File talk:Vojvodina03.png

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

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

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

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

No, I see nothing false there because the map does not show "countries surrounding Serbian Vojvodina" - it show just Serbian Vojvodina and for example Austrian Empire shown here is not a surrounding country because Serbian Vojvodina never declared its independence from the empire. The map simply had purpose to show borders of Serbian Vojvodina as well as main cities in it, and IT DID NOT HAD PURPOSE to show political status of Serbian Vojvodina - it is article about Serbian Vojvodina that speak about this and map is nothing but illustration. Regarding colour used for Serbia, why we should use same colour for Serbia and for Ottoman Empire - as I said, the map have no intention to show political status of any of those teritories, just their locations and I really do not see what possibly could be biased there. PANONIAN (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proclaimed borders, not real ones. Only real boundary is between Austrian and Ottoman Empire. Even in that sole point your map is biased and portrays wrong historical point of view. If you wanted to portray ONLY the place of Serbian Vojvodina on the map (along with some cities) you should have done this on a plain physical map, not using colours that imply connections with Serbia. You created a political map, you know it. Serbian Vojvodina had no borders it was a self proclaimed entity in political conection to Croatia. The map you created usess colour to connect Serbian Vojvodina with Serbia (false connection) and to disconnect Serbia (Principality) from the Ottoman Empire. Your illustration is what is the problem, you fabricate facts and history. Location is not to be mixed with political colouring. First heard of that nonsenss here. Imbris 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• Self proclaimed, slightly more administrative and unproven borders of Serbian Vojvodina proper. There are other borders on the map, real ones, portrayed on the map in the same colour and same width as self proclaimed etc. borders of Serbian Vojvodina.
• Colour of Serbia, in that time (time of the map) 1848-1849 an semi-autonomous Principality of the Ottoman Empire must not be so different from the colour of Ottoman Empire, because that would be lying and not NPOV.
• The map doesn't just portray the location, it shows much more, and therefore your conclusion that it's not biased is false. If you wanted to show just the location, you should have used a physical map. Physical map is a map with rivers, hills, towns, etc. that do not show colouring of entities even not borders with some other entities. Then at that physical plain map you should have entered the borders of Serbian Vojvodina, better yet Serb Vojvodina.
• Every discrepancy between the facts and your map is a "wrong historical point of view" the not NPOV.
• Ommiting Croatia from the map, and not mentioning in the Article about VOJVODINA (for the period 1848-49) is not NPOV.
• The map should as better as it can portray fact neccesary for description of VOJVODINA'S history.
• In the article about HISTORY of SERBIA you can use whatever you want neccesary fot better description of SERBIA'S history. Your maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vojvodina03.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serbia02.png have a place for displayment. It is an article about SERBIA, and SERBIAN history, and atlas of SERBIA. Not article about VOJVODINA, VOJVODINIAN history and atlas of VOJVODINA.
• In connection with said before I repeat. Vojvodina is a part of Serbia, and it will be in the future to come, but it was not a part of Serbia during complete history. Maps for the history of Vojvodina should describe facts, not someones POV, not mine, not yours.
• Stick to the fact, and you will not hear complaints from anyone.
• Neighbours are very important for everyone, just not PANONIAN.
• Vojvodina became an exlusive part of Serbian history from 1.12.1918. and then in april 1945. for good. No one is trying to say otherwise. My political point of view does not have anything with my historical aparatus and methodology, but yours ...

Imbris 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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