Talk:Creation of Yugoslavia/Archive 1

message: Do we really need another redundant Yugoslavian history article? We have enough articles on Yugoslavia to begin with, I see no need to add yet another one. Like with "Borders before and after Yugoslavia", all the information here either belongs someplace else or can be found in other articles already. K. Lásztocska 15:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you propose it for deletion or tell me how can I do it? PANONIAN 00:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed it on WP:AFD. This time I won't forget to post the link. :))) Also, for your future reference, here are the instructions how to nominate a page for deletion. K. Lásztocska 01:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: all votes so far are to keep, substantially improve and merge, not delete, and upon considering their comments I have to say I agree. What do you say? K. Lásztocska 15:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no comment. PANONIAN 09:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another?

message: Percents of Serbs that you writting here are either percents of Serbs in present-day Vojvodina territory (that include Banat, Bačka and Syrmia) either percent of Serbs in BBB with borders defined by peace treaties. However, the assembly had deputies from all parts of BBB with cease-fire borders from 1918 and we have no data about percent of ethnic groups in that territory. PANONIAN 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjecina, why you reverting me? Do you understand that these percents are not percents of Serbs in BBB territory in 1918 borders? PANONIAN 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Data with which I work are: 
*"Population of Banat, Bačka and Baranja (in borders defined on the peace conference) was 1,365,596, including 29% Serbs, 27.7% Hungarians, 23.8% Germans, and others."
*Serbs 510,186 (33.8 %), Hungarians 424,555 (28.1) %, Germans 323,779 21.4 %,.. all in all 1 510 804. You can choose what you want but this data is having wiki about census of population in 1910 in BBB. Article is misleading if we do not write that Serbs are 76 % of assembly members in time when they are only 29 - 33 % of population. Simple speaking this fact must be writen in article !!  Point is that assembly has been farse of occupation forces. Rjecina 23:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I stay with fact that demographics data for Serbs in territory under serbian occupation in november 1918 is that they are around 27 %. You do not agree with that but all data are saying that this number is good with possible mistake of -/+ 2 %. Rjecina 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O moj bože! (Oh my god!) - we do not have population data for 1918 territory, so you saying that you want to INVENT one? I cannot believe this really. I can only raise a question of your intentions in Wikipedia if you want to writte data that you invented into article. PANONIAN 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rjecina

message: Banat census (under Serbian occupation is all Banat):
592,049 (37.42%) Romanians 
387,545 (24.50%) Germans 
284,329 (17.97%) Serbs 
242,152 (15.31%) Hungarians 
Bačka census (all Bačka is under Serbian military control):
Hungarian = 363,518 (44.75%) 
German = 190,697 (23.47%) 
Serbian = 145,063 (17.86%)
Romanian = 386 
Baranja census (greatest part is under Serbian control. Only city outside control is Komlo):
Hungarian = 199,659 (56.64%) 
German = 112,297 (31.86%) 
Serbian = 13,048 (3.70%) 
Croatian = 10,159 (2.88%)
 
Numbers speak this:
Hungarian 805 329
German 690 539
Romanian 592 435
Serbian 442 440
Point of this is that Serbs are only 4th nation if we look numbers for BBB which is under Serbian military control. So 4th nation in census numbers has given 76 % of assembly members. This is democracy farse !! Now I am really interested to hear how is possible to defeat that data. ---Rjecina 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will "defeat" your data very easy. Check this: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif you will see that "all Banat" was not controled by Serbian army, you will also see that northern border of Bačka on this map is different from border of former Bačka-Bodrog county: http://www.talmamedia.com/map/hhcounty/images/megyek1/bacsbod.gif and you will also see that northern border of Baranja is different from border of former Baranja county: http://www.talmamedia.com/map/hhcounty/images/megyek1/baranya.gif In another words, you calculated population of non-existing territory. PANONIAN 07:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Census data for BBB under Serbian occupation

