it will be also found in Wikipedia no matter what one Greater Croatian Serbophobic anti-Serbian and anti-Vojvodinian nationalist like you say. It is time for you to find other place to heal your frustrations. PANONIAN (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Flag and Coat of arms

We now really have problem with this. First somebody added this flag to the article (and I really suspect that this is in fact flag of the Serbian Voivodship, and not of the Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat), and then somebody described this flag in the text. Can somebody say what is a source that claim that this was flag of this Voivodship, and not of the previous one (the Serbian Voivodship)? People very easy confound these two and I think that it is the case here too. PANONIAN (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am afraid it was me. I removed the whole article and pushed it to the Serbian Voivodship. You were right, Pannonian. I named the source, it was a Leksiklopedia article from TV Novosti from 1991. I do not know the exact number of issue, because I cut it from the magazine. One of the flags of this design is kept, I believe in Sombor museum or so, and has the Cyrillic inscription "For the Emperor and Motherland - the Sombor Volunteers". This was also the model for the war flags in 1848 Revolution. Sorry for the mess, now itćs on the right place. Me and Željko Heimer also made a copy of the flag and we are trying to put it on the FOTW site. He is the leading vexillologist in the Southeastern Europe. Zhix 23:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but you also should to write image source on the image page itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SrpskaVojvodina400px.jpg You also should to writte what is copyright status of the image (Is it permited that image could be used on Wikipedia or not). If you do not specify these things, the image will be probably deleted. PANONIAN (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Were Serbs a minority in this entity?

Is its border connected to the border of Serbian Vojvodina? For it seems as if either this one does not include Baranja, or the map of Serbian Vojvodina on its article is far too skechy. --PaxEquilibrium 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, HRE, if you read both articles, this one and Serbian Vojvodina, you will find there all answers. Those were two different political entities with different borders. Serbian Vojvodina included Baranja and Military Frontier, while Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat did not. Also, Serbian Vojvodina did not included east and central Banat inhabited mainly by Romanians and Germans and Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat included it. You have here also demographics section, so you can see that it is questionable whether Serbs were majority in Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat or not. If you count Orthodox Serbs only (without Bunjevci and Šokci, who were considered a Catholic Serbs in many sources), then number of Serbs was smaller than the number of Romanians in Germans, but if you count Serbs together with Bunjevci and Šokci, then they were relative majority in the province. PANONIAN (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Josip Šokčević

Look at Book by an Vojvodinian. There he wrote who Josip Šokčević were in regards of the history of Serb Voivodship and Temeser Bannat. Do not edit something just because you do not know or have no proff in your library. Trere are much, much more book in libraries of everyone of us, your library is not THE LAW. Imbris 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it is very nice that you use sources that could be confirmed - my source mention name Josif, but I am fine with both names. And just a small observation, did you noticed that "your" source in fact mention name Vojvodship of Serbia instead Serb Voivodship, but you just do not want to say word Serbia, do you? PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The word Serbia means nothing bad or good to me. I am interested in the truth. In the debate about the name of Josip Šokčević you should refrain yourself from commenting other debates. And for the conclusion, it was I who told you of the "source" if it even could call it a source. Publications are not definite sources, and most certain ones written by only three persons who do not cite documents. Your debates are fruitless and when The Archives of Vojvodina publich the list of its fonds and the name Serb Voivodship and Tamiš Banat appears the title of your article Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat is history, it is gone. As well will the mentioning of the name Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat in the majority of cases, except from the case of TRIVIA. Imbris 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Debate about name of Josip Šokčević is over because I really do not care was he Josip or Josif - it is irrelevant. However, the name of the Voivodship of Serbia is not irrelevant and name used in Wikipedia should be same name that is used in most history books. Regarding documents from the archives, do not think that they can help you to falsify history and push your POV. For example, if archive have two documents, one of them using name Voivodship of Serbia and another using name Serbian Voivodship, it is easy for you to make a forgery if you present only one of those documents which use name Serbian Voivodship, but if you do not present another one that use name Voivodship of Serbia, and exactly that you said that you will do: you said that you will ask archive of Vojvodina what is historical base for usage of name Serbian Voivodship, but you DID NOT SAID that you will ask them what is base for usage of other name. In another words, only if you ask archive what is base for usage of BOTH NAMES, then you can have valid answer from them. So, if you ask me, name Voivodship of Serbia should be used here as long as it is used in most of the historical books and you really should stop your ridiculous attempts to delete or twist Serbian history. PANONIAN (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On the question of memorandum that I wrote

