Jump to content

Talk:Vojvodina Academy of Sciences and Arts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novi Sad, capital or an administrative center

[edit]

This is beginning to look childish. Don`t you understand what is written in the constitution of the government of Voivodina? The NEW constitution? Even in the old constitution it says "Glavni grad AP Vojvodine" article. I think "glavni grad" means capital city and then it is the administrative center of the region too not ONLY administrative center, after all what is administrative center in fact? It is a capital and by the new constitution this word changed from administrative center to CAPITAL.iadrian (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, it is childish. VERY. Why did you erase the reference to official english translation of the new STATUTE? Explain yourself. It clearly states under the section 10 (titled capital of Vojvodina) that NS is an admisnistrative center. Although Section 10 is titled "Capital of Vojvodina" nowhere in it is specified what city is the capital of it. "after all what is administrative center in fact? It is a capital" thats your presumption, I m sorry but the STATUTE clearly states otherwise.Petar Milcic 19:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs)

You really don`t read my messages ??? The title says a lot, Capital city. Read the STATUT or the constitution of Voivodina from their official page that is UPDATED. There is the official Novi Sad city page, Novi Sad official fair site and many more... iadrian (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Yes I do read them. Why are you so aggravated? The title is Capital city, but do you judge the book by its cover? I most certanly don't. Section doesnt point to any city as a capital. Instead, it clearly points to Novi Sad as a "major, administrative city. Thats standard legislative practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get that way when i am having an edit war with solid references beign ignored and with no administrator to solve the issue. I hope he will come now. I have nothing else to say, i presented to you updated official references of the province,city, fair... and you choose to ignore it, i guess it is your personal problem now. I am waiting for administrator or a third party to join and to solve this problem. Please fell free to invite and administrator or a third party to the issue. iadrian (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is rediculus that you choose to ignore the statute itself, instead finding some references that are supposedly derived from the statute. Why ignore the source then? The title IS Capital city, but do you judge the book by its cover? I most certanly don't. Section doesnt point to any city as a capital. Instead, it clearly points to Novi Sad as a "major, administrative centre". For instance if I title the secton Capital of Serbia and state in it that Novi Sad is a major administrative centre, is Novi Sad capital of Serbia? No, it is just an administrative center. If Novi Sad was the capital, it would clearly said, without a doubt, "Novi Sad is the capital of Vojvodina. It is its major administrative center..etc" Thats standard legislative practice. And do you think NS fair site, or any other, for that matter is more thrustworthy than the statute? Please spare us form those references. We only want scientific analyses and crude facts in law. --Petar Milcic 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, i think i "get" you, therefore i don`t want to push it. You took the old statute and ignoring the updated Statut in power. Official government page, city page, fair page and others are not to be ignored, maybe by you but luckily you don`t decide what will be written in the encyclopedia, sources and references do. I am waiting for administrator or a third party to join and to solve this problem. Please fell free to invite and administrator or a third party to the issue. iadrian (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please check the Novi Sad page and the page about Vojvodina you will see there too about the matter at hand. iadrian (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I find it as ridiculous as it is insulting that my references to the statute and political analyses of it are removed to make way for fair's, city's and government's websites and called vandalism (!!!). Statute is the most important law made by the province's assembly and it is not to be interpreted by anyone else but the sole legislative body of the province. So Fairs, governments ect...its not their call. --Petar Milcic 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I misunderstod you, what updated statute? There is only one statute. There were a lot of versions before it was passed, but since then there is only one. I ve went to the official english website of Assembly of Vojvodina (http://www.skupstinavojvodine.gov.rs/?s=aktAPV001&mak=OpstaAkta) and read the statute. Everything I say is according to that one statute. It is uploaded on the offical website of the sole legislative body on province's level. I don't see how can it be an old version? I invite you to find this "updated version" on that website, if there is one, and please post it here so we can end this once and for all. Until the new statute of course:) --Petar Milcic 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs)

Please read Wikipedia:Your first article :"Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on politics, religion, or anything else. Understand what we mean by a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before tackling this sort of topic.".

