File talk:Serbia1918.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

usage of this image[edit]

On this map are Serbian borders which has never been international accepted. This image should not be used as a historical Serbian state border, because it was only few days lasting post war situation, during the process of Creation of Yugoslavia.--Mladifilozof (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? The image itself claim that it represent situation only on certain date (or only for a few days period), and thus it is certainly part of a history. I do not see what problem you have with it? As for borders that "never been international accepted", in fact these borders were internationally accepted as "armistice border line", but were not accepted as permanent state borders. Map however clearly say that these borders are "de facto borders". PANONIAN (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem arises when you put this map as dominant in some article about the modern history of Serbia. The readers then can get the wrong impression that this was historical Serbian state borders during some period of time.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dominant? I do not see that this map is posted as a "dominant" anywhere - it is posted together with other maps in all articles. As for "wrong impression" issue, map clearly indicates to which date it refers, so I do not understand how such "wrong impression" could emanate from map description. 195.178.62.134 08:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one example of improper usage of this image: http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%8F&oldid=19492560. Map is clearly dominant in the russian article about Kingdom of Serbia, represented as official map.--Mladifilozof (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? That is an issue to be discussed in that article, not here... PANONIAN (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greater Serbia[edit]

Forced inclusion of Macedonia into Serbian Kingdom was historical Greater Serbian project. See this report for further explanations:

Montenegro was also annexed to Kingdom of Serbia at controversial Podgorica Assembly:

Not to forget also shot-lived annexation of Romanian Banat. So, if you wanted to make historical Greater Serbian maps, you also need to properly categorize them as well.--Mladifilozof (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Serbia was only a project and nothing else. The project of Greater Serbia from that time (1918) included entire Bosnia, Dalmatia, Slavonia and also parts of modern Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania. It is obvious that this map does not show such project - it show only territories administered by Serbia on certain date and nothing else. If you cannot see difference between political projects and historical events it is your problem, but not a problem of Wiki projects. 195.178.62.134 08:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you want to see how Greater Serbia project looked in 1918, see this map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LandsForSerbia.PNG - so, please do not mix completely different things. 195.178.62.134 08:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were many Greater Serbian projects and many ways of their realization. According to the literature, inclusion of Macedonia into Kingdom of Serbia, is one of them. So please, stop removing category simply because of your opinion.--Mladifilozof (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were projects of "Greater Serbia", but there were also false accusations from Serb enemies that every Serbia larger than "pashaluk of Belgrade" is a "Greater Serbia". In fact, we can track real Greter Serbia projects only from Chetniks in WW2 to Vojislav Šešelj in current days. Projects which aimed to liberate Serb people enslaved by Otttoman and Austro-Hungarian empires could not be technically called "projects of Greater Serbia". Modern chetniks proposed such projects in a way to create large Serbia from territories inhabited mainly by non-Serrbs, but in 1918 situation was very different: Kosovo in that time had much more mixed population, Macedonia was populated by "Macedonian Slavs" who in that time did not had developed modern national consciousness, and Bosnian Muslims and Catholics were also considered to be Serbs rather than something else. So, Serbia from 1912 to 1918 mostly liberated Serbs and other Slavs who were enslaved by the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians and did not included any new territory where exclusive population were members of some other nation (in worst case, some of the territories were ethnically mixed, but stil populated with significant number of Serbs or other Slavs). So, the conclusion is: there is no single proof that these borders of Serbia from 1918 were created with aim of Greater Serbian hegemony over other peoples instead with aim of liberating Serbs from foreign rule or foreign occupation (or you perhaps would say that Ottoman Empire or Austria-Hungary had more right to rule over Serbs than Serbs themselves?). PANONIAN (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we can track real Greter Serbia projects from 19. century to current days. Regarding the "liberation of Serb people":

  • Macedonian Slavs has its own liberation movement. They wanted autonomous Macedonia, not annexation to Serbian state and forced serbianisation.
  • Montenegro was already liberated and Montenegrins doesn't need Serbia to liberate them.
  • Military occupation of Timişoara certanly not intended to "liberate Serb people".

--Mladifilozof (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movements for liberation of the Serb people and Greater Serbia projects are not same thing. In its modern meaning term "Greater Serbia" refer rather to anti-Serb propaganda developed in Austria-Hungary and later widely accepted and spread by modern Croats and Bosniaks. In another words Austria-Hungary was exactly something what could be described as "greater state" that opressed its minorities, so in order to keep their prestige and position rulers of Austri-Hungary accused its minorities and neighbours for evil goals of "Greater Serbia", "Greater Romania", "Pan Slavism", "Russian imperialism", etc, etc, which "aimed to destroy Austro-Hungarian Monarchy". So, there should be clear difference between a case where such Greter Serbian aims really existed and where they are just part of anti-Serb propaganda. Liberation of Serbs who were enslaved by imperialist empires certainly could not be described as "Greater Serbian aim". Such aim could be only proved in the case when Serbian state wanted to take teritories from small neighbouring states or neighbouring peoples. Was it a case in 1912-1918 period? It certainly was not. All territories that Serbia included in 1912-1918 were taken from two imperialist empires and not from neighbouring states. As for ethnic composition of such territories, some of them were ethnically mixed, but also inhabited by Serbs. You mentioned 3 cases here: Macedonia, Montenegro and Temisvar, so I will elaborate them: 1. As I said, Macedonians did not had developed national consciousness and they were very divided about their ethnic and political affiliation, some of them wanted autonomy, some were pro-serb (srbomani), some pro-bulgarian (bugaromani), some pro-greek (grkomani), etc, etc. they also did not had united liberation movement but different groups of "komiti", of whom some were pro-serb and some pro-bulgarian and these two groups of "komiti" often fought one against another instead against turks. So, Macedonia in 1912 was populated by Slavs who did not had national consciousnees and many of whom were pro-Serb, so it is fact that Serbian state liberated these Slavs from ottoman rule. Since they did not had national consciousness in that time any possible case of their liberation (independent Macedonia, Macedonia as part of Serbia or part of Bulgaria) was good and positive thing for them. As for Montenegro, in Montenegro there were two different political options: one wanted to retain independence and another one wanted unification with Serbia, so we have again a case of pro-Serb population here, and we can again conclude that since part of Montenegrin population wanted independence and other part wanted unification with Serbia, any of the two possible events would satisfy one part of Montenegrin population and any of the two events would ensure their freedom. Finally, Temišvar in 1918 was mainly populated by Germans and this city was practically a German enclave located far away from ethnic German territory in Austria, so if this German-populated city had became part of any of the 3 states: Serbia, Romania or Hungary, there would not be much difference for its German inhabitants. In the 18th century, however, this city had Serb majority, and basys for Serbian state to claim this city in 1918 was the fact that it is mainly populated by Germans, who are located far away from their ethnic territory and that this city had a historical significance for Serbs (certainly more than it had for Romanians in that time). So, inclusion of this city into Serbian state in 1918 was certainly not an act against any of the neighbouring peoples. PANONIAN (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the words “liberation” and “enslavement” should be viewed with caution. First, because as far as all historians know there was no slavery in Austria-Hungary. Second, the Macedonians weren’t slaves to the Turkish — they were just Ottoman subjects. Third, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were considered countries, as the same way that Serbia and Greece were. Fourth, Serbia as a nascent kingdom in 1878 also wanted to form its own empire, a kind of mini-Russian-Empire-in-Balkans. Fifth, in original Serbian Kingdom plans the entire Albania were to be annexed by force; this was prevented only because Untited States pressure from Woodrow Wilson. Sixth, the annexation of Montenegro to Serbia wasn’t trough a referendum, but trough the deposition of the Montenegrin royal family. And seventh, the so-called “liberation of South Slavs” promised by the Serb elite during World War I became the Serb-centered, anti-Catholic Kingdom of Yugoslavia, as we can see in this 1925 article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,720153,00.html --189.62.205.233 13:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am usually not using words "liberation" or "enslavement" in my maps, but I have right to present my political opinion on talk pages. Word "Slavery" could have many meanings and I did not used it with its basic meaning - the meaning that I had in mind is "national slavery", "cultural slavery", "political slavery", etc. I also never said that Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire were not countries. I only criticized the political and social structure of these countries where democratic rights of their citizens were not respected. I am also not denying the imperialist aims of the Kingdom of Serbia. My basic point here was that this specific map does not reflect Serbian imperialist aims, but actions of local Serb and South Slavic populations from Vojvodina and Montenegro that proclaimed their unification with Serbia. Local Serb military and political structures in Vojvodina were formed during collapse of Austria-Hungary and these structures actually invited Serbian army to come to Vojvodina to protect local Serbs. These local political structures also proclaimed official unification with Serbia. As for Montenegro, Montenegrin society was always 50%-50% divided between idea of Montenegrin statehood and idea of Serb unity. In different time periods, one of these two ideas had more than 50% support, but in other time periods such support favored other idea. All in all, we cannot say that unification of Montenegro with Serbia was performed without support of at least 50% of Montenegrin population. PANONIAN (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FACTUAL ACCURACY DISPTUTED[edit]