XXXXXX, 9. mart 2007.

Republika Srbija

Autonomna Pokrajina Vojvodina

Arhiv Vojvodine

Dunavska 35

RS-21000 Novi Sad

E-pošta: info@arhivvojvodine.org.yu

Faksimil: +381 (0)21 522 332

Predmet: Točnost naziva Vojvodstvo Srbija i Tamiški Banat

Vrlo poštovani!

      Molio bi Vas da mi odgovorite na nekoliko pitanja. Kao prvo, da je zvaničan naziv fonda koji se pretpostavljam još uvek čuva u Vašoj arhivskoj instituciji, Zemaljska uprava za srpsko vojvodstvo i tamiški Banat.

      Ako je tako onda bih vas lepo molio da mi odgovorite kojim se imenom u fondu najčešće imentuje krunska zemlja Srpsko Vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat u delu koji se odnosi na reči Srpsko Vojvodstvo? Znam da je često korišćen u to vreme naziv serbska Vojvodovina, ali time se zapravo ne bavim. Hoću reći, je li češće bilo Srpsko Vojvodstvo, Vojvodstvo Srpsko, ili možda danas od nekih “danas” korišćen pojam Vojvodstvo Srbija.

      Ne znam šta bi Vam trebao da Vam kažem iz kojih me to razloga zanima, ali Vas uveravam da nije vezano s imovnom koristi.

      Druga tema je Srpska Vojvodina (1848-49) za koju znam da se koristi i ime Vojvodina Srpska. Bez obzira što se u to vreme verovatno koristilo, kao i u gornjem pitanju reči serbska Vojvodovina odnosno Vojvodovina serbska. Opetujem pitanje, da li češće bilo Srpska Vojvodina (Vojvodovina) ili Vojvodina (Vojvodovina) Srpska ili možda danas od nekih korišćen pojam Vojvodina Srbija.

      Da li se u arhivskim materijalima ijednom pojavilo ime Vojvodstvo Srbija (1849-60) odnosno ime Vojvodina Srbija (1848-49) ili su to samo sadašnji termini?

      Ako se jeste pojavilo kolika je bila brojnost tih pojava i da li su bile zvanične naravi ili su to bili potpuno nezvanični termini, retki slučajevi.

      Kad to pitam ne mislim na titulu Velikog Vojvode Vojvodstva Srbije koju je imao Austrijski car sve do kraja Austro-Ugarske monarhije. U originalu na Nemačkom Grosswojwod der Wojwodschaft Serbien. Da li ima ikakve veze između titule Austrijskog cara i termina kojim se u dokumentima označuje samo Vojvodstvo. Nemački naziv za Vojvodstvo bio je Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das Temeser Banat.

      Ako je Vojvodstvo krunska zemlja i ako je naziv titule različit onda nema razloga da se danas govori o Vojvodstvu Srbije i nekakvoj Austrijskoj Srbiji. Srbija nikad nije bila Austrijska, već su Austrijanci manipulisali njome te izvršili okupaciju nad njom tri puta u 18. veku.