message: Can we agree with facts writen by user PANONIAN that name of assembly has been:  Great People's Assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci and Other Slavs from Banat, Bačka and Baranja ?
In my think we all agree about that !
Dear PANONIAN legal meaning of this name/words is that this is assembly of all Serbs, Bunjevci, Other Slavs from all Banat, Bačka and Baranja !! If they have voted only for territory under Serbian occupation then name of assembly need to be something like : Great People's Assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci and Other Slavs from Banat, Bačka and Baranja under Serbian control.
All in all I do not see that something like that is writen because of which they have voted for all Banat, Bačka and Baranja ! Maybe you will PANONIAN say that this is not truth but legal fact stay and it is not possible to defeat him with nationalistic propaganda.
:No. They did not voted for "all Banat, Bačka and Baranja" - they voted for (this was officially stated) "parts of Banat, Bačka and Baranja in borders that will be defined by the peace conference". Thus, the fact is that it is confusing for what they voted because assembly did had representatives from all parts of BBB controled by Serbian army, but it also stated that vote would apply to "borders that will be defined by the peace conference", which were not yet known in the time. PANONIAN 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your defintion of "Banat, Bačka and Baranja" - do you speak about territory controled by Serbian army or about "all of BBB"? PANONIAN 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it must be shown that Serbs were a very small percentage in the whole country and a small percentage in BBB. The name of the assembly shows that they wanted to represent Banat Bacska and Baranya, not just the Serbian occupied BBB, so correct census data must be used. It must be noted that the assembly was the opinion of a few hundred Serbs (you could easily gather a few hundred people in any country so that would be insane if a few hundred ppl could give away a land to an other country). They had no right to give away Croatian and Hungarian land to anyone and vote about anything. Land can be transferred through war and conquest, gained with invasion of armies but not with a joke vote of a few hundred Serbs while excluding everyone else who lived there. This must be explained in the article, or the reader could be confused and think this was a democratic vote where everyone could vote not just a few serbs. The best example is to see what would happen today. If a few hundred Romanians gather and proclaim unification of Vojvodina with Romania tomorrow the police would simply arrest them as criminals would they not?  Hobartimus 11:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Serbs were largest ethnic group in BBB in the borders defined by the peace conference and they voted for these borders. And which country you speak about here? I also answered in my previous post about issue what this assembly represented: "parts of Banat, Bačka and Baranja in borders that will be defined by the peace conference". Also, we have no reason to use this census data here - we have separate article about BBB and this census data is already written there (I do not see that we wrotte in this article any other data about population of any other territory). Also, the peace conference certainly did not gave "Croatian and Hungarian land" to Serbs, because despite the fact Serbs were largest ethnic group in BBB with peace conference defined borders, there were only few thousands Croats there and also not much "real" Hungarians who were not magyarized Slavs or Germans. And the vote was indeed democratic - we can say that more than 50% of population of BBB was represented on this assembly because there were representatives of all Slavs and representatives of Germans as well, which together were more than 50% of population. PANONIAN 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you are not writing truth and this is only cultural saying because of wiki rules. We will all accept your census data that Serbs has been majority in BBB but this data exist only in your wishes. Second in article Croats of Serbia you have been deleting my edits in which it is writen that part of Croats has taken Yugoslav nationality. Your comments have been "You cannot claim that somebody who declared himself as Yugoslav is Croat" and "you cannot count those people that declared themselves as Bunjevci and Šokci here, please respect their human rights to choose their nationality by free choice". Because you in this comment are not respecting Hungarians human rights to choose their nationality by free choice you are showing yourself like nothing other but Serbian extreme nationalist (in my thinking this is words with fund...). About voting it is interesting how regions want to become part of Serbia when they are under Serbian occupation but not before ?? ---Rjecina 20:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I speak about BBB borders defined by the 1919/1920 peace treaties in which Serbs were relative majority. In the 1918 cease fire borders of BBB population was ethnically very mixed and we do not have exact data about its population. So, why you inventing this data based on population for different territorial entities? Can you understand that BBB province did not included whole territory of Banat, Bačka and Baranja regions, thus you cannot present population data for these regions as population data for BBB? - what exactly is "not truth" in my statement here? And where exactly I said that I "do not respecting Hungarians human rights to choose their nationality by free choice" and what exactly this have with the fact that you adding into this article numbers that you invented? And regarding Vojvodina, Serbs of this region have fought to become part of Serbia for very long time before 1918, so your last sentence is ridiculous. However, I will propose compromise here: I will change article text and I will include your opinion that 1918 assembly might not be legal regarding territories majority inhabited by Hungarians and Romanians, but I will also writte that it was legal regarding territories majority inhabited by Serbs - in another words, we will see whether you really care for rights of Hungarians or you just want to deny right of Serbs to live in their own country. PANONIAN 10:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal facts