There is nothing "particular" in the fact that there is only one legal statute. And it clearly states what NS is, everything else - it is not. Did you read the statute? You ve failed to give me "your text" of the statute. --Petar Milcic 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no point repeating myself but you can check the Novi Sad and Vojvodina pages. These are not new pages and it would stand only if it had solid references. By the way, i took the notice that Novi Sad is the Capital city from there, just took the references from the official pages. I am just saying that there is a small chance that everybody else is wrong about the capital. Those pages are visited daily by a lot of people.. Think about that and the official updated references.iadrian (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. PLEASE stop undoing Statute references, with random text on websites (fairs, governments ect). Government of Serbia or of Vojvodina can say on their websites what they like, but Statute (Assembly of Vojvodina) defines NS's status, not any Government. It can be overridden only the law of Assembly of Serbia, if not of Vojvodina. Surely you dont mean that a Wiki article has primacy over the Statute? --Petar Milcic 21:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And the new statute says that the capital of the province is Novi Sad. You have one reliable reference, that contains old information by the way and i have atleast 4 updated official references that confirms that it is a Capital not an administrative center.

No you dont. Howcome its old information? Its the new statute ("Official Gazette of AP Vojvodina", number 17/09). You only have TEXTS from certain websites, that DO NOT quote the statute. Plus, those institutions DO NOT pass or define passed laws. You ve failed so far to privide a link of the "updated statute" as you call it.--Petar Milcic 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs)

I don't want to repeat myself. Statute states that NS is a major adm. center. Where exacly does it state that NS is the capital? Please, quote me "NS is the capital of Vojvodina", there is no quote of the statute. The fact that it is under section "capital of vojvodina" doesnt change anything. It would be under any other section and it would still be maj,adm center because the statute is clear about that.--Petar Milcic 22:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the article that you presented that is not conform the new constitution of the government of Voivodina (http://www.vojvodina.gov.rs/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid=68) were the Statut is explained step by step. "Главни град АП Војводине Члан 10.Град Нови Сад је главни, административни центар АП Војводине. Седиште органа АП Војводине је у Новом Саду.Покрајинском скупштинском одлуком може се предвидети да седиште одређених покрајинских органа буде у неком другом месту у АП Војводини. Положај Града Новог Сада, као главног, административног центра АП Војводине уређује се покрајинском скупштинском одлуком, у складу са законом." Let`s analyze it a bit. More precise the first row, ""Главни град АП Војводине Члан 10. Град Нови Сад је главни, административни центар АП Војводине." , first, even by this it says Capital city AP Vojvodine, and it says The city of Novi Sad is the main, administrative center AP Vojvodine, therefore main AND administrative center. What is the main center? What is Belgrade to R.Serbia? Not a main and administrative center? As the title says, capital city.iadrian (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


How many times...the section can call itself John Paul II. Sections dont even have to be titled. The text inside is important. There is no specific mention of any city being the capital. And trust me, there would be, if it was. So try to explain why isn't there anything like "NS is the capital of Vojvodina"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


More links that confirm that it is the Capital of Voivodina.

This pages are official pages of the universities in Novi Sad and another official page of the Mayer of the Novi Sad.iadrian (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find literally 1000 000 of them stating that. But only the statute is the valid one.--Petar Milcic 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but i don`t think that all those people and institutions have wrong information on their web pages and only a few sources, and from that few only one official have the right info. I have and the Statut, from the official page of the government of Voivodina. And i think this is bulletproof evidence that you can find 1000 references that Novi Sad is the Capital of Voivodina and only a few that say otherwise, more precise references that are not updated say otherwise. I consider this matter closed having in mind all the references presented, city`s page, mayors`s page and the government`s page, these 3 are rock solid and more official that this it can`t be. But there are also other pages, pages of universities that are serious institutions that confirms this, Novi Sad fair, and many more...iadrian (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add the definition of the term "capital city". "A capital is the area of a country, province, region, or state, regarded as enjoying primary status; although there are exceptions, a capital is almost always a city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government and fixed by law." . The seat of the provincial government is in Novi Sad and that also makes by the definition Novi Sad a capital city. iadrian (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VANU is not working with SANU, they both have jurisdiction over Vojvodina

[edit]

It was a misunderstanding. I never wrote they work together, in fact I wrote that vanu has jur. in vojvodina (together/conflicting with sanu). By that I wanted to say that they both have jur. in Vojvodina and are not friendly. We agree on that, right? If so, I welcome any other better way to state this important issue.--Petar Milcic 20:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well together they are not working since SANU doesn`t recognize the existence of VANU. Conflicting is Ok, because both academies have jurisdiction over the province, but by the government of the Voivodina only VANU is in charge but also by R.Serbia only Sany is in charge so conflicted is Ok.iadrian (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Serbia is above the law of Vojvodina, in accordance to that SANU is the only legal in the province, dejure. De facto, they are both legal, thats why I stated together. And they are not in an open conflict, are they? I m not sure, thats why we have these discussions.