      Pronašao sam jednom naziv Vojvodstvo Srbija i to u knjizi Dr. Dušana J. Popovića (1990) Srbi u Vojvodini, knjiga treća, strana 306., pa sam pomislio u sebi da takva veličina u istoriografiji može da počini takvu grešku. Slično je i u brošuri “Koliko se poznajemo?”. Izdavač brošure je Izvršno veće Autonomne Pokrajine Vojvodine, a autori su Milan Micić, mr Tibor Pál i Kalman Kuntić. Bio je to projekat “Afirmacija multikulturalizma i tolerancije u Vojvodini” sada raspoloživ na mrežnom mestu Interneta Službe za opšte i zajedničke poslove pokrajinskih organa Autonomne Pokrajine Vojvodine.

      Molim Vas da na ova pitanja odgovorite zbog Vas samih, jer arhivskim institucijama je prosvetna delatnost jedna od značajnih. Predlažem da kraćenu informaciju publikujete na mrežnom mestu Interneta Arhiva Vojvodine, da ceo svet vidi i čuje, da se napokon znade. Još sam se setio da Vas molim ako biste mogli da mi date i sadašnju signaturu fonda, mislim matični broj.

      Unapred zahvaljujem na odgovoru koji se nadam primiti na adresu elektroničke pošte, jer obična pošta nije bezbedan način dostave.

            Sa poštovanjem!

XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, s. r.

Imbris 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA. E jedva čekam da vidim šta će ti odgovoriti. Naravno, ne boj se, ja ću veoma dobro znati da li su ti stvarno odgovorili ili si sam napisao odgovor... PANONIAN (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This memo shows that I am not what you say I am. On the other hand it is clear that you are not what you say you are. Laugh on. You should be ashamed of your self. The answer came and it is:

• Archival collection (fond) No. 23 - Zemaljska uprava za Srpsko Vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat (Landesverwaltung der Serbischen Woiwodschaft und des Temescher Banats) - Temišvar (1849-1861), English translation Lands administration for the Serb Voivodship and Temescher Banate or in the better spirit of the language Administration of the land for the Serbian Voivodship and Temescher Banate.
• Archival collection (fond) No. 24 - Zemaljska građevinska uprava za Srpsko Vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat (Landesbau - Direktion für die Serbische Woiwodschaft und das Temescher Banat) - Temišvar (1850-1861) Building administration of the land for the Serb Voivodship and of Temescher Banate.
• Archival collection (fond) No. 22 - Zemaljska školska uprava za Srpsko Vojvodstvo i Tamiški Banat (K. und K. Landesschulverwaltung für die Serbische Woiwodschaft und das Temescher Banat) - Temišvar (1851-1855) School administration of the land for the Serb Voivodship and of Temescher Banate.

I know that Syrmia is close to Novi Sad, beeing the centre of xenophoby and radicalism in Serbia, but naming the two streets by the names of terrorist's.

Imbris 22:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are disruptive. Imbris 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling and stop disrupting other users in their work. "This memo" is something that anybody could writte here claiming that he sent it to the archive (Do you think that I am stupid or what?). I already answered to your arcive documents, but I will answer again: there are two kinds of those documents: one kind using name Voivodship of Serbia and another kind using name Serbian Voivodship. Your attempt to present only one kind of documents and to completelly ignore other kind (the one that is widely used among historians) is nothing else but a futile attempt for history falsification. Regarding Syrmia, what "xenophoby, radicalism and terrorists" you speak about? Is that another personal insult because half of my ancestors are from Syrmia? Also, please try to prove your claim that I am disruptive. PANONIAN (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On the question of archival standards

Texts are in Serbian language and cyrlic for the convenience of Panonian.

