Talk:Hungarians in Serbia

message: 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)
thread_title: Hungarian settlements

message: 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)
thread_title: Hungarian communists

message: 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)
thread_title:  Culture section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Name

message: 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.
** Yes, this is English Wikipedia and therefore names used here are written in version most common in English. You have Hungarian Wikipedia where you can use Hungarian names. If article is about Hungarians that does not mean that we should use Hungarian names since this is English text and Hungarian names for all places in Vojvodina are already mentioned in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hungarian_exonyms_in_Vojvodina PANONIAN 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: So? What you suggest that we should do about it? PANONIAN 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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).
**What time you speak about? PANONIAN 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Between WWs, of course. Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See above. Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See above. Fcsaba 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.wikipedia.org/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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV - History 

message: 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)
thread_title: Turski Sentmikloš

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 , but not copied over. No such user (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged this with , 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)
replies: text: Ey, this was a wise idea! Thanks for your experience and quick help! ;) — Thehoboclown (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Hist merged in

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 , but not copied over. No such user (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged this with , 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)
replies: text: Ey, this was a wise idea! Thanks for your experience and quick help! ;) — Thehoboclown (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811224233/http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf to http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124120825/http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab21.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab21.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nemanja Nikolić is Hungarian? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please re-post this into the talkpage of Wikiproject Hungary. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of historic presence of Hungarians in Vojvodina