message: I already explained why word is POV - word "occupation" have many meanings and somebody could read it in different way than as description of WWI ally military operation. I suggest that word "controled" is used since it is correct and it does not have different meanings. Why you object to usage of word "controled"?.  PANONIAN 15:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be explained that this so called assembly took place under military occupation. It is a fact that cannot be denied. Hobartimus 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Under most logic terms, that's an occupation (1. foreign forces occupying domestic terrain, 2. against the will of the majority of the people). --PaxEquilibrium 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not "foreign terrain" since Slavs were majority in most of these areas that were later recognized as part of SHS, and it was not against majority of the people who lived in these Slavic inhabited areas. However, I tried to make compromise in which I mentioned that land was controled by Serbian army (the only difference is usage of more neutral word) and I also mentioned that assembly did not had authority to represent areas that were not Slavic-inhabited. So, to what you object in this compromise version? PANONIAN 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your extreme POV is obvious from the first sentence. I cant even read past that one sentence. It was not "foreign terrain"?????????? This is the type of stuff I talk about(fringe views held by 2-3 ppl like flat-earth theory). Hobartimus 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly you consider POV here? And please tell me how that can be "foreign terrain" when it is land of my Serb ancestors who live in that land for centuries? It is my and their land and how exactly it can be "foreign" for me and them? PANONIAN 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not understand that land outside the borders of the Kingdom of Serbia is "foreign terrain"???? Now I see the reason for all the wars started by Serbs, against Croatia, Kosovo etc etc. Thinking like this can easily lead to war. Hobartimus 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And do you understand that Serbian army was INVITED to come here by local National Boards, i.e. by local people for whom this country cannot be "foreign". And please, dont speak about wars because you are the one who want part of my country (that is why you writing what you writing), while you cannot see me editing articles related to Croatia or Kosovo attempting to prove that these lands should belong to Serbia. PANONIAN 22:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still "foreign" to Serbia, even if some local people invited a foreign army. Local Germans invited Hitler into many places, local communists invited Stalin so it's not the best example either. Also you are too involved in this personally to the point where you became paranoid. You should cool down before you make more personal attacks. Hobartimus 23:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is not foreign to Serbs and this article speak about local Serbs whom you want to present like "foreigners" in their country. PANONIAN 12:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Foreign", PANONIAN, simply means foreign - a country has its territory, its borders, and BBB was most certainly foreign - it belonged to Austria-Hungary (i.e. Transleithania). --PaxEquilibrium 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is maybe foreign for you (you are an Montenegrin, right?), but I am native of this area and my ancestors lived here long before Germans and Hungarians were colonized by Habsburg authorities and therefore for my ancestors who lived here in 1918, this land cannot be foreign and it is not acceptable that somebody want to present them like "foreigners" since they were the only true natives of this land. PANONIAN 12:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: PANONIAN I know from our other discussions that your point of view is that no country has controled BBB after death of Austro-Hungary. Only in my wish to show you another point I will say OK maybe, maybe you are right. If your point is right what will you say about question of Banat republic. They have not wanted that Serbian army make conquest and destruction of this state, they have not asked for military help. Even you must accept that this has been occupation ?? Rjecina 15:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Banat Republic never fully controled its territory - during its entire existence its guardists were engaged in civil war against guardists of Serb National Guard in Banatian cities (I can expand article and wtite more about it if you want). PANONIAN 12:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but Slavic Banate did invite the Serbian forces and greet them as liberators. Of course, the Romanians were far from satisfied, but they agreed (in a way, both sides were semi-satisfied and semi-unsatisfied) in 1919, when the greater part of Banate was handed over to Romania. I'd also like to point that 1. the Romanians greeted the Serbian army as liberators and didn't call it occupation and 2. such leniency regarding the division of that part of the Crown of Saint Stephen shows that Serbia had no ultra-nationalist or "un-far" pretensions in that course (I'm much more unsatisfied with what occurred in Baranya and Bacs). --PaxEquilibrium 20:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Occupation of Serbian army"