• ISAD(G) Opća međunarodna norma za opis arhivskoga gradiva, in English General International Standard of Archival Description

• ISAAR(CPF) Međunarodna norma arhivističkoga normiranoga zapisa za pravne i fizičke osobe te obitelji International Standard of Archival Records for Corporations, Persons and Families

Please be constructive. Imbris 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You be constructive, stop trolling and stop insulting my ethnic origin and history of my ancestors. PANONIAN (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not constructive. When ever someone start's to be polite you start to be impolite. I hope that you will be blocked. Imbris 22:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you was not polite to me - you insulted me, both personally and racially/ethnically and your hate towards my ethnic origin is just incredible. Should I like you because of that? Regarding blocking, the blocking policy on Wikipedia is really not good one because it allow to every single ultra-nationalist and irredentist to express his "opinion" and spread hate against somebody. The last thing what Wikipedia should be is a place for that. PANONIAN (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion of the discussion

Ok Imbris, you forced me to do this, it took me some time, but I done it, so just read this page and stop what you doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources You are simply not competent to judge about work of historians such as Dušan J. Popović, Sima M. Ćirković, Vladimir Ćorović, Drago Njegovan, Vasilije Krestić, Slavko Gavrilović, Čedomir Popov, Johan Šviker, etc. PANONIAN (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand Panonian glorifies Voivodship as if it was in the best interest of the Serb people. Voivodship was ruled by the list of several governors who governed the Voivodship using allmost exclusively German language, none of them were of Serb nationality. I do not see any problem that the order of word should be changed to an official one. Why does Panonian not see eye to eye with me on the subject - this escapes me - but it is obvious to everyone who knows anything about bad things that have happened in Yugoslavia since the death of Tito. Plans have been steadely forging like iron into a master plan of destroying any little bit of democracy in Yugoslavia (put in place by Tito in 1974.). Nevertheless official name was Serbian Voivodship and Temescher Banate. I think that Panoinan is the one that does orriginal research by stateing that population that have spoken Illyrian (majority) give him the right to demand that the term Tamiš Banat is honoured the official and objective in Wikipedia. He can state what ever he want but the last known official name is the name under it must be represented in Wikipedia. And here we talk about an official name that is so little different from his POV pushing Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat. Serbian Voivodship and Temescher Banate is an best possible translation to English language of the official name that in German is Die Serbische Woiwodschaft und das Temescher Banat and in Illyrian Serbska Vojvodovina i Tamiški Banat. I have even tryed to compromise without loosing my objectivity and sugessted Serbian Voivodship and Tamiš Banate. Banate because the word Banat does not exist in English language and because Banat is in this name of the territory and not the geographical name. We can talk about Banat as an geographical term but in this case we are talking about name of a territory (more precisely name of an subnational entity of the second level). We have several choices: Banate or Bannate or even Bandom. All of the these words, Banovina, Banija, Banat orriginate from the title - Ban. Tamiš is a river and hence only geographical term.

The process of changing the name is very easy, and allmost painless. There is not much text in the article, and a small nummber of articles point to it. --- Imbris 22:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You have no proof that "official name was Serbian Voivodship" and not Voivodship of Serbia and those sources claim that Voivodship of Serbia was an official name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources So, I do not understand your problem here. Tell me what is wrong with those sources, we can analyse them one by one if you want.... PANONIAN (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Religions

PANONIAN, you are ignoring and mixing facts. There were 2 main Protestant groups there: "evangélikus református" that is Evangelic Reformeds (Calvinists), and "evangélikus lutheránus" or "ágostai evangélikus" that is Evangelic Lutherans. Evangelism is s quite different thing, please check the link. --Koppany 11:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. PANONIAN 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The tile Voivode after 1860