Well the Statut of Voivodina is in accordance with the constitution of Serbia therefore they can`t be both academies, there is a catch somewhere there but i don`t know what is it exactly. It would be great if we could present some reliable reference about this problem. iadrian (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it should be, but, laws of Serbia are above any laws or statutes of Vojvodina (thats why the statute needed the Transfer of jurisdictions act) so de jure VANU is illegal. But, thats not the issue, because it is silently approved as legal. So, de facto it 's legal. Both sides have their "legal support" so they are both de facto legal in Vojvodina, in their own way. --Petar Milcic 21:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bases for assuptions of some parties that VANU is a base for future creation of Vojvodinian ethnicity/nation

[edit]

I never said Montenegro is the same as Vojvodina. It is not, it had greater autonomy, since it was a republic. I only stated the fact that opposers of the creation of VANU see it as an important argument to their opinion. That is the fact.--Petar Milcic 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but this is some kind of summary with is not conform the wiki rules. Only if you have some reliable reference about this exact matter.iadrian (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death threaths section

[edit]

I request another reference, actually a third opinion, because if I understood corectly, death threats are not signed, noone took resposibility, and are only seen and by VANU itself. Thats not a reliabale source. This most tragic and shamefull incident must be confirmed by a third opinion in order to enter Wiki. Thats why I said "citation needed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but only that is presented in the official message of VANU. You can check the reference at hand, they don`t say who or what, they just say about the threats.iadrian (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, I know, and thats not a reliable information. If you say I ve robbed you, is that reliable without any evidence? No in court, as in Wiki you need references. This is not a valid reference. Please find some other reference with the actual proof of this crime. --Petar Milcic 21:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course , but it can`t be categorized as an invalid reference since it is the official message from VANU. This message is presented od their official page also. That is one more reason why this information is in the contraversy part. iadrian (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really a reference? If so, one could say anything on their own website, and that would be reliable on Wiki. Well, its not. --Petar Milcic 21:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong comparison, anyone can own a web site and write a bunch of stuff, true, but this is not any web page, it is the official page of the VANU academy. http://vanu.org.rs/page.php?65 iadrian (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if SANU, for instance, stated on their website that certain VANU members sent them death threaths. Would that be a reliable source, if without any other proof? No it wouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would, because organizations like this don`t put "bogus" information on their web page. And this statement from VANU was also a press release. The proof would be the police investigation that was conducted. I think i can find newspapers with this subject.iadrian (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I write myself love letters, and call the police and say that it was you, they would most probably conduct the investigation. If the press came it would be on the news. It still doesnt say that it was you. Organisations like these are serous, I agree, but that doesnt mean they dont have interests to pursue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you and me(me for sure:) ) are not the head of some serious organizations so everything i say/do can`t be taken as a reference or fact without a solid proof. These institution have credibility and a image to defend so i don`t think anybody would made up some story that can be easily proven wrong, and nobody wants to be marked as a liar because it is the whole institution behind, especially not VANU that is under everybody`s "eyes". After all who is going to say about their problems if not they for itself. Of course they have interests to pursue, who doesn`t? Even the Red Cross has it own interests to protect or to pursue. Unfortunately that is the way things work , everywhere in the world. You know that saying from the show "Friends" - There`s no unselfish good deeds, but if you don`t trust the official sources you can`t trust nobody :). I see this official pages much reliable than some personal pages of some individuals (http://www.trajkovic.rs/) that have a clear interest to pursue.iadrian (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

[edit]

