Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Republic of Vojvodina

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moved to Republic of Vojvodina during AFD. The AFD has been closed as the article no longer exists and the redirect is up for deletion at WP:RFD Yomangani^talk 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Republic of Vojvodina

The article is entirely hypothetical. About 5-6% of Vojvodina's population support independence from Serbia, and this merely warrants a mention in the Vojvodina article. This page has been created by a clearly biased user - he has an anti-Treaty of Trianon userbox on his userpage - and is utterly without merit. estavisti 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Every sentence in the article is either a crystal ball, POV, or unreferenced. Following a Lexis search, there is enough material out there to write a section on the prospects of a referendum in Vojvodina to reject the new Serbian constitution, which would go in the main article of Vojvodina. Pan Dan 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

*'Keep'.This question exists in Vojvodina. I have citations(external links) about it. I'll wrote them down. Sorry I want to wrote 5-6%, I will correct it. Everyone can correct the article if anyone thinks that I wasn't objective enough. But I think the article should't be deleted maybe repaired.

Citiation for the article ask a Hungarian wikipedian about it.He can prove that it's true^{In Hungarian}

HunTheGoaT 17:25, 28 September 2006 (CEST)

• Comment - The issue is dealt with in Politics of Vojvodina. No-one is denying that a tiny minority in Vojvodina would like it to be independent, the problem here is that the article is entirely based on conjecture. --estavisti 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT crystal ball and WP:OR. The issue can (and should) be addressed at Politics of Vojvodina, although such views are a real minority. Duja 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If you read Politics of Vojvodina you will see that there is no single political party that support independent Vojvodina. In another words, this article is only original research of its creator (or his own political idea), but it is not idea presented or supported by any relevant political factors in Vojvodina itself or anywhere else. PANONIAN (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I change my voice to Keep since the name of the article is changed to the Republic of Vojvodina, which is a political concept of the League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina and the current article content could be easily verified on the Leagua web site: http://www.lsv.org.yu/?menu=6&smenu=1 However, there is no place for word "independent" here, since the League site itself claim that this political solution would "stabilize Serbia as a state and would prevent any separatist tendencies on the territory of Serbia". So much about "independence" and "verifiability". PANONIAN (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Nenad Čanak was thinking about this. It can be read in the External Link, but unfortunatly it is in Hungarian. I have writen that no party supports the idea officaly. But there were parties which used to support the independece.

I've found some more links in English, just for you all: [1] [2] [3]

What I see in your link is that Vuk Drašković (who is an centralist) accused Vojvodinian autonomists that they supoort independence. It is well known that pro-centralist politicians accuse autonomist politicians for separatism simply to derogate their popularity. But did you ever heard any autonomist politician including Nenad Čanak to support independence? I certainly did not heard. The web site of the LSV political party (led by Nenad Čanak) claim that autonomous republic of Vojvodina that they propagate would make Serbia stronger. So, yes, there are people who support "Republic of Vojvodina", but certainly not "Independent Republic of Vojvodina". The only possible way to have this article verified (the verification policy of Wikipedia - remember), is to rename it to "Republic of Vojvodina" and then it will present political program of LSV party about federalized Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, if expanded, otherwise merge into Vojvodina. In my opinion, the question is not how much support it has but whether one can write a long enough article about it as a proposed formation with references. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, of course, but it's not about the future but about a presently existing idea. Just look at the National liberation movements and the Secessionist organizations caterories: they contain hundreds of articles. The proposed states may be hypothetical but the ideas are real (and, after all, everything that exists on Earth was created from plans). Beyond doubt, it is a viable topic in Wikipedia as in any other encyclopedia. Adam78 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It have nothing with "liberation movements". It is only dream of few local Hungarian and Croatian irredentists who still dream Greater Hungary and Greater Croatia. These irredentists are not even accepted among their own ethnic communities. József Kasza for example did not had very good opinion about "64 counties movement", and even they do not support independent Vojvodina openly. And the second problem is that idea is simply not openly or publicly supported by anybody relevant, instead by few local drunkards in the cafe. Should we create a Wikipedia article about every idea of every street drunkard? PANONIAN (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And just to say that this article not only totally lack verification, but its title is the same if we writte article "Independent Republic of Belgrade" or even "Independent Republic of Arilje" ( small town in Serbia). PANONIAN (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, I'm afraid you're lost on this page. We are voting about a page called "Independent Republic of Vojvodina". How do you think a (proposed) independent state could be related to the Greater Hungary or the Greater Croatia concept? These latter deal with incorporating areas (making them dependent), rather than creating independent states. It would be useful to realize what other people talk about before you voice your opinion... Adam78 21:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the answer is very simple: we can take User:HunTheGoaT as a very good example of this what I speak. Since he created this article, we can assume that he support independent Vojvodina, but does he support it? If you see his user page you will notice that he has "No Trianon" tag there and now tell me how one can be for independent Vojvodina and against the Treaty of Trianon in the same time? It is simply impossible. The Treaty of Trianon was a condition that Vojvodina today exist at all, so if there is no Trianon, then there is no Vojvodina, there is no Croatia, there is no Slovakia, etc, and instead of them, there is only one thing - a Greater Hungary. So, if somebody is against Trianon that means that he is also against Vojvodina (dependent or independent no matter), and if such person tell that he support independent Vojvodina, the only way how it can be explained is that such person want to implement "divide and conquer" policy - to divide Serbs and to make Vojvodina easier target for Hungary than it is now. Just think why Albanians in Montenegro voted for Montenegrin independence...same performance, another actors... PANONIAN (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Independent Vojvodina and against the Treaty of Trianon in the same time is not impossible. I don't wan to restore of the Greater-Hungary! I say that the Treaty is not good. If Vojvodina will an independent state, this will change the borders of Trianon because Vojvodina has been given to Serbia and if it weren't Serbia anymore it meant the fall of the Trianon border.

The secont thing is that I didn't write about my idea, I've writen about a future question after Kosovo will independent. Because KOSOVO WILL INDEPENDENT, AND KOSOVO IS ALREADY INDEPENDENT! HunTheGoaT 07:47, 29 September 2006 (CEST)

But independent Vojvodina will not change Trianon border. If Vojvodina became independent border with Hungary still will be the same and the Trianon still will be valid. The point of Trianon was that Serbs and other Slavs of Vojvodina (who were majority in Vojvodina) live in their own Slavic state instead under Hungarian rule. The question whether name of this Slavic state is Yugoslavia, Serbia or Vojvodina is simply irrelevant - it is still Slavic state. So, you see, independent Vojvodina would be only a confirmation of the Trianon. And by the way, Vojvodina was not "given" to Serbia by the Trianon - it is Slavic citizens of Vojvodina that voted for it and Trianon recognized their right to self determination. Independent Vojvodina would be only another form of that right (if it is achieved by their own will), and it would retain everything what Trianon was. Regarding Kosovo, Kosovo is lost for Serbia (time will show whether it is bad or good), but that fact means that the relevant political factors in the World will give a compensation to Serbia. And do you know what that compensation is? The compensation is that they will not push Serbia further about its minorities and that Serbia will not lost any part of its current territory - in another words (this is a joke), but if all Serbs in Serbia become canibals and start to kill and eat its ethnic minorities, the World will not care (that is a compensation for Kosovo, my friend, so think about it). :) PANONIAN (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, in the time when the Treaty of Trianon was signed (in 1920), Serbia did not existed as a state, but the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. So, by your own logic, the fact that Vojvodina is not part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes but part of Serbia would mean that Trianon borders are already changed, right? PANONIAN (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We must stop our discussion about it. You know that Serbia is the succesor state of the SHS Kingdom. This is just philosophy. Why do you think that I am a supporter of this separatist idea. I just don't know why is Senta, Ada, Kanjiza and the other settlements with around 80% majority in Serbia. We can't speak Serbian enough good because here the 90% speaks Hungarian nearly perfect. Just those who came from Bosnia and Croatia can't stand Hungarians. I want just a better life for Hungarians. I think that the Trianon Treaty is bad, but to totaly restore the Greater-Hungary is also not good. I think there should be changes in borders in an other way. The propbleme is that neither Hungary neither Serbia don't care about us. But now we should end our talk. Bye! Watch out for my articles!HunTheGoaT 16:57, 29 September 2006 (CEST)

• MoveOK than move it to the Republic of Vojvodina article. Ok?

HunTheGoaT 19:40, 28 September 2006 (CEST)

I would agree to move it to "Republic of Vojvodina" and then to completelly rewrite it to present the political program of the LSV party. PANONIAN (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry:D. This last version of the IRV was just a joke :D! Then move your version to the Republic f Vojvodina. HunTheGoaT 19:53, 28 September 2006 (CEST)

No, your version was a joke and my was a proper text for "Independent Republic of Vojvodina" title. Since I moved article now to "Republic of Vojvodina", it should be written in accordance with political program of LSV party and nothing beyond that. PANONIAN (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In my last message, I had told that my version was the joke. :D I was joking? Hello? Can you understand it? You realy don't understand jokes.:( HunTheGoaT 20:17, 28 September 2006 (CEST)

• Comment and just to say that redirect Independent Republic of Vojvodina still should be deleted because it has nothing to do with the current title of the article - Republic of Vojvodina, which do not speak about independent Vojvodina. PANONIAN (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.