Please see the following discussion about PANONIAN extreme POV pushing QOUTES:

  • On map are Serbia borders which has never been international accepted. Hungarian territory under Serbia occupation is shown like Serbian territory. Part of territory under occupation will be given to Romania, part will stay with Hungary and greatest part will be given to Serbia with peace agreements 1919/20. Simple speaking this map which show borders on 26 november 1918 is false so it must be deleted. More about that on talk page. —Rjecina 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • the map is misleading because Serbia never existed as a state shown here. 1918 demarcation lines weren't internationally recognized borders. Vojvodina, Baranya and Banat were occupied by the Serb army but borders were finalized in 1920 Trianon peace treaty along different lines. The map makes no distinction between demarcation lines and borders, occupied territories and recognized Serb territory. The creator refused any cooperation to improve the map which in present form seems Serb nationalist propaganda. 89.133.142.105 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) User: Zello on en.wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zello )[reply]
  • It is truth that borders shown on map were not internationally recognized,


  • Oh, Mr. PANONIAN, if you really dont want to create a falsification, Hungarian territory under Serbian occupation must be indicated on the map properly, with clearly distinctive coloration. That's the end of story for any apparently normal adult human beeing... V79benno 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (First: there's no need for proof that you are a POV-pusher, it's clear as the daylight, my dear, don't play games. Who else on Earth would spend so much time with hardly defending such a ridiculous falsification?! Oh, my God.) ... I wish you to find a better activity than this poor old game... You cannot change the past, but you can learn from it. :) It's never too late. V79benno 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Everybody not familiar with the history of Central Europe should know that Pécs, Baja and Timisoara weren't recognized as part of Serbia in 1920 when international borders were finalized. Instead these areas became part of Hungary and Romania and their status never changed since then. The borders are recognized by the Serb government. The northern border shown here was never accepted by the international community. 89.133.142.105 User: Zello 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This map is a clear fabrication, and an attempt at falsification of history. This map is born out of either complete ignorance of historical facts, or the desire to spread extreme propaganda, take your pick. Hamada2 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Rjecina clearly explained, prime exemplar of panserbian propaganda. -- Ivan Štambuk 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can understand that person which is not honest is always making questions about honesty of others but this is starting to be too much. This second time in 40 days (first time on wiki) that this user which support chetniks ideology, this PANONIAN question my honesty. Can please somebody block this misleading editor of commons and wiki. Be good PANONIAN and please do not question why I have writen misleading. -- Rjecina 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map need to be deleted. Greatserbian propaganda. --Flopy 09:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the accuracy of the de facto borders in 1918, the caption of the picture is obviously POV: It says "unification" with Banat and Backa, while, clearly, it would be more accurate to say that Timisoara and Pecs were "occupied" at the time. Fossa 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map is great Serbian propaganda, made by a very dangerous Great Serbian Propagandist, Panonian. It shows occupied Croatian Territory as already part of Serbia in 1918, this is falsify of history, this land was stolen from Croatia by Serbs, and this was lawful Croat land in 1918 even if Serbian radicals gained control of the land in an illegal way. Illegal occupation is not the same as lands being lawfully part of one country. 78.3.29.49 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Entente recognized the existence of the independent Hungary in the Belgrade Armistice. Of course you are right that they didn't recognize the 1914 borders with this act, this was never their intention. But similarly they didn't recognize the occupation lines as final borders of Serbia. The legal situation was the same for both countries: their existence was recognized but their desired borders were not. This map shows the Serb dream of Greater Serbia. You simply allotted the disputed territory to Serbia not taking into consideration that its status remained unresolved until 1920 when the real borders were only laid out and the Entente divided the disputed territory into three between the aspirant countries. Zello
  • I can only repeat the words of my honourable predecessor... V79benno 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above QOUTES from the discussion clearly show that this map's factual accuracy is highly disputed. Occupied territory that was never part of Serbia must be clearly noted as occupied territory in the opinion of many users. Propaganda and fantasy maps are not appropriate. Please see here that all the qoutes illustrated the dispute over this maps factual accuracy are here word for word discussion about PANONIAN extreme POV pushing Please also note that NONE of this is my opinion it's all the opinion of others. VízPart (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer[edit]

Ok, since this is the way you want to play your game, let it be. My answer to your post will have 3 basic points:

1. You copy-pasted only selected parts of an closed deletion discussion about this image. Note that deletion was closed with KEEP conclusion, meaning that your „friends“ that posted their „opinions“ there did not proved their point. For the full picture I will copy-paste entire discussion from that page, including my answers and opinions of other users that voted that image is kept.

2. Users whose opinions about me or about my work you quoted are mostly not established or neutral editors of Wiki projects, so I will make a list of these users describing who they are.

3. I will make a detailed elaboration about 1918-1920 history of Hungary and Vojvodina. PANONIAN (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste of entire discussion about deletion of this image[edit]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Serbia1918.png[edit]