The Voivodship was abolished in 1860 and since then the title became a mere decoration. Both Francis Joseph and Charles IV hold also the title of King of Jerusalem, but they are not listed among the leaders of Palestine or Israel, or also hold the title of Grans Prince of Transylvania when Transylvania did not exist as an autonomous admninistrative province. So please differentiate between historical and honorific titles and real ones. --Koppany 11:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalim is very different case – the emperor did had a title of «King of Jerusalem”, but he never ruled Jerusalem. Contrary to this, he still ruled territory of voivodship until 1918 – even after voivodship (or vojvodina) was officially abolished in 1860, it still remained an unofficial name for the region (for example, football club with name “Vojvodina” was founded in Novi Sad in 1914 which reflect the usage of this name for the region). In another words, the emperor had title of voivod and also ruled this territory, so I really do not see valid reason to remove this info from the article. The info is very important because it show legal continuation of the idea about vojvodina in Habsburg laws until the end of the Monarchy. PANONIAN 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Transylvania - as I already mentioned before - is a good paralel. The Grand Principality of Transylvania in 1867 was reunited with Hungary and the Grand Principality ceased to exist, but the title Grand Prince was kept by the King of Hungary as a historical and honorific one. please note that honorific titles show not legal continuation. --Koppany 11:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that some Habsburg laws were contradict to other Habsburg laws, i.e. provinces were established, abolished or merged depending of daily politics, thus if Principality of Transylvania was abolished and included into KOH following this daily politics, that does not mean that legality of its existence was completelly deleted. On the contrary, the title of emperor show that it still remained part of Habsburg legal system. And yes, some titles of the emperor (like the one of the king of Jerusalem) were indeed honorific, but not all of them. If we speak about voivodship, it was formed in accordance with Habsburg laws, i.e. in accordance with documents that recognized territorial autonomy of Serbs. And no matter that voivodship was later abolished, it could be legally created again in any time in accordance to these documents (the legality was not a problem here, but daily politics, by which Habsburgs came to conclusion that it would be better for their interest to support Greater Hungarian nationalism than wishes for autonomy among Serbs). PANONIAN 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The territory was reincorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary in 1860

Since before 1849 it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, so writing about reincorporatuion is not POV, but a fact. --Koppany 12:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is POV because when we speak about 1860 we speak about this year only and therefore word «incorporated» correctly describe events in 1860. Contrary to this word «reincorporated» do not describe only events in 1860, but also describe events before 1849 and therefore it is POV to focus only on some pre-1849 events and to ommit another, i.e. to speak about Hungarian rule, but not about Ottoman. And not only that, but when you decide to speak about only one pre-1849 event and to ommit all other, further POV is the fact that event that you selected to show is part of the history that is seen as «very bad time period» by local inhabitants, thus writting about this time in such way insulting local inhabitants whose ancestors were enslaved during this period. Thus, if we speak about year 1860, the only thing that we should mention is event from 1860 without any allusion to pre-1849 events, that are already mentioned in proper texts and articles. PANONIAN 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The territory since the expulsion of Ottomans was part of Hungary, so during about one and half century, when the Voivodship was created in 1849 and ceased to exist in 1860, lasting less then 11 years. Where is the POV? This is a simply fact. If you want you can mention, that the region was also governed by Ottomans. What is really POV is your sentence: part of the history that is seen as «very bad time period» by local inhabitants, thus writting about this time in such way insulting local inhabitants whose ancestors were enslaved during this period. During this period no-one was enslaved, every inhabitant had same rights regardless their ethnic background. --Koppany 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Read this sentence: "Throughout history Vojvodina has been a part of Dacia, the Roman Empire, the Hun Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Gepid Kingdom, the Avar Khanate, the Frankish Kingdom, the Pannonian Croatia, the Great Moravia, the Bulgarian Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy, the Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Serbia and Montenegro. Since 2006, Vojvodina is part of an independent Serbia." - do you see my point? So many countries ruled over Vojvodina in history and you want to mention ONLY Hungary. I am sorry, but as I said, if we speak about year 1860 we have to mention only events from 1860, but if we speak about older events, then we cannot mention only Hungary, but we have to mention all these countries. However, there are separate articles that already mention pre-1849 history, and this one related only to the voivodship have no reason to speak about pre-1849 events. By the way, it is not correct that territory of the voivodship was part of KOH before 1849 - it was in fact part of another province named Serbian Vojvodina, whose existence was also officially recognized by the Habsburg emperor. Also do not forget Habsburg province named Banat of Temeswar and Tisa and Danube sections of the military frontier in Bačka that existed in the 18th century and that were not part of the KOH, so the sentence that "the territory since the expulsion of Ottomans was part of Hungary" is totally incorrect. And please, just do not tell me that Slavs were not enslaved in Austria-Hungary - if there was so nice for them, why they nicknamed this country "the dungeon of nations"? PANONIAN 16:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Two more things: 1. why you deleted part that say "Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary", and 2. why you deleted part that say "Kingdom of Hungary gained autonomy within newly formed Austria-Hungary"? - what you consider incorrect in these two sentences? PANONIAN 16:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Article title