message: Why you replace reference to "Hungarians and Romanians" inside South Slavic borders with reference to "Hungarians and Germans"? Borders of South Slavic state were defined towards Romania, not towards Germany, thus I do not understand reasons for this replacement? PANONIAN 15:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point? How does Germany come into the picture here? Hobartimus 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I explained you how - do you want to say that you do not see what you reverting or what? Also, why you reverted my last edits about Serb Boards and Serb Guard? It is disruptive to revert entire edits of other users, no matter if you agree with something there or not - this kind of behavior is not a good way towards compromise and agreement about this article and without such agreement acceptable for all, we will go nowhere (you are very wrong if you think that constant revert wars will help you here because revert wars without discussion on the talk page whose purpose is to solve problems and make a step towards agreement and compromise are considered disruptive). So, I suggest you this: go eat some food and rest few hours, cool your attitude, and then read differences between two versions and please do not revert part of my changes with which you agree, and as for other part that you do not agree with, please use this talk page to make your proposal about compromise. Is that ok? PANONIAN 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal is sensible, except for the fact that you usually never accept any part of other people's edit and revert them in full, so it would have a lot more credibility if you started it first. Also you complain about these guards that collaborated with the Serbian army, but you make things worse by adding new stuff when we have enough trouble trying to figure out the old stuff. Hobartimus 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, here we are: I do not know you for long time, so how you can know me to claim that "I never accept any part of other people's edit and revert them in full"? (which is by the way ridiculous, since most my revets were partial with attempt to find compromise version - the problem of course was that when I accepted one compromise the "opposite side" was the one that constantly introduced more and more of new POV stuff after every compromise version of the article accepted by me). Regarding Serb guard, I added that to illustrate the fact that much of political and military initiatives came from local people (and I added that after I accepted your view that we should write that territory was controled by Serbian army) and I do not understand what problem you have with this fact? PANONIAN 22:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I already explained. The problem is not with the fact that there were some local Serb guards collaborating with the Serb army, but with the fact that you add this when we still debate about occupation/control and other things. It only adds to the confusion if you add more and more sentences to this section. Btw this is also the definition of original research when you write "I added that to illustrate the fact" you add facts, little details that are insignificant to strengthen your POV. You also misquoted me, I wrote "you USUALLY never accept..." you left out usually. My point was that your last action was to simply do a full revert instead of the partial revert suggested by yourself.  Hobartimus 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Serb guard did not "collaborated with the Serbian army" - it was formed by local Serbs before army of Kingdom of Serbia came into area. And I really do not see how this can be confusing for anything. And no it is not original reasearch because I simply translated sentences from my sources (I can quote these sources if you want). The real problem is that you constantly want to present your personal (Greater Hungarian) POV that Serbs "conquered" and "occupied" this area and therefore you constantly deleting everything that speak about local Serb population and their political and military initiatives - I am sorry, but that is not acceptable. There is no single scientific reason that history of local Serbs is deleted (especially because this is their country that we speak about) - if you for example speak about France, it would not be nice to delete history of the French people, right? PANONIAN 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

message: I thinking that this [] is better version of this part of article Your thinking ?.--Rjecina 18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not quite. Drastically poorly written without most essential details. --PaxEquilibrium 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we agree that this state has entered/created Yugoslavia with free will and that in article need to be writen reasons (Italian aggresion, wild habsburg forces, skirmish with Hungary and Austria) --Rjecina 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skirmish with Hungary and Austria? --PaxEquilibrium 21:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For skirmish with Hungary look article about Slavko Kvaternik .--Rjecina 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, why don't you change the "occupying Hungarian Army" in that article? --PaxEquilibrium 22:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ...when? --PaxEquilibrium 11:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know that in this article today there is nothing about skirmish between Hungarian and Croatian forces. When article will have words about that then we will write something like: "Separation between Croatia and Hungary has created border question. Hungary position has been that river Drava is border between states but Croatia has been thinking that Međimurje is Croatian territory because of Croats majority. During military skirmish in this region Croatian forces has defetead Hungarian which has left province." (I think that this is too long for this article but words will be very similar). Territory has not been under Hungarian occupation ! Why ? If we look Austro-Hungary territory Međimurje has been Hungarian territory. If we look nations right for self-determination which has been accepted by Hungary in november 1918 this has been Croatian territory. --Rjecina 14:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem with BBB is that they have taken parts of territory with Hungarian or German majority which is against nations right for self-determination.  --Rjecina 14:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