  • On map are Serbia borders which has never been international accepted. Hungarian territory under Serbia occupation is shown like Serbian territory. Part of territory under occupation will be given to Romania, part will stay with Hungary and greatest part will be given to Serbia with peace agreements 1919/20. Simple speaking this map which show borders on 26 november 1918 is false so it must be deleted. More about that on talk page. —Rjecina 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There are many maps on Wikipedia that show states whose borders were not "international accepted". Therefore, if we delete this map because of that reason, then we would also have to delete maps of Northern Cyprus, Western Bosnia, Independent State of Croatia, Transnistria, etc, etc. Second, results of this voting will not be valid because user Rjecina called other users to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rjecina And the fact that he called here voters for whom he thought that they will vote "delete" making this voting invalid. Third, before voting, you all should read entire discussion about this map here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Serbia1918.png There I explained that in the time which is showed on this map (November 25-December 1, 1918) this was not "Hungarian territory under Serbia occupation" because Hungary was not internationally recognized state in this time and occupation of this territory was officially finished on November 25, 1918. PANONIAN 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For users which are against deleting I my ask why Serbia is having special treatment ? Why this question ? Because I do not see on commons or wiki maps where West Bank and Gaza are Israel territory! I think that I will to create this map and more similar maps so we will have interesting situation. -—Rjecina 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
It is you who ask for "special treatment" for this map because you did not proposed for deletion other maps that showing "de facto" borders such are maps of northern Cyprus, Transnistria, etc. Also, Israel is very different case because UN had plan for "two states solution" before creation of Israel and therefore Gaza and West Bank were not recognized as parts of Israel, but territories shown on this map were later recognized as parts of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (the basic problem here is that Serbia ceased to exist as a state on December 1, 1918). PANONIAN 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the nominator has no edits outside this topic and didn't even formulate this delete request properly, he put it on another deletion subpage and didn't add the correct deletion template nor notify any of the three uploaders of previous versions of this image. -Nard 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's clearly labelled as the map of Serbia from 1918... it's not "false", it's historical. No valid reason for deletion given. -Nard 07:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point is that this is Serbia that "should have been" not "that was". In short this is not a historical map, Serbia never had these borders in reality nor it was recognized by them, Serbia joined with Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegoina to form Kingdom of Yugoslavia. --No.13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:No.13) 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What for? --No.13 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To No.13. Would you also say that historical maps of the Kinfdom of Hungary or Independent State of Croatia are what "should have been" instead "what was"? And if you think that Serbia "never had these borders" just see this source: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif Regarding recognition, Wikipedia have maps of many other countries that were not recognized. If other maps that show "de facto" situations exist, there is no reason that this one does not exist. PANONIAN 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Hungary and Indepedent State of Croatia are maps of those entities. The map in question here represents a state that never existed. Using the same rationale we could also present the Serbian map with lands promised to them by the Londom Agreement, agreement which also wasn't achieved since Serbia joined with former Austro-Hungarian lands (State SHS) to form Kingdom of Yugoslavia. --No.13 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see: you claim that Kingdom of Serbia never existed? Are you serious??? Just see how many google hits you have for it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kingdom+of+serbia&btnG=Google+Search And there is also map that show lands promised to Serbia by London agreement: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/LandsForSerbia.PNG/300px-LandsForSerbia.PNG However, the two issues are not related because map "Serbia1918.png" show what was achieved before unification with State of SHS. PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously beginning to think you have problems with understanding English. I did not said Kingdom of Serbia never existed, I am saying it never had these borders. Your maps also says and makes clear distinction that these were promised to Serbia, not the actual borders. This is the case with this map also, only in this map we have it presented as these were legal recognized borders which was not the case. --No.13 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Serbia "never had these borders" as you claim, how you explain this source: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif Also, the map "Serbia1918.png" does not show lands "that were promised to Serbia" but lands that officially united with Serbia in 1918 (map of London agreement that you spoke about is something very different). And I do not see that "Serbia1918.png" map claim that these borders were "recognized" - in fact I already agreed that these borders were not internationally recognized, but question is why Wikipedia cannot have maps that show unrecognized "de facto" borders? PANONIAN 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: the above user is having edits on english wikipedia where is that map used. -—Rjecina 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
          • Note: User Rjecina and I are two separate individuals. It is me who decideds what to do and how to do. Needless to say no one can influence me to vote how he wants. Rjecina called me check this out, I did, since I know a bit about history of these parts I joined the discussion and voted. --No.13 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do not claim that user Rjecina and you are not separate individials (did somebody else claimed that you are not?), but point is that by calling you here to vote he disrupted the voting process. That is not allowed by Wiki rules. PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry but as far as I understand it is perfectly legal to call out for other people to join in the deletion discussions. The problem would be if he actually suggested me how to vote, which he didn't. --No.13 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • But callling only users which would vote in certain way is not quite legal - he should call all users that might be interested in question (not only those who would vote "delete" by his opinion) and he should also call author of map here and he did not done such thing (I saw this page checking his user contributions). PANONIAN 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the map is misleading because Serbia never existed as a state shown here. 1918 demarcation lines weren't internationally recognized borders. Vojvodina, Baranya and Banat were occupied by the Serb army but borders were finalized in 1920 Trianon peace treaty along different lines. The map makes no distinction between demarcation lines and borders, occupied territories and recognized Serb territory. The creator refused any cooperation to improve the map which in present form seems Serb nationalist propaganda. 89.133.142.105 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) User: Zello on en.wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zello )[reply]
    • It is truth that borders shown on map were not internationally recognized, but Wikipedia have many more maps of de facto borders of other countries (I already showed examples). Regarding occupation, official end of occupation of these territories was on November 25, 1918 when these territories officially united with Serbia which was recognized by the Serbian government. International borders were defined in 1920, but 1920 peace treaty did not changed the status of mentioned territories - their status was officially changed on November 25, 1918 when they united with Serbia, which on December 1, 1918 became part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The fact that Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was internationally recognized in 1919 show that these territories were in 1919 recognized as part of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which was one year before 1920 peace treaty. Regarding "cooperation" that I refused, you did not proved on corresponding talk pages that this map is wrong. And it is very rude to post your comment now here ignoring all my answers that I gave to you about that on other talk pages. Not to mention that you insult me claiming that my work is "Serb nationalist propaganda" especially if we known the fact that you and several more Hungarian and Croatian users for very long time trying to edit Serbia-related articles with bad faith trying to prove that Serbs have no right to live in their country and that parts of Serbia should belong to Hungary and Croatia - that is also a reason why you want to delete this map: you want to impose your view that Serbs have no history and that because of that they have no right to live in their country. PANONIAN 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What reasons? PANONIAN 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What proof? I can show you proof for opposite: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif PANONIAN 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proof for opposite? LOL. This map shows ’918 demarcation lines (you should know that, the black line according to map's legend is "demarcation line, Nov 1918"), not internationally recognized borders! V79benno 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mister V79benno, you have to provide proof for opposite and "LOL" is not quite a proof. Regarding borders, I already said that "internationally recognized borders" did not existed in this time and demarcation lines, thus, were the only borders that existed back then. I also said that Wikipedia have many other maps of states whose borders were not internationally recognized. Just one example: tell me what is difference between borders of Serbia in 1918 showed here and borders of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Mr. PANONIAN, if you really dont want to create a falsification, Hungarian territory under Serbian occupation must be indicated on the map properly, with clearly distinctive coloration. That's the end of story for any apparently normal adult human beeing... V79benno 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But can you at least try to understand the simple fact that Hungary was not internationally recognized state in this time and that no single part of land controled by Serbian army was not recognized as part of Hungary by anybody. I cannot indicate on map something that did not existed - this map is historical, not science fiction. PANONIAN 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False, Mr. PANONIAN, Hungary was per se internationally recognized as part of Austro-Hungarian Empire, as you certainly know it. I wonder why you want to create a never really existed history? Not science fiction? Certainly not. I'ts a joke, a sad joke. Dreaming about Neverland, where the facts doesn't mean anything, where Serbia is greater than the whole universe? :) It's pitiable. V79benno 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False? I do not think so. Hungary was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire, but you forgeting the fact that Hungary declared its independence on November 16, 1918, which marked the end of Austro-Hungarian Empire. The independent Hungary was not internationally recognized before 1920, but SHS Kingdom that included Vojvodina was internationally recognized in 1919. Regarding second part of your comment, you have no idea what I dream about, so you have no right to speak about it, I suggest that you read some history book before comming here because your knowledge about history is indeed poor if you did not know that Hungary declared independence on November 16, 1918. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way out for you, Mr. history-falsificator. SHS Kingdom that included Vojvodina was internationally recognized, but the occupied territory shown on this map was not part of this internationally recognized Kingdom, as you certainly know it. You don't have a chance to rewrite history, give up, boy, please, we all will be happier... V79benno 10:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, you have no proof that I am "history-falsificator", so please refrain from such comments which are kind of personal insult. Second, it is nice that we agree about fact that "SHS Kingdom that included Vojvodina was internationally recognized in 1919" - this fact simply explain everything: all former Habsburg territories that were included into SHS Kingdom had exactly same status within this kingdom, i.e. Vojvodina had exactly same status as Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, etc. So, the question is: were all these lands seen as "occupied" by the international community after SHS Kingdom was internationally recognized? The answer would be no, because of simple fact that international community recognized the country, which mean that it also recognized all these lands as part of that country. If international community saw these lands as "occupied" it would never recognized the country and without these lands SHS Kingdom would not exist. PANONIAN 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(First: there's no need for proof that you are a POV-pusher, it's clear as the daylight, my dear, don't play games. Who else on Earth would spend so much time with hardly defending such a ridiculous falsification?! Oh, my God.) Let me quote Speedy Gonzales from below: Map is POV, but in a subtle way, it does not present borders as somebody wishes to be for a (long) time, but as they supposed to be once, and was never realized. Map should change name, or be deleted. Its existence as Serbia1918 is quite misleading (as can be seen from above discussion), as full name could be: state borders od Serbia agreed on one meeting after 1'st world war, and a week later superseeded by actual borders of new state (which are quite different, as not only new lands are added, but some are removed from above picture). And sorry, not a week later, as from 26 Nov to 1 Dec is not 7 days, but 5. As user can not rename the pic, it should be deleted first, and author can then upload it again, but this time with a better name (let's say SupposedSerbia1918_11_26-1918_12_01.png). I wish you to find a better activity than this poor old game... You cannot change the past, but you can learn from it. :) It's never too late. V79benno 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is need to prove that somebody is POV pusher if you claim that and since you obviously does not have such proof then you claim that "there is no need for proof" (Sorry, but there is always need because your word means nothing). Also: I would never spent my free time if I do not defend something that is not falsification. Also, I already said that borders shown on map were realized (or you would claim that these areas were not ruled by Serbia in this time?). Also, these are ceratainly not borders "agreed on one meeting" - the borders are results of at least 4 events: drawing of demarcation line, assembly in Ruma, assembly in Novi Sad and assembly in Podgorica. I also do not see how current name of the image could be wrong when you also agreed that map show situation in five days in 1918. PANONIAN 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same question: what proof? PANONIAN 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that this is the only edit of this user here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kingstone93 PANONIAN 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then this Hungarian source is also falsification according to you, right?: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif Where is your proof that these maps are falsification? PANONIAN 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're misrepresenting that source. As I see, it say "demarkacios vonol". Demarkation line. But not the recognised border. Kubura 11:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course because there was no any recognized border in this time. By the way check the map again: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif In top left corner you will read this: "Magyarorszag hatara, 1918" (In translation: "Border of Hungary in 1918"). In another words, this map too show that borders of former Hungarian Kingdom did existed in 1918 (before end of Austria-Hungary), but not in 1918-1920 period, in which case the map would have this description: "Magyarorszag hatara, 1918-1920". PANONIAN 17:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know the border situation in 1918 in Serbia, so I won't vote to either keep or delete this map. However, from what I understand from the talk page at the now defunct Borders before and after Yugoslavia, this map includes territory that was occupied by Serbia at the end of WWI, but never officially incorporated/recognized by foreign powers. So, my suggestion is to denote this in the map (similar to how Israel and the occupied territories are mapped). My other suggestion is to include at least some basic borders of neighboring countries, so people can get some context on where it was in relation to other countries. Someone unfamiliar with the Balkans might be confused by this map. We have to remember that not everyone is as geographically keen as we are. Parsecboy 12:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. The territory shown on map was officially incorporated into Serbia on November 25, 1918 and was recognized by foreign powers in 1919, but not as part of Serbia - it was recognized as part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Also, we cannot wrotte on map that these territories were occupied because occupation was officially finished on November 25, 1918 and this map show situation from November 26, 1918. PANONIAN 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I also completely agree with Parsecboy. This is clear necessity in this case. This is the main problem I have with this map, it doesn't shows actual borders and should be either noted in the map and it's description, or if the author can't agree with that then delete. --No.13 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Parsecboy's observations and conclusions above. I have the same problems with the present form of this image, but I don't want to give up hope that someone improves it, therefore I'm  Neutral. KissL (see here for the real thing) 15:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Everybody not familiar with the history of Central Europe should know that Pécs, Baja and Timisoara weren't recognized as part of Serbia in 1920 when international borders were finalized. Instead these areas became part of Hungary and Romania and their status never changed since then. The borders are recognized by the Serb government. The northern border shown here was never accepted by the international community. 89.133.142.105 User: Zello 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zello, do I have again to repeat that map does not show situation from 1920, but from 1918, and the fact that borders of one state were not recognized by the international community does not mean that we cannot have map showing these borders - do you suggest that we also delete maps of northern Cyprus, Transnistria or Somaliland from Wikipedia because their borders were not recognized by the international community? PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no problem with maps showing de facto situation. I only suggested to use different lines and different coloration for dem. lines/borders occupied/int. recognized territories but this was refused which makes the map misleading. 89.133.139.220 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe this - what occupied and internationally recognized territories you speak about? In the time period shown on map there were no any occupied and internationally recognized territories in that area. PANONIAN 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This map is a clear fabrication, and an attempt at falsification of history. This map is born out of either complete ignorance of historical facts, or the desire to spread extreme propaganda, take your pick. Hamada2 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What proof that map is fabrication? Can you say what exactly you consider wrong on this map, because we cannot discuss about your claims that you neither backed with proofs neither explained what you consider wrong here. PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that this is the only edit of this user here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hamada2 PANONIAN 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the closing admin would ignore the transparent socks, that'd be nice. "Claimed borders of a real country that are unrecognised/were unrecognised" is an encyclopaedic topic. WilyD 16:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For me it will be interesting that WilyD explain who is sock of who ? From my knowledge he maybe speak about himself ??-—Rjecina 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I believe that it would be nice that checkuser can show who is sock - I bet that we would gain very interesting results from it. PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Rjecina clearly explained, prime exemplar of panserbian propaganda. -- Ivan Štambuk 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"Panserbian"??? Would you provide for as any explanation why you think that this is "panserbian propaganda"? PANONIAN 22:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that this is the only edit of this user here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.198.150.104 PANONIAN 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Number of user edits in no way invalidates the truthness of a particular statement. This map is intentionally misleading, as it shows Baranya as a part of Serbian kingdom. --iš
The voting process is not valid if numerous sockpuppets and "users" who were called to vote influence this processs. Also, where is your proof that map is misleading? Do you want to say that Baranja was not in this time controled by Serbian army and that representatives of Baranja did not voted for unification with Serbia on November 25, 1918? PANONIAN 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: can we check whether user:Rjecina and user:No.13 are same person? They have very similar edits, both here and on English Wikipedia, and they both started their edits here on "Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Beslan school no 1 victim photos.jpg" and then came to this page. That is very suspicious:

  • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rjecina
  • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/No.13 PANONIAN 10:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand that person which is not honest is always making questions about honesty of others but this is starting to be too much. This second time in 40 days (first time on wiki) that this user which support chetniks ideology, this PANONIAN question my honesty. Can please somebody block this misleading editor of commons and wiki. Be good PANONIAN and please do not question why I have writen misleading. -- Rjecina 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I do not support chetnik ideology. I clearly wrote on my user page that I support Liberal Democratic Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN You constantly spread lies and personal insults against me and harrasing me on Wikipedia and this simply has to stop (this proposal for deletion is also part of your personal crusade against me and my work). I have right to express suspitions about sockpuppetry but you have no right to insult other users and to spread lies about them. PANONIAN 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am fighting revert war on Nikola Tesla article because "neutral" users insist that in begining or article be writen how he has been of serbian nationality, but refuse to be writen how he is born in today Croatia. Point of this is that I "play" with everybody who is writing POV articles about Croatia on wiki. You are very popular person because of your misleading articles (example map Serbia02) where you want to create new history where Serbs have been majority until Buda during 1526 - 1683 period. For that you are using "census" data which nobody outside Serbia is having. -- Rjecina 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not see how Nikola Tesla article or your "articles about Croatia" are related to the issue that we speak about. This map is not at all related to Croatia, so tell me why you edit this page then? Also, you have no single proof that any of articles written by me is "misleading" - the facts shown on this map are correct, the data from 1715/1720 censuses that show Serb majority in several cities in present-day Hungary is also correct (it is especially not correct that "nobody outside Serbia is having this data" because this data originates from archives in Buda and Vienna), so the only problem that you have with these facts is your attempt to "prove a point" - you already said that you editing Serbia-related articles as a sort of "revenge" because some Serbian users edit Croatia-related articles. But this what you doing is outrage - I never edited Croatia-related articles in bad faith, so you have no right to vandalize articles that I wrotte in good faith as revenge to other users that did not wrotte such articles. In another words, you harassing wrong person. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • They did not belonged to Serbia "de jure" but they did "de facto" in the same way as all parts of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus belong only "de facto" to this state, but not "de jure". So, please tell me what is a difference between these two states? And please refrain from ridiculous comments, the only things that I fight against here are ignorance and bad faith. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of the accuracy of the de facto borders in 1918, the caption of the picture is obviously POV: It says "unification" with Banat and Backa, while, clearly, it would be more accurate to say that Timisoara and Pecs were "occupied" at the time. Fossa 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were officially occupied until November 25, but after that date, they were incorporated into country system and had their representatives in the power. For example, Hristifor Svirčević from Timisoara and Lojza Bogdanović from Baja were a deputies in the temporary people's assembly of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. However, the important thing here is that this map is not at all about Timisoara, Baja, Pecs, etc - it is about Vojvodina in general and Timisoara, Baja and Pecs were simply irrelevant in this whole story (if that is a problem, I can simply delete mention of these cities from map). The whole point of the map is not to show that current Romanian and Hungarian lands were Serbian in 1918, but to show that current Serbian lands were Serbian in 1918 (and it is exactly what certain greater Croatian and greater Hungarian individuals are against). PANONIAN 17:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows, that Vojvodina, Macedonia and Kosovo belonged to Serbia. What do you need the map for? Nothing. -- j.budissin+/-
This is ridiculous. If you agree that map is correct, why you want to delete it? PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see few facts. From begining you are writing for "Vojvodina assembly" of 25 november 1918 has been legal, honest and that it has not been farse created by occupation forces. If this "assembly" voting has been free and honest can PANONIAN or somebody else explain me and other user how has happen that 75 % (578 out of 757) of "assembly" members have been Serbs in time when Serbs has been only 33.8 % of population. I am really interested to see reasons why has this thing has happen. Rjecina 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 25 November assembly was legal because these areas were internationally recognized as parts of SHS Kingdom in 1919 and also by the treaty from 1920 (If international community did not considered this legal, it would not recognized it). And assembly was not created by occupational forces, but by local people from Vojvodina - the proof for this is also the fact that this assembly also formed local provincial government that was never recognized by Serbia. And fact that most members of assembly were Serbs simply reflect the fact that Serbs were most interested into this issue, but there were representatives of other peoples as well. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral The demarcation line shown on the map above is based on the Military Convention betwen the Allies and Hungary, signed at Belgrade November 13, 1918. So there was a legal mandate for the occupation. But occupation, even if agreed to, usually does not constitute sovereignty, as has been noted. Compare that to Kosovo and Metohija, which is "occupied" territory under sovereignty of Serbia. They call it "administration" rather than "occupation", especially considering that it is backed by a Security Council Resolution, but in a technical sense that's not much of a difference.
    • The point is that Austria-Hungary ceased to exist on November 16, 1918, thus in November 25 1918, Vojvodina was not "de jure" part of any state (It was in 1919 recognized as "de jure" part of SHS Kingdom). However, in November 25, 1918, it "de jure" was "no man's land", but was "de facto" administered and officially annexed by Serbia following the 25 November assembly. So, I do not think that we can compare this with Kosovo which is currently "de jure" under sovereignty of Serbia and Vojvodina that in November 25, 1918 was "de jure" no man's land is very different case. I said many times already that this map show "de facto" borders of Serbia in the same way as we have "de facto" maps of northern Cyprus, Somaliland, etc. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that Hungary was in turmoil at that time: Mihály Károlyi's government followed by the Hungarian Soviet Republic, followed by Miklós Horthy. Its borders were by no means fixed. On March 20, 1919, the Vyx Note even pushed the demarcation line further (as shown on the map), and it was widely believed at that time that those would become the new borders of Hungary. So the Serbian-dominated Assembly of Vojvodina, consisting of 578 Serbs, 89 Croats, 62 Slovaks, 21 Rusyns, 6 Germans and 1 (!) Magyar, which de facto exercised control over Baranja, seceded within the borders of the military agreement of November 13, and joined Serbia, which in turn invested its statehood in the new Serb-Croat-Slovene state. It was a symbolic act in order to show the allegiance of Vojvodina to the Serbian "liberators". They could have chosen to join the new Serb-Croat-Slovene state as one or more distinct entities, but they have not. So the map shows a situation sanctioned by a Military Treaty, de facto possession of territory, and resolutions of the Vojvodina assembly.
After the Treaty of Trianon, the larger part of Baranja was allotted to Horthy's Hungary, and the Yugoslav army had to withdraw. The Yugoslav-oriented population of Baranja, alongside with exiled supporters of the toppled Soviet Republic of Hungary, chose to form the Serb-Magyar Republic of Baranja on August 14, 1921 (shown on the map as well), which applied for statehood with the League of Nations. The painter Petar Dobrović was elected for president. Although the Republic received a certain degree of support from the Little Entente and the US, French and Italian financial circles feared that it might become a nest of Communism. Consequently, it was crushed by Horthy's troops after 10 days of existence. The Yugoslav part of Baranja was allotted to Croatia in 1945.
As pointed out, the map in its present form is clearly Serbo-Croat-Slovenian POV, but is that reason enough to delete it? At the very least, it is a document of Serbian aspirations at that time, but I agree that it could be improved by showing more detail. --El Cazangero 05:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The map does not show only aspirations, but also "de facto" situation from November 25, 1918, in which time these areas were administered and officially annexed by Serbia. Of course, the aspirations you speak about was the aim that this whole territory became recognized as part of SHS Kingdom by the treaties, which did not happened because treaties assigned some of these areas to Romania and Hungary, but map still reflect correctly "de facto" situation from November 25, 1918. PANONIAN 09:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Note Image:Croatia, Historic Coat of Arms.svg, which is wrong. Someone already put a comment in the description: The traditional Croatian coat of arms has the upper corners beginning with white square. See roof tile design of St. Mark's Cathederal in Zagreb. See also this article. --El Cazangero 07:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Map is POV, but in a subtle way, it does not present borders as somebody wishes to be for a (long) time, but as they supposed to be once, and was never realized. Map should change name, or be deleted. Its existence as Serbia1918 is quite misleading (as can be seen from above discussion), as full name could be: state borders od Serbia agreed on one meeting after 1'st world war, and a week later superseeded by actual borders of new state (which are quite different, as not only new lands are added, but some are removed from above picture). And sorry, not a week later, as from 26 Nov to 1 Dec is not 7 days, but 5. As user can not rename the pic, it should be deleted first, and author can then upload it again, but this time with a better name (let's say SupposedSerbia1918_11_26-1918_12_01.png). SpeedyGonsales 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a false and POV map --Bdanee vita 14:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dear PANONIAN, I appreciate the job you did on maps very much, but this is one misleading and needs thorough revision to be encyclopedic. Occupation of a land does not automatically mean that the land is incorporated into the body of the occupying country. Hungary was also occupied by the Soviet Union but was never shown as part of it. Shadings and inscription should clarify the situation. Thank you. Timur lenk 18:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, Hungary was not internationally recognized country in 1918-1920, while during Soviet occupation, it was. Also: yes, generally speaking "occupation of a land does not automatically mean that the land is incorporated into the body of the occupying country", but in this case, we do not have "automatic incorporation" - we have assemblies of local peoples that officially proclaimed unification and after this these lands were no longer regarded as occupied but were indeed incorporated "into the body of the country" (And that was internationally recognized in 1919). PANONIAN 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no idea whether this map is "false" or what have you, and I don't think it's particularly relevant. There's no policy against having "false" maps on Commons, the only criterion is that they be free. There are plenty of encyclopedia articles that can use "false" or propagandistic maps to good effect, often for the purpose of illustrating their falsehood. So if this map turns out to be more representative of Serbian desires than actual historical borders, simply make sure this is clearly stated in the image's description and let the Wikipedias use them as they see fit based on that description. Finally, the large number of near-identical delete votes smacks of some kind of organized campaign at the very least, so the closing admin should take extra care not to be swayed by sheer numbers. Bryan Derksen 08:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only question about this comment is that what will users from UK or USA think if somebody made map in which parts of your state are territory from another state which has never ruled in this provinces (Mexico-Washington DC., France-London) I have given 2 examples of that and 1 is really similar to our situation with this map. In 1216 London has been under France occupation !! Because in this map territory of Croatia, Hungary and Romania is given to Serbia there is many angry users from that countries. User PANONIAN which is creator of this map has refused compromise solution so there is nothing more to talk about that--Rjecina 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The things are quite opposite here: the main part of BBB territory shown on map is in Serbia and map was made with purpose to show that part of the Serbian history - the whole problem here is not that I want to "claim" parts of neighbouring countries by this map, but that Greater Hungarian and Greater Croatian nationalists want to claim part of my country and that is why they want to delete parts of Serbian history that are not suitable for them and then to impose their personal views about history of my country with aim to achieve their political goals (such goals were already achieved in WW2 and results of these goals could be described by 3 words: occupation - partition - genocide). And what "compromise solution" I rejected as you claim? PANONIAN 20:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Map is great Serbian propaganda, made by a very dangerous Great Serbian Propagandist, Panonian. It shows occupied Croatian Territory as already part of Serbia in 1918, this is falsify of history, this land was stolen from Croatia by Serbs, and this was lawful Croat land in 1918 even if Serbian radicals gained control of the land in an illegal way. Illegal occupation is not the same as lands being lawfully part of one country. 78.3.29.49 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this user has only 1 edit here. As for answer: please refrain from personal insults (focus on subject not on other users). Also, the "land stolen from Croatia by Serbs" as you call it was populated by Serb majority for last 600 years and was only recently (in 1882) attached to Croatia-Slavonia Kingdom. Serbs cannot "stole" their own land (no matter which occupier ruled over that land in which part of the history, but land populated by Serbs is Serb land). PANONIAN 21:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm here because I saw canvassing for this discussion on an autoblocked wp-en user's talk page. Anyway, the whole discussion about how these borders are or are not valid is completely beside the point. If these borders were at one point claimed by a state, a map of them is encyclopedically useful content. Only at the point where the image is actually used in an encyclopedia does it matter what the status of these borders is or was (not that I know or care). Sandstein 10:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You were right, if the map's name and legend were correct. Sorry, they are not. A map could be false, if everything on it is true, but the legend and titles and the map's name are incorrect. If I make a map, wich shows the territory of today's USA, and the map's title is "today's Russia", could it be correct? After all, these borders are claimed by a state, and you don't know or care whether it is a rightful claim or not... :) The map and the legend have to be all correct and trustworthy. V79benno 13:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer for PANONIAN's claim (Hungary was indeed an internationally recognized country that time)[edit]

