Talk:Srbobran

message: "After the Bačka region was liberated from the Ottoman Empire by Habsburg troops"
*And who was "liberated" in that time? Perhaps Ottomans also "liberated" land from infidels in 1526???
"1848 was still the year of Revolution. The Austrian could not establish this year the Serbian Vojvodina"
*Serbian Vojvodina was established by Serbs in 1848. Austrians established another province in 1849 with name Vojvodina of Serbia and Tamiš Banat. These two are different things.
"It is not propaganda, and not stupid. You probably don't like hear that an entire nation was extinguished in Vojvodina in 1945. Please, feel free to write about Serbian history in Srbobran"
*If you write that "ethnic Germans and Hungarians" were persecuted by the Yugoslav state after WW2, and not write that numerous people of all nationalities were persecuted during the war, then your writting is obviously propaganda against the Yugoslav state. I have to inform you about some facts here:
1. The Axis Powers occupied the city and entire Vojvodina in 1941 and during the four years of occupation they commited genocide against the civilian population: numerous Serbs, Jews, but also Hungarians and others who were against the Axis regime were murdered. This also affected Srbobran. All nations of Vojvodina: Serbs, Hungarians, Slovaks, Croats and others were part of partisan resistance movement and fought against the occupation. Only German population did not participated in the resistance movement and that is why Yugoslav authorities decided to deduct Yugoslav citizenship from German population. However, most of the German population left from Vojvodina before partisan forces entered German populated settlements, so it is simply not correct that they were "expelled".    
2. As for the Hungarians, they participated in partisan resistance movement in the large number. For example, in parts of northern Bačka, the majority of partisans were ethnic Hungarians. So, if some Hungarians who colaborated with Axis regime were killed there after the war, they were killed by other Hungarians who were partisans. 
3. As for the history of Srbobran, if you really want to post this crap about persecutions, you first should to write how civilians (of all nationalities) were killed and persecuted by the Axis authorities, and only after that about consequences of Axis occupation, such are emigration of Germans and revenge against those who colaborated with Axis regime during the war. That would be the neutral way of writting.
"These links were all in Serbian language. You can put them perhaps to the Serbian page about Srbobran in Wikipedia, can't you?"
*Perhaps you do not like what is written there? I do not see why these links should not be posted, no matter in which language they are written. User:PANONIAN
----
PANNONIAN!
I know what are you going to write here, and I think, every one could guess it if one tries to read anything about Hungarians in Vojvodina region. Just try write your own name and the word "Hungarian" in Google surch program: I am sick of it. I will certainly not have any discussion with you. There were enough polemies about this issue with you here and on the entire world wide web. Your anti-Hungarian possession is just amazing. Vojvodina 23:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Nado158 et al, I think that you are inventing criteria for a name to appear in the infobox: why the national minority has to be in majority for its name to appear in the infobox?  for "other_name" says that it's "Name in minority language, where officially accepted". And it says so for years. The Hungarian name in the infobox is in smaller font, compared to latin and cyrillic. That is common practice in Wikipedia, for example in South Tyrol. As can be seen on this photo, Hungarian name stands on the town's entrance table. Why is it good for the entrance table, but not for the Wikipedia infobox? 
I'm wondering, what kind of good-faith mindset involves removal of an official minority language name from the Wikipedia article. Probably the same one that triggered recent uprising in Vukovar against official use of Cyrillic, where Serbs make up a third of population. No such user (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the opinion of 27.34.241.18. Thank you!--Nado158 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

text: And why you insist on removing it? It is a small line in the infobox, and a short entry in the lead. It is one of names in official use. Why is it relevant that Hungarian name is not used by the whole local population? It is used by a sizable minority. We have the same information in Temerin, Senta, Kanjiža, Bačka Topola, Mali Iđoš.... In South Tyrol, we have same situation in Bolzano, Badia, ... In Switzerland, there's Graubünden, Valais, then Belgium... And, furthermore, how do you explain the road sign at the town entry if it is not (an) official name? Why is it such a push to remove a valid a sensible entry that stood here for years? Your arguments look just like rationalizations of your nationalist attitude. No such user (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but you want to place Hungarian names into Wikipedia where they are not the majority etc. So, please do not try to present me as nationalist. In the section Name we place already important historical names. Whats your problem and why you push it?--Nado158 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

text: A question: why self-declared advocates of minority rights (Brianyoumans and No such user) are not concerned that Serbian name is deleted by nationalist Croatian user IvanOS from articles about Vukovar and Jagodnjak where