It is clear that title "Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar" is most accurate and most often used in literature. Sources are presented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources PANONIAN 13:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A series of discussions between user PANONIAN and me were present to agree upon the title Serbian Voivodeship and Tamiš Banat. His cherry-picking the sources is null and void. The title should be Serbian Voivodship and Banat of Temeschwar -- Imbris (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we never agreed on anything. You completelly ignored my posts on the talk page and when I left Wikipedia 2 years ago, you simply moved article title to one you like. If you think that title should be "Serbian Voivodeship", then please elaborate here why and according to which source. And what we would do with title of Habsburg emperor, which clearly use title "Grand Voivode of the Voivodina of Serbia": http://www.thomasgraz.net/glass/fj1titel.htm PANONIAN 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And what you mean that my presentation of sources is "null and void"? Sorry, but I do not think that you can just like that continue forever with your "bully behaviour" to just do whatever you like, no matter what other people think and no matter of the sources they presented. Sources are more relevant in Wikipedia than your opinion or intention. PANONIAN 21:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Archives of Vojvodina in Novi Sad contains only documents which write Serbian Voivodeship, not the other way around. Please stop involving the issue of the title that the Habsburg Emperors started to use in 1850s, this has nothing to do with the name of the territorial unit.

You have cherry picked the sources that further your blatant POV. No one agreed with your move, and the former name of the article was accepted by the editors.

Imbris (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, how one Croat from Croatia could know what archives in Novi Sad would contain? I bet that you never saw such documents and you just lie here (or you perhaps have some proof for your claims that you want to present us?). As for Habsburg title, all Habsburg titles are related to territories they ruled, so I do not see why they would started to use title "voivodes of voivodeship of Serbia" in 1849 if they did not ruled such territory? there is no logic in this. As for sources, I picked sources that are available on Internet, and thus, everybody can see them (unlike you who have only your own word to support your claim), and I also do not see what POV you speak in these sources when name "voivodeship of Serbia" is used in all school books in Serbian educational system (it is name generally accepted by the historians). And also, do not lie that "no one agreed with MY move" since I moved article to its original title and you was the one who moved title without agreement with anyone during the time when I was not present in Wikipedia. So, article now has its original title and you are the one who had to prove your moving case. And yes, former (and current name) - voivodeship of serbia was indeed accepted by editors and you are the only person who would not accept that. Now, since you are hard man, I will go with you one step at the time: first, read these sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources Now, after reading them (just do not say that you do not want to read them since that will discredit you as a participant in this discussion), please answer to this question: are these sources using name "voivodeship of serbia"? yes or no? PANONIAN 10:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the titles of the books that you gave there there are no "Vojvodstvo Srbija" just "Srpska Vojvodina" which should be translated as Serb Voivodeship or Serbian Voivodeship. Also, I remember from school only "Srpska Vojvodina". Now, you are trying to promote that the name of this entity was "Serbia"? Maybe some sources say so, but here are some literature on english:

Serb Voivodship and Tamiš Banat and Principality of Serbia

• Serb Voivodeship and the Banat of Temesvar
• Serbian Voivodeship and the Banate of Temes
• Serbian Voivodship and Banat of Temesvar
• Serbian Voivodship and Banat of Temesvar
• Serb Voivodship and the Temes Banat