  1. Hungary was indeed recognized by the Entente from 13 November 1918 onwards when Prime Minister Mihály Károlyi signed a cease-fire agreement with General Frenchet d'Esprey in Belgrade.
  2. Only the borders of the new country remained an open question from the armistice but the same is true for the SHS Kingdom which similarly lacked recognized borders.
  3. As many people already told you the cease fire lines were no borders, that was put down in the armistice agreement also.
  4. Se the proofs for that statement: [1], passim.
  5. This map (and it's legend) shows (and comments) incorrectly the complicated historical situation, is infected with strong antihungarian POV and proserbian chauvinism, therefore have to be deleted.

Best regards, V79benno 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let see: about link that you showed: it divided stamps published in the territory of the former Kingdom of Hungary from 1918 to 1920 into "Occupational", "Local" and "Successor State". If we look the table from that article, we would see that stamps published in the territory of present-day Vojvodina were described as "Local", not as "Occupational". Also: we see there that certain territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary were regarded as occupied, but that does not mean that they were de jure recognized as parts of Hungary (as one example, West Bank is de facto regarded as territory occupied by Israel, but it is not de jure recognized as part of any sovereign country). Also, the fact that representatives of Hungary signed cease-fire agreement certainly does not mean that Hungary was internationally recognized - representatives of Republic of Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska signed many cease-fire agreements during Yugoslav wars, but were never internationally recognized. And of course, the borders did remained an open question after cease-fire agreement, but my point is that "disputed" territories were not de jure recognized as part of Hungary before peace agreement. In another words, the internationally recognized borders in 1918-1920 did not exist and therefore the cease fire lines were the closest thing to word "border". And what "antihungarian POV and proserbian chauvinism" you speak about? we speak about history of Serbia here, so can it be "antihungarian POV" when map do not speak at all about Hungary? PANONIAN 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Entente recognized the existence of the independent Hungary in the Belgrade Armistice. Of course you are right that they didn't recognize the 1914 borders with this act, this was never their intention. But similarly they didn't recognize the occupation lines as final borders of Serbia. The legal situation was the same for both countries: their existence was recognized but their desired borders were not. This map shows the Serb dream of Greater Serbia. You simply allotted the disputed territory to Serbia not taking into consideration that its status remained unresolved until 1920 when the real borders were only laid out and the Entente divided the disputed territory into three between the aspirant countries. Zello

    • There is very big difference between the case when international community recognize a country as independent and sovereign and the case when international community recognize country or government as "side in the conflict". Before 1920, Hungary was not recognized as independent and sovereign, but only as "side in the conflict" (exactly same as Republic of Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska - or you would say that RSK and RS were recognized as independent and sovereign when they signed ceasefire agreements???). Also: it is correct that international community did not recognized all these lands as part of SHS Kingdom by peace treaties, but it did recognized in 1919 general idea that Banat, Bačka and Baranja are part of SHS Kingdom, no matter that some parts of these regions were assigned to Romania and Hungary by 1919/1920 peace treaties. Also, in 1918/1919 there was de facto regional government of Banat, Bačka and Baranja with seat in Novi Sad, whose president was Jovan Lalošević and that government ruled over entire BBB which was controled by Serbian army. So, again: the map show this de facto situation from November 26, 1918 and has nothing with de jure recognitions from 1919 and 1920. Regarding your "Greater Serbia" accusation, we speak here about history of Vojvodina, which is part of Serbia, so how exactly you accusing me that I want to create Greater Serbia when I speak about history of one province inside Serbia? (Please explain me this because I cannot understand it). Also, as I said, general status of BBB was solved in 1919 - when international community recognized SHS Kingdom in 1919 it also recognized all its provinces as parts of this Kingdom - I will remind you: SHS Kingdom was created in 1918 by unification of Kingdom of Serbia with Kingdom of Montenegro and South Slavic lands that formerly were ruled by Austria-Hungary. Recognition of SHS also mean the recognition of unification of South Slavic lands with the Kingdom of Serbia (without this unification, SHS Kingdom would not exist) - so tell me, if these South Slavic lands were not internationally recognized as parts of SHS Kingdom in 1919, then why international community recognized the Kingdom? And one more thing regarding the "disputed territories" in Banat, Bačka and Baranja: the whole territory of BBB province was not disputed - the disputed areas were only Baranja, north Bačka and Central Banat, but no matter of dispute over them, it is fact that these areas were ruled by BBB de facto government from Novi Sad. PANONIAN 13:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, when this DR is over, perhaps it would not be bad that map is improved and that I show on it borders of BBB ruled by de facto provincial government from Novi Sad. PANONIAN 13:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary wasn't "side in the conflict" AFTER the armistice which put an and to the armed conflict. As for the Greater Serbian propaganda question I can only answer that showing Pécs, Baja and Timisoara as cities of Serbia when they were only occupied by the Serb army is propaganda. 89.133.139.220 23:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is wrong - Hungary was a side in a conflict from 1918 to 1920 (cease-fire does not mean end of the conflict, but only frozen situation). The conflict was officially over only by trianon treaty. And I also said: this map is not about Pécs, Baja and Timisoara, but about territories that are part of "smaller Serbia" - as soon as this voting is clossed I will delete names of these cities from the map. Satisfied? PANONIAN 20:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?[edit]

Now I draw new version of this map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Serbia1918.png I included suggestions of other users about different colour used for different territories as well as borders between various territories. I hope there are no more objections to it. PANONIAN 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move in right direction but problem will be with words. Like you know on wikipedia in article Creation of Yugoslavia we have come to many interesting documents. First is saying that Montenegro has been called on peace conference of 1919 (de jure Montenegro is independent) and second is saying that from middle november of 1918 BBB are Hungarian territory under allied (Serbian) occupation. There is no need to change anything in map if you are willing to change name in Territory under Serbian control in 1918. Then your map will speak truth and only truth and nobody will have possibility to say anything bad !! Rjecina 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to remove city names (Pécs, Baja etc), on the contrary they help to recognize that the northern demarcation line is not the present-day border. I think that this version is a lot better but I still have two objections: 1, in the legend you should indicate that the territory was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and occupied by Serb troops; 2, better to use different kind of lines for the internationally recongized borders and demarcation lines. Zello.

  • Kept. The map is not based on own research but real document and hence it is within out Projects Scope. Whether the documents have non-NPOV, have bad motives, or whether the image is used in a wrong way, is not an issue that can be resolved in or by Commons. Samulili 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users which posted their „opinions“ about my work[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina (Croatian nationalist and an blocked user in English Wikipedia, see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina )

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/No.13 (an sockpuppet created only for voting)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zello (an Hungarian nationalist from English Wikipedia, not established user in Wikimedia Commons, used IP number to edit voting page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.133.142.105 )

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:V79benno (an Hungarian nationalist)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kingstone93 (an sockpuppet, created only for voting, only one edit in Wikimedia Commons)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ante_Perkovic (an Croatian nationalist)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hamada2 (an sockpuppet, created only for voting, only one edit in Wikimedia Commons)

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suradnik:Ivan_Štambuk (an Croatian nationalist)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flopy (an sockpuppet, created only for voting, only 3 edits in Wikimedia Commons)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kubura (an Croatian nationalist)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wallak (an sockpuppet, created only for voting, only 1 edit in Wikimedia Commons)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.3.29.49 (an IP number came only to vote, only 1 edit in Wikimedia Commons)

The only two users from your list for whom I would not say that they have bad faith or POV intentions, would be user:J budissin and User:Fossa, but they are obviously not informed well about the subject and I would be happy to discuss this issue further with them if they want.