How can somebody know that it's an organisation (and "ultra-nationalistic", "right-wing criminal groups") they came into conflict with, while the identity of "organisation" is unknown? I don't think this is the place where it should be written what "most of the public suspects". Then perfidiously connect those "unidentified groups" with SANU, and back that claim with the statement from, guess who... VANU. And on top of that, the page with that statement doesn't even exist.--77.46.198.231 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the problem before you make some big changes like NPOV template that disregards all data collected directly from reliable references. I have updated the link that provide that info. Indeed it was a dead link.
About the info, it is exactly(word by word) what is written on the page of VANU, which is published directly by them, not by some third party blog. It is a statement from an institution. It would be like to disregard statements from the government of (XXXXX) county, because they represent the (xxxxx) country....
If you see any other problems please discuss them. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Please discuss the problem before you make some big changes like NPOV template that disregards all data collected directly from reliable references. I have updated the link that provide that info. Indeed it was a dead link."
I explained why I put the template. It wasn't only because of a dead link, and I clearly stated it.
"About the info, it is exactly(word by word) what is written on the page of VANU, which is published directly by them, not by some third party blog. It is a statement from an institution. It would be like to disregard statements from the government of (XXXXX) county, because they represent the (xxxxx) country...."
That is exactly why I have put the template. You are presenting statements from one of the confronting sides as an NPOV. Yes, it is an institution... so was the Volksliste. How does that proves its neutrality?! I'm sure lots of totalitarian governments claim no human rights are violated by them, even though it's not true. Your arguments are flawed.--109.92.79.132 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but this is ridiculous. You are comparing VANU with totalitarian governments and Volksliste. How can we discuss about this , about this article about VANU when you are tottaly dissmising this institution and making this kind of comparations!? There is no point. There is a reference for that statement, a valid one and that is all that matters. I have corrected the link for the info. If you have other problems please talk about them, if don`t than this problem is solved. Imagine if every Wikipedian would say that some statement is not valid because it is issued by a government/institution that he doesn`t like? Adrian (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
?!
Please, stop twisting what I said. I wasn't "comparing VANU to totalitarian governments and Volksliste". I am tryng to explain to you that just because some information comes from "institution", that doesn't mean it's reliable. There actually are biased institutions, as I demonstrated to you with some obvious examples (Volkliste and totalitarian governments). VANU is in conflict with SANU, and you are presenting just one side of the story. Your "reference for that statement" is showing that the "statement" is actually VANU's view of the situation, but here it is presented as objective truth (like some outsider have made it). If you are citing their statement, insert quotation marks, or just write "according to VANU". No, this problem isn't solved. Your comments are just one logical fallacy after another. Please, stop with this sophistry.
(Are you the same Iadrian yu who tried to switch serbian name "Veliki Varadin" with romanian "Oradea" on sr.wikipedia? If you are, just let me know, because I don't want to waste my time.)--77.46.230.78 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"The modern VANU also came into conflict with ultra-nationalistic organisations which identities remained unknown, some members even received letters of death threats from self-proclaimed "patriotic" groups in Serbia (most of the public suspects right-wing criminal groups). SANU went even supporting this organisations. A few members of the Serbian academy of sciences and art openly supported this "patriotic" forces."
This part which is based solely on VANU's statement (in Serbian), contains some things that can't be found there. Nowhere is said what most of the public suspects (and how can VANU even speak for the most of the public?). Nowhere is said that SANU went even supporting this organisations, and that few members of the Serbian academy of sciences and art openly supported this "patriotic" forces.--77.46.230.78 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the user who I talked to regarding that issue on SR wikipedia.. Yes, I still remember your civility...But that has nothing to do here. I will assume good faith anyway.. Every information that is present is supported by valid references per WP:RELIABLE. Please don`t add the NPOV template without any valid reason. If you have any further problems please use one of the following [1] or [2]. Adrian (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am NOT that user. He might have been too hasty, but he was right, as I can see now. What you are doing here is unbelievable. You are adding LIES to the article. You got caught in the act, and continue to do that. As I wrote above, parts which I marked dont't exist in the referenced website. You actually thought that you can get away with this by citing sources in non-english language, so far less people can verify it...