• Serb Voivodeship
• Serb Voivodeship
• Serbian voivodeship
• Serbian voivodeship
• Serbian voivodeship
• Serbian Voivodeship
• Serbian Voivodeship
• Serbian Voivodeship
• Serbian Voivodeship

I appreciate your cartographic work, but do not let tendentious. This is manifested through the use of geographic titles, colors, etc. For example, this map is less tendentious than other version. Similar problem was with your map of so called "Serbian Realms", actually Balkan States that emerged after dissolution of Serbian Empire in the 14th century. I hope you dont get me wrong, but wiki maps whould be clear of serbocentric perspective. Best regards.--Mladifilozof (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So, I am tendentious and I am trying to promote name of this article, right? If you did not noticed, I already agreed that both names "Voivodeship of Serbia" and "Serbian Voivodeship" are used in literature and therefore article "Name" section mention both these names and last map version that I draw also mention both these names in map legend. The question is which of the two names is mainly used in literature - I presented here a list of literature that mention name "Voivodeship of Serbia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources - it is not mentioned in titles of those books because these books are speaking about various subjects, but inside these books name "Voivodeship of Serbia" is mentioned (if you do not believe me try to find such books in library). The sources that you listed only show that name "Serbian Voivodeship" is also used in literature, but they are not a proof that such name is a main name used for this province since name "Voivodeship of Serbia" is used by respectable historians such are Dr. Dušan J. Popović, Sima M. Ćirković, Vladimir Ćorović, Slavko Gavrilović, Čedomir Popov, J. H. Šviker, etc (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources ) Also, name "Voivodeship of Serbia" is also used on this page: http://www.sluzba.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/SEKRETARIJATI-V/MANJINE/manjine-koliko-se-poznajemo/web-tekst/sadrzaj.htm - you will notice that page is sponzored by the Government of Vojvodina and that authors of the text were mr Tibor Pal and Kalman Kuntić, who certainly would not have an "serbocentric" view about the issue (here is also a map from the same web adress: http://www.sluzba.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/SEKRETARIJATI-V/MANJINE/manjine-koliko-se-poznajemo/web-tekst/web-karte/karta4.htm ). And finaly, here is an original document from 1851 where name "Voivodeship of Serbia" (in German: "Voivodshaft Serbien") is used: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Grosswojwod.jpg PANONIAN 09:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As for my map of Serbian states in the 14th century, I draw that map according to the map from historical atlas published in 1999 in Belgrade by "Geokarta" and "Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva" and authors of this atlas are 9 profesors, so if you have objections to info presented there please contact these profesors and ask them to change this map in the next edition of the atlas. Perhaps you forgot, but we are here in Wikipedia only to present info from available literature, not to spread our own personal and political opinions and our original research since there are other places for that. PANONIAN 09:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that Serb authors also use title "Vojvodstvo Srbija" ("Voivodeship of Serbia") on serbian language, but we are discussing about standard english name of the article. I gave you list of google books with english title for this province. Original german name is important ("Voivodshaft Serbien"), but we need common english name for this article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing is: there is no an standard or common English name for this province. English language use those geographical names that are officially used in various countries, and thus name "Voivodeship of Serbia" which is most commonly used in official circles is best solution for usage in English. PANONIAN 08:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wojwodowena und Banat