Conclusion: most „other users“ whose „opinions“ about me you presented are either not users at all but a sockpuppets created only for voting or are Croatian and Hungarian nationalists. The issue is simple: due to known Hungarian and Croatian territorial pretensions towards Vojvodina and aims for establishment of Greater Hungary and Greater Croatia, these Hungarian and Croatian nationalists trying to establish Hungarian and Croatian „historical rights“ towards Vojvodina and to delete from the history any data that Vojvodina ever had any historical connection with Serbia or Serbs. The worst thing would be if they really believe that they will change current or future status of Vojvodina by deletion of selected parts of Vojvodinian history. They certainly are unable to delete Vojvodinian history since that history will be forever present in books and libraries and if somebody want to be well informed about that history he will use these books. Therefore, it is not surprise that A. J. P. Taylor in his book about Habsburg Monarchy published in 1948 described the true nature of Hungarian nationalism and historical and demographic forgeries that Hungarian nationalists were ready to do in order to justify their nationalistic goals. PANONIAN (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry that you are not blocked because of POV attacks on other users + it is not very wise to call other users sockpuppets when you are using sockpuppets. Because I have ended my editing on commons and english wikipedia (my block + my problems with sockpuppets have ended) please leave me alone in your future discussions Rjecina (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2010

Elaboration of 1918-1920 history[edit]

And now, since you obviously have very poor knowledge about post-WW1 events, I will write for you some short summary of these events:

1. Until the end of WW1 in 1918 there was no independent sovereign state named Hungary – there was sovereign independent state named Austro-Hungarian monarchy and Hungary was one of its administrative divisions, meaning that Hungary did not had any international sovereignty in that time.

2. In November 1, 1918, Hungary became de facto independent, which marked the end of Austria-Hungary. In November 16, Hungarian Democratic Republic was proclaimed as a new country without continuity with former Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary. It is important to mention that leaders of Hungary themselves claimed in this time that Hungarian Democratic Republic is a new contry and that it does not have any continuity with Austria-Hungary (they claimed that because they thought that Hungary in that way will avoid punishment for starting a WW1 as part of Austria-Hungary). Then in March 21, 1919 Hungarian Soviet Republic was proclaimed. In August 4, 1919 Romanian army invaded and destroyed Hungarian Soviet Republic and Hungarian Democratic Republic was restored. Then in 16 November 1919 Miklos Horthy marched into Budapest and formed new regime and in 1920 Hungary was proclaimed a kingdom again. The Hungarian independence was not internationally recognized before September 10, 1919 (see reference: http://history.state.gov/countries/hungary ). Then in June 4, 1920, Treaty of Trianon was signed which defined Hungarian borders.

3. Regarding Vojvodina, from early November 1918 to November 25, 1918, Kingdom of Serbia did had a status of an occupying power in the territory of Vojvodina, but territory in question was not regarded by any international subject as „territory of Hungary“ – it was regarded as „territory of former Austria-Hungary“. Then in November 25, 1918 these territories made official declaration of unification with Serbia and were officially annexed by Serbia, meaning that Serbia was no longer an occupying power there.

4. In december 1, 1918, Kingdom of Serbia united with the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Note that this new kingdom was internationally recognized by the Treaty of Saint-Germain in September 10, 1919 (one year before Treaty of Trianon was signed) and that mean that former Austro-Hungarian territories were also internationally recognized as part of this kingdom (see reference: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/517198/Treaty-of-Saint-Germain ). From this it is clear that Czechoslovakia (which included Slovakia) and SCS Kingdom (which included Croatia and Vojvodina) were recognized as such before the Treaty of Trianon in 1920 and that Hungary was not recognized as independent state before September 10, 1919. Also note that, besides Vojvodina, Croatia too belonged to Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary before 1918 and without Croatia the new kingdom could not be created. International recognition of the new SCS Kingdom in 1919 means that Croatia and Vojvodina were recognized as parts of that kingdom as well and that they were not seen by anybody as parts of Hungary.

5. In the text of the Treaty of Trianon there is no single word that say that any territory was „taken“ from Hungary (see reference: http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Trianon ). Treaty only describe Hungarian borders and obligations of Hungarian state. Clearly, in the treaty itself or in any other international document from the time there is no any word that say that Croatia or Vojvodina were parts of Hungary instead parts of the SCS Kingdom in the time period just before the treaty. Finally, in November 25, 1918 (date presented in this map) the actual Hungarian republican government and Hungarian Democratic Republic were completelly unrecognized by the international community, thus territories annexed by Serbia on that date could not be regarded by anybody as territories of unrecognized Hungarian Democratic Republic. PANONIAN (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References:

3. "in November 25, 1918 these territories made official declaration of unification with Serbia and were officially annexed by Serbia, meaning that Serbia was no longer an occupying power there. "
This is the Great Serbian Dream. You just proved that you are a Great Serb Nationalist, if you think that there was an official declaration in Temesvár and in Pécs and the other cities, this is an absurdity in epic proportions. Bandits occupying Temesvár does not mean that it is part of Serbia. In fact it is part of Romania and mass murdering Serbs does not mean that the scene of their crimes like Srebrenica becomes part of Serbia. Serbs are very good in mass murder and invading and occupying other countrie's sovereign land, but it is not always the case. In your dream world Croatia was also part of Serbia right? And Bosnia? And Srebrenica? Becuase the mass murderers occupied and pillaged and murdered there just as they did in Pécs In Újvidék and Szabadka and Temesvár. But it is not possible for Serbs to annex these territories only to occupy them. The invasion of Serb murderers does not mean that they can steal the land of other countries. You are just a Great Serbian Nationalist who wants these mentioned cities. You want Pécs, you want Baja, you want Temesvár, but you can't have it as the mass murder committed Serbs were stopped by NATO. NATO bombed the Serbs until they couldn't kill any more. NATO saved countless lives and stopped the mass murder of Serbs. This was a great victory for saving lives. Unfourtunately Serbia wasn't occupied and democratized, look at the example of Japan. The same developement should have been done in Serbia. And then maybe after learning some democracy there wouldn't be so many Great Serb chauvinists, who dream about Great Serbian aspirations, and think that parts of Romania, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Hungary rightfully belonged to Serbia. VízPart (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I proved that I am Greater Serbian nationalist? Well, if I did, then how can be that I was concerned that one user want to "prove" that Kosovo was "always" part of Serbia in order to oppose independence of Kosovo: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADardani&action=historysubmit&diff=348792932&oldid=348786987 How many Serb nationalists are supporting independence of Kosovo? (and I do support it). So, basically you want to accuse me that I want to create Greater Serbia and to include parts of modern Romania and Hungary in it, right? If I do not support inclusion of Kosovo into Serbia why would I support inclusion of these territories? (for every Greater Serbian nationalist, Kosovo is first and basic land to be included into Serbia and only then all other lands are coming). In another words, if I created this map with goal to include parts of Romania and Hungary into Greater Serbia, I should be not only Greater Serbian nationalist but also extremelly stupid since only total idiot can think that the fact that some lands were part of one country for 5 days could be used as justification of modern political claims. And it is exactly what this map show: a country that as such existed for only 5 days. Of course, we both know that cities of Pecs and Timisoara are not real question here: the real problem are your own Greater Hungarian territorial pretensions towards Vojvodina so you simply want to delete any mention that Vojvodina in the past had any connection with Serbs or Serbia (even if such connection lasted only 5 days). So, I really do not care about cities of Pecs and Timisoara, but it is simply a question of historical accuracy that these cities were part of autonomous region Banat-Bačka-Baranja and were governed by Serb administration in Novi Sad, which proclaimed unification with Serbia. Also, the delegates from Pecs and Timisoara were also present in the great assembly that proclaimed unification of Vojvodina with Serbia, although they were not representatives of dominant ethnicities from these cities. It is also important to note that Timisoara was mainly ethnic German town in that time and due to that fact, any of the 3 states that held this town in certain time periods (Hungary, Serbia and Romania) could be seen as "occupying powers" by local German residents. As was pointed out, this map only illustrate teritories that Serbia de facto claimed, annexed and controled in this short time period and nothing more. As for your speech-hate against Serbs in general, such speech only show who and what you are and it is answer to itself - it is obvious who of us two is an Greater (add name of a country here) nationalist and who wants parts of other countries. PANONIAN (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed tag must stay[edit]