message: If nobody is against we will work on new article on this page Talk:Creation of Yugoslavia/New article. When job is finished then we will transfer with copy/paste or simple move option of wiki on old place ?? Why this thinking. We will start article from nothing and job will last few days (until we all agree). In this way we will escape danger of revert wars. Second option is that we write article on discussion page and this page we place in archive ?? Your thinking ??---Rjecina 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be a good idea but I don't know if it's allowed by the wikipedia rules. Someone who knows all the hundreds of guidelines and other stuff could probably answer that. I'm not sure because I don't see this sort of solution too often.Hobartimus 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then put it in someone's user space and put a link here so ppl can find it. I was just thinking ppl can mistake it as a fork of the mainspace article if its named that way.Hobartimus 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It brakes no rule, but brakes guidelines. We're using too many space (not to mention that our friend  Rjecina has already numerous subpages already, which is not looked nicely upon ;) --PaxEquilibrium 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you join such a "workshop" in Rjecina's user space to improve the article and agree on a neutral wording? Hobartimus 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: I reverted disruptive user Rjecina since he deleting parts of this article without any explanation. Marko car 10:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: The ide is comning from Rusia, or better from the pan-slavian projekt. The ide for Iliria it was from Napoleon Bonoparta, after he hase maket war for one Egyptien city witch it was in the hand of the albanian milic (Ali Pasha). - Hipi Zhdripi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.161.204 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early advocacy of a South Slav state 

message: Nije neutrlano! Pogledajte Crnu Guru!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreationSCS (talk • contribs) 11:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally got to finish the article, I hope this helps: Podgorica Assembly. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hvala! Ali još uvijek ništa ne piše ođe! A i moje poznavanje engleskoga jezika nije veliko! Molim te da doćeš na rvatsku wikipediju i zaustaviš ovu mržnju i izmišljotine koje širi ovaj "Rječina". Uzgred, na crnogorskom "rječina" je pogrdni naziv. heheheh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreationSCS (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, ease down. You have had a very bad approach at the Croatian Wikipedia - if you don't treat other people nicely, don't expect to be treated nicely. Rjecina might have a bit POV stretched opinion when matters come to Yugoslavia, but in general he's OK. I have no time to edit any other Wikipedia and shall remain to my vow - English, and just English. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dobro. Izvini, možda sam ga i prećera. Ali stvarno ne razumijem kako toliko mržnje mere ležat u jednom jedinom čovjeku...oli što je Nikola Tesla reka povodom toga, trebalo bi ga podsjetit... CreationSCS (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutralno 

message: I know that sometimes my actions are rude but I only speak my thinking. For me is not possible to understand that NPOV editor is edit warring against all other editors more of 3 years because he know the truth and nobody else. On talk page of article in question (Pagania) 8 editors has demanded changes but you have always revert. Even after March 2008 consensus vote 5:1 you have reverted. Can this be called kidnapping ?
We are having other examples but this is best for showing editorial style.--Rjecina (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, better keep your thinking to yourself. ;-) User:Nikola Smolenski deserves in my opinion and that of numerous other users, to be tagged with several appropriate names. But this is the Wikipedia, and we should limit ourselves to strictly formal speech. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK . In future I will write: "In my thinking PaxEquilibrium has kidnapped few articles in which he is edit warring against everybody else". With that definition I am not rude :)--Rjecina (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem..? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rude]]

message: Is there anybody who really thing that Pax changes of 15 february has created NPOV section of article 
:Perhaps you should write here what part of it is POV so that we can together NPOVize it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 15 February edits