Ok, here is old Austrian map from 19. century and the name of the province is Wojwodowena und Banat. So, the most common name in english would be Vojvodina and Banat. Further in artice we can offer different names and explanations.--Mladifilozof (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain yourself from selective interpretations of the sources. It is obvious that this map only show simplified name of the province. There are also other maps where province is named only "Vojvodina" or only "Banat" (like here: http://lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkans_1859.jpg or here: http://feefhs.org/maplibrary/austro-hungary/banat.jpg ) The full official name, however, was "Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar" and there is no reason that we use any other name in article title. PANONIAN 17:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides that, Vojvodina and Banat (Voivodeship and Banat) is as silly as Empire and Kingdom (of something). -- Bojan  Talk  08:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If we wanted to use most common name, that it would be Serbian Vojvodina and Banat of Temeswar, because it wad named after two former provices: Serbian Vojvodina and Banat of Temeswar.--Mladifilozof (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a logical fallacy. Habsburgs did recognized decisions of the may assembly from 1848 regarding creation of Serbian Vojvodina, but it was not officially recognized under that name or incorporated into political system of the state until the official formation of new province named Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar. In fact name "Serbian Voivodeship" was rather used unofficially for that new province and was used as such mostly by Serbs, but official authorities used official form which was "Voivodeship of Serbia". If that is not a case, please tell me why all these sources and historians presented on this discussion page are using name "Voivodeship of Serbia" for the province? Is something wrong with them or is it with you? 81.18.52.169 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you misinterpreted sources. Better check it out again:

• Serb Voivodeship and the Banat of Temesvar
• Serbian Voivodeship and the Banate of Temes
• Serbian Voivodship and Banat of Temesvar
• Serbian Voivodship and Banat of Temesvar
• Serb Voivodship and the Temes Banat

--Mladifilozof (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) s

Title part 2

I am seing a mistake here. The name of the provnce was refering to the Timiș River and not the city of Timisoara as the current name sugests. FkpCascais (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Name

Article name is problematic from a common-name perspective. English-language results:

• Serbian Voivodship and Banat of Temesvar
  • Károly Kocsis; Eszter Kocsisné Hódosi (1995). Hungarian minorities in the Carpathian Basin: a study in ethnic geography. Matthias Corvinus Pub. ISBN 978-1-882785-04-9.
• Serbian Voivodship
  • Enikő A. Sajti (2003). Hungarians in the Voivodina, 1918-1947. Social Science Monographs. ISBN 978-0-88033-522-5.
  • Acta historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. 1954.
  • Magyar egyháztörténeti vázlatok. Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközössége. 2003.
• Serbian Voivodeship
  • János Varga (1993). A Hungarian Quo Vadis: Political Trends and Theories of the Early 1840s. Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 978-963-05-6493-9.
  • Ernst Flachbarth (1944). A History of Hungary's Nationalities. Society of the Hungarian Quarterly.
  • Ignác Romsics; B?la K. Kir?ly (1999). Geopolitics in the Danube Region: Hungarian Reconciliation Efforts, 1848-1998. Central European University Press. pp. 412–. ISBN 978-963-9116-28-3.
  • István Hajnal (1954). Studia historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Academia Scientiarum Hungarica.
  • Magyar statisztikai közlemények. Az Országos Magyar Kir. Statisztikai Hivatal. 1895.
• Voivodship of Serbia and Temes Banat
  • Jürgen Barkhoff; Helmut Eberhart (2009). Networking Across Borders and Frontiers: Demarcation and Connectedness in European Culture and Society. Peter Lang. pp. 121–. ISBN 978-3-631-59003-4.
• Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat
  • Anna Novakov (2012). Diplomatic Ties. Lulu.com. pp. 25–. ISBN 978-1-105-57721-5.
  • Vasile Boari; Sergiu Gherghina (27 May 2009). Weighting Differences: Romanian Identity in the Wider European Context. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 117–. ISBN 978-1-4438-1215-3.
• Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar
  • James Lyon (30 July 2015). Serbia and the Balkan Front, 1914: The Outbreak of the Great War. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 62–. ISBN 978-1-4725-8005-4.
  • Joshua Parker; Ralph J. Poole (2014). Austria and America: Cross-Cultural Encounters 1865-1933. LIT Verlag Münster. pp. 30–. ISBN 978-3-643-90576-5.

Any thoughts?--Zoupan 03:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)