Because the image is highly disputed. The above qoutes from the discussion are meant to show the dispute. These are relevant to show that the image is disputed. VízPart (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste of selected statements and personal opinions from an closed deletion discussion that ended with KEEP conclusion is not a proof that data presented in this image is wrong. The proper way for you to prove that data in this image is wrong would be to present proof that Hungarian Democratic Republic was generally recognized by the international community in November 25, 1918. Until such proof is presented, we have no serious subject for discussion. PANONIAN (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not proof it is wrong, it is proof that it's disputed. For proof that it's wrong one needs to open books on history and international law, to understand that invading and occupying troops/marauders/pillagers/bandits, whatever the case may be never constitute any change more than temporary occupation of the territory. VízPart (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote any book or source you want (if you manage to find any that claim that independent Hungary was recognized before this date: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/517198/Treaty-of-Saint-Germain ) - encyclopaedia britannica is an good an reliable source. PANONIAN (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the rationale for the disputed tag, is so well established and by a huge number of people, removing it as done by IP- recently could be considered vandalism. VízPart (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you talk about? As I showed to you, such "huge number of people" are mostly sockpuppets created for voting or nationalist, not established and valuable editors. I do not mind that accuracy tag stay here for a while to give you a chance to elaborate your point of view, but so far you did not proved any of your claims and without presented proofs we cannot keep accuracy tag forever... PANONIAN (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by nationalist? The people came from multiple countries and all agree that there are factual accuracy problems with the map. How do you explain that? Anyway I have to ask do you know this IP number as well as you know SlovenskoSlovakom? Did you tell the IP to come here or is it your workplace or what? I have to ask because you respond on this talkpage and it was not the IP who responded. I write a message to the IP and you respond this is what I'm asking, I just want a honest answer as it is not really forbidden to edit with IPs. VízPart (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respond to your posts on this page because I am watching this page, and as author of this map, I am concerned about issues discussed here. As for other user with whom you revert warring, I do not know who that is, you can ask for checkuser investigation if you think that it is me - my own IP number (when I edit not logged) is not similar to that one. And you very well know what I mean by "nationalist": these people you mentioned are not comming "from multiple countries" but from two coutries: Hungary and Croatia and it is well known that some people from these countries are totally POV when history of Vojvodina is in question. I realy did not saw any neutral user who objected to accuracy of this map and who presented sources which would support his claims. I am the only person in this whole discussion which presented sources about this subject. Perhaps you should read the text of the Treaty of Trianon from one of my sources - certainly, you might understand the difference between facts and fiction after reading that. PANONIAN (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a time machine 1918 is 2 years prior to 1920. The borders of Hungary and Croatia are very clear in 1918, territory can be occupied but it's still Hungarian and Croatian land, just occupied pillaged and looted land. When in a similar case the Mongolian Horde came to Hungary, it is the same case it did not become part of Mongolia. End of story. It is well known that most persons from Serbia suffered war trauma recently and usually are not very objective with regards to well known historical facts. It is well known that during the war the TV played propaganda 24/7, to inflame hatred against the "enemy" especially against NATO. Since Hungary is part of NATO I would be not surprised to learn that you look at Hungary as the enemy, without regard to anything else. In 1922 In a Serb newspaper in Vojvodina it was written that all Hungarians must be exterminated and murdered. So Im not surprised to see such intentions in this case, as I know history very well. So I certainly understand why you are doing what you are doing. You were in a war not that long ago, bombed and stuff like that. But you need to understand that Serbia cannot wage war against NATO and Hungary will not attack Serbia so there will be no war between these two countries. So you should stop with the war mentality and become more peaceful with regarding your edits. VízPart (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, VízPart, which part of my previous posts you did not understood? In November 25, 1918 there was no internationally recognized independent state with name "Hungary" or with name "Croatia". Instead of them there existed unrecognized de facto (but not de jure) independent states named Hungarian Democratic Republic and State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs. Modern iternational law might claim that some territories not under control of some sovereign states are de jure parts of such states (like it claim that Northern Cyprus is part of Cyprus), but there is no international law that ever claimed that one territory not controled by one unrecognized state could be de jure part of that state. Also, since subject of this map is situation in November 25, 1918, I see no reason to discuss events in the Middle Ages or your "opinions" about me or about modern Serbia - sources that I presented to you about international recognition of Hungary in 1919 are not Serbian ones, so I do not understand why you speaking about things not related to this subject. PANONIAN (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
VisPart, talking about the perceived "war mentality" of another editor and implying that he/she is connected with those who advocated genocide in 1922 may be considered a personal attack. Please don't do that. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the image to the proper content[edit]

This discussion is pointless. The image seem to represent Serbia from 24th november, 1918 till 26th, so let's rename the image to the proper name: File:Serbia_1918.11.24-1918.11.26.png, reflect this in the description and leave it rest in peace. It is very much possible that someone drawn this map back then, it may be real, but its significance is approaching closely to zero, so I guess it's pretty pointless to spend time on it. Rename, fix description and move on. --grin ✎ 13:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it was not borders[edit]

It was not borders at all, it was just few-day-situation at the end of WWI. Presenting this situation as a Serbian historical borders is very tendentious and incorrect. --Mladifilozof (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map exactly claim that it is "few day de facto" situation, so what is a problem? For majority of people in Vojvodina this few day situation was certainly more important historical event than hundreds of years of foreign (hungarian, ottoman and habsburg) rule. do you want to deny right of vojvodinian Serbs to speak about time periods important for them? PANONIAN (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please, look again - map claim it was de facto borders and that's the problem. The term "borders" has some meanings in the international law.--Mladifilozof (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. Municipalities or even local communities also have borders. "Border" is very wide term and word itself is completelly appropriate in this case. PANONIAN (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talkin about "local community borders". We are talking about state borders. It was not state borders, it was just situation on the WWI front and you must mention it in the file description.--Mladifilozof (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You spoke about term "border" in general, so I gave you an answer in accordance with that. But if we speak about state borders, these borders presented in the map were de facto state borders, since Serbia annexed these territories and considered that they are part of Serbian state territory. In the same way, modern state of Somaliland has de facto borders, no matter that nobody recognize this state or its borders. If we have map of Somaliland here, there is no single reason why map of Serbia cannot be here as well. I clearly noted in the map that these were de facto borders and I do not see what else could be changed in that description. PANONIAN (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

usage of image[edit]

This image should be used only in articles closely connected to History of Serbia in the WWI. Putting this image in all and every article about Serbia and region is clearly propaganda. --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of propaganda? If I present in a map an historical situation that was important for my ancestors how exactly that can be a propaganda? Also, map is relevant for any article that is related to any subject presented in it, not only to WWI, so why there should be restriction about its usage. PANONIAN (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is ok to use this image in some articles (Serbian front situation in WWI), but not out of its historical content. You are pushing this disputed map into every articles on Serbian history! Who proclaimed this image so relevant to the History of Serbia? --Mladifilozof (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not every one, but to those related to it. For example, this map show last stage in territorial development of the Kingdom of Serbia and therefore it is relevant for that article. Also, map is certainly not disputed only because you say so - you have to provode some valid proofs and sources to support your claims that this map is disputed. This map show an very important event in the history of Serbia and therefore it is very relevant for articles related to the history of Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

original research?[edit]

I saw many maps on Serbian history but I never saw this map. Not in the single book or article on the History of Serbia. Can you please show us any other map similar to this one, from some reliable source? --Mladifilozof (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a map, to be legal, must be presented to your eyes first... Are you possibly claiming that you saw all Serbian historical maps in this world? The map shows a concrete period that is well explained. (???) FkpCascais
Mladifilozof, do you see reference list on map page? Please go to library and read these references and you will see similar map. You will see similar maps here as well: [2], [3], [4]. PANONIAN (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A map that is not based on reliable sources may not be in scope. Not in scope is a common justification for deletion requests. But, this issue was raised in the DR for this file and rejected by the closing administrator.[5] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim that you have many books with this map, please scan it and show us. I have followed the links, but there is no map equivalent to this one. Also, the style of your map is totally different, and that is the main problem. Those maps[6], [7] unequivocally shows variable demarcation lines. Your map aims to present it as a stable border. Please, fix it.--Mladifilozof (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided external links with similar maps, so I do not see what would be a point to scan a page from the book as well. And maps from the links are similar to this one - the first two show exact border line and third one show that Vojvodina united with Serbia in 1918. Also, perhaps you cannot read well English text in my map, but you can clearly see that description in map say de facto borders, not "stable borders" or "recognized borders". Find vocabulary to see what term "de facto" mean. PANONIAN (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No requirement exists to upload published maps to verify content. Uploading maps that are protected by copyright is explicitly not allowed. If you have concerns that were not discussed in the deletion request for this file, you may start a new one. But, it seems to me that this issue was raised in the DR for this file and rejected by the closing administrator. Please read his/her comments before proceeding.[8] Alternatively, you may upload your version of this map with a different name. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Serbia1918.png&oldid=53420767"