I wrote the reasons for my changes in the article. I will put back POV template, and will inform some other users about your actions. You're fooling no one with this "civility" play.--79.101.167.205 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, you, or anybody else is not here to tell the "truth" but to add verified data. Please read WP:VERIFY. I quote The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.. Well referenced data can`t be discarded just like that if somebody thinks that isn`t the "truth". If you have a problem with the reference, because it`s in Serbian, you should say so, and I or any other user could translate it for you, but as I can see this is not about the reference but what more and more seems to look like something personal. Adrian (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This part which is based solely on VANU's statement (in Serbian), contains some things that CAN'T BE FOUND THERE. Nowhere is said what most of the public suspects (and how can VANU even speak for the most of the public?). Nowhere is said that SANU went even supporting this organisations, and that few members of the Serbian academy of sciences and art openly supported this "patriotic" forces.
If you are citing their statement, insert quotation marks, or just write "according to VANU".
You are consciously adding something that isn't in the reference.--79.101.167.205 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will rewrite the problematic part here. Please tell me if this is ok.
In a statement issued by VANU, VANU came into conflict with ultra-nationalistic organisations which identities remained unknown, some members even received letters of death threats from self-proclaimed "patriotic" groups in Serbia (most of the public suspects right-wing criminal groups. <-> SANU went even supporting this organisations. A few members of the Serbian academy of sciences and art openly supported this "patriotic" forces. <-> this sentence would be removed. Is this version ok? Adrian (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Few things about this version:
  • I think that "According to statement issued by VANU" is more correct, not "In a statement"
  • there is no mention of "ultra-nationalistic organisations", only "«patriotic» organisations and individuals" and "nationalistic assaults"
  • "some members" haven't received "letters of death threats", it's said that "through letters and some websites death treaths were received/declared to some members of VANU and others(politicians, profesors, NGO's)
  • "most of the public suspects right-wing criminal groups" there is no such claim in that statement
  • even if you do correct this, you should separate that part from the "SANU conflict" part, because it would insinuate connection between SANU and those attacks, like this version does.
I have a feeling that you are trying to haggle here. After all the explanations made by me and others about this problem and your persistence to keep it in the article, I'm sorry, but I just can't asume good faith. I am surprised to see that someone who ignored obvious mistakes in the article, and prevented anyone who tried to correct it, have a "reviewer" status here. I would report you, if I knew how to do that :)--79.101.167.205 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of the public suspects right-wing criminal groups" there is no such claim - this statement was added after references on a request of one Wikipedia.
I want to help and you still act really uncivil. Reading your comments - you could at least say that you don`t assume good faith... I am also surprised with your comments that are more than inappropriate, and my merits on wikipedia are not to be judged by you. What you wrote in your comments broke almost every WIKI civil, NPOV and WP:SOURCE rule therefore you could be one of the last persons who should criticize anybody. And on top off all that, you are attacking me personally WP:NPA. Regardless of all your hostility, WP:ABF and preconceived ideas, I will make changes you suggested. About the report, if you feel that I broke some wiki policy or anything, please file a report at WP:ANI[3] and avoid insulting other editors. Adrian (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look I couldn't care less what you think about my behaviour. The fact is that I, unlike you, have not inserted false statements in the article, claimed they were supported by reference (which is not true) and reverted every change that tried to correct that, even after other editors explained what's wrong with that section. You can twist the meaning of those WPolicies as much as you like so they can suit your purpose, I don't care. If pointing out maliciousness of your actions is making me uncivil, than fine. I'll rather be "uncivil" and honest, than faign "civility", while claiming false statements. The thing is that you "want to help" now when you realised that I won't go away. Before that, you continuosly ignored my comments, and that is the main problem I see here.
  • "most of the public suspects right-wing criminal groups" there is no such claim - this statement was added after references on a request of one Wikipedia.
Sorry, but i'm not sure I understand what you want to say? It was added by someone after the referenced part was added? If that's the case, then why were you removing "citation needed" thingy i was inserting?--79.101.167.205 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see. You removed other part that user added, but left this one. Nice job! Really shrewd...--79.101.167.205 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the fundamental principles of wikipedia is "Assume good faith" and among others civility. If you started with good faith, maybe this would be solved much faster and on a friendly note. Anyway, I have changed the article as you suggested. About the last part ((most of the public suspects right-wing criminal groups.), yes, it was added by someone after the referenced part (If I remember correctly, while this section was written).I was removing your citation needed tags because that means that whole sentence did`t had a reference. ??? I don`t understand. This change is not according to your suggestions? Adrian (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, Mary and Joseph...
No, you haven't changed it "as I suggested". I wrote what was wrong with your suggestion. And you still haven't corrected all of that (most importantly: you haven't separated death threats part from the SANU part). And what in the Earth's name is that last sentence ("They base these claims...") supposed to mean?! Selective deletion of others additions, again?--Guestonije (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Few other things about this article:

  • I'm not sure whether its name is "Vojvođanska akademija nauka i umetnosti" in Croatian
  • That "Purpose" section sounds a bit like an advertisement
  • Milos Tesic is listed twice in coresponding member list; unless there are two members under that name, this should be corrected--Guestonije (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Holy spaghetti monster..... Can you please write here your suggestion how would that section look like?
  • About the Croatian name - I am not. If you think that is should be different please write it.
  • ("They base these claims...") - This is about the "patriotic forces", and an example with the case of Montenegrin academy. - This part was added By Zelja87 [4]
  • If Milos Tesic is listed twice than the duplicate should be removed of course.

As a Wikipedian, I remind you to respect WP:AGF. And can you please stop "blaming" me for everything that is wrong on this article -even if it is my fault or not. I am not doing anything "again". It is not my article and it is written by human beings :). After all, that is why anyone can edit, and improve it of course. Adrian (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I wasn't "blaming" you for everything that is wrong in this article. Last few problems I mentioned were just remarks, so somebody can check them and correct, if it turns out they're not appropriate. What I did blame you for, was your reversions of my edits and insisting on untrue statements in this article.
  2. ("They base these claims...") - This sentence was part of Zelja87's addition. You deleted first part of it, because it was "unsourced", but left that last sentence which have reference. That sentence originally had nothing to do with "patriotic forces", as you sad. It was talking about opposition in Serbia and some NGO's. The way it looks now: (a) it doesn't have a lot of sense, and (b) one could conclude that "SANU thing" and "death threats thing" are connected (and let me remind you that it is a serious accusation, and that you already removed false statements that were directly doing that).
  3. I am really loosing patience here. After all this explaining it is hard for me to believe that you don't understand what I'm talking about.
  4. Considering that my edits weren't very long lasting so far, I have no intention to edit it right now. However, I will write here what is wrong with it, so somebody else can do it (or at least see it).
  5. And last, but not least: when you do edit, don't write that changes were made "according to suggestions from the talk page" if that was not the case (and it wasn't in this case). It's very devious.--Guestonije (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When someone doesn`t show just a little good faith It`s is really hard to understand what he wants.... And yes, changes are made according to the suggestions from the talk page, if necessary I will post diffs to prove it. I want to help, I am being constructive, but you just keep pushing it. Maybe when you show a little good faith we can do something, until then any further conversation would be futile. Greeting and good luck.Adrian (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes... if this thing is something, it is incredible. Making bad edits is one thing, but saying it was approved by me is just... incredible. Like all that things I wrote just a few rows above, isn't there. Two plus two equals five...--Guestonije (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Montenegro or Kosovo

[edit]

From Contraversy part the sentence "Also, majority of oppisition in Serbia (both in Assembly of Serbia and Assembly of AP Vojvodina), as well as some NGOs agreed that formation of a regional academic institution is a base for future creation of Vojvodinian ethnicity/nation[citation needed]." Should be removed because it is not according to wiki rules. Read this : Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that citations must be added for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability. - here is the link to wiki rule presented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . As i can see here this is a conclusion from a comparison with Montenegro, not a cite from a reliable reference. This rule too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability , "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether we think it is true." The comparison with Montenegro or any other EX-YU republic is logical and maybe a good one but it doensn`t meet the wiki rules.iadrian (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orignal VANU?

[edit]

"After the original VANU (1974-1992) ceased operating..." If this institution is different than the original VANU it would be better to change the name of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is not different. It carries the same name and purpose. It is the same organization just during a certain period of time it ceased to exist. Adrian (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name and status change

[edit]

According to this article, the VANU has changed its name to Akademija nauke, kulture i umetnosti Vojvodine (AKNUV) - Academy of Sciences, Cultures, and Arts of Vojvodina. Additionally its no longer a academic institution but rather a scientific society, I suppose something along the lines of a learned society, might need further clarification in that regard. Buttons (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have saw this info also, but VANU has remained the same, the problem is of the financial nature. According to this sources [5]; [6]; [7]- "Predsednik VANU Julijan Tamaš takođe je rekao da VANU nije ukinuta, već je formirana paralelna institucija, kao prelazno rešenje dok se ovo pitanje ne reši na političkoj ravni.". As you can notice this is just a temporal solution, if you wish you can add this info, but any other changes I don`t see needed since nothing is changed. Vanu still exists and has the same status in the province.
If you notice, your source also states "Osam meseci pošto je Ustavni sud osporio način finansiranja VANU, ali ne i njeno postojanje". Adrian (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Vojvodina Academy of Sciences and Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
There are nine entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
  • WP:ELCITE: ...access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vojvodina_Academy_of_Sciences_and_Arts&oldid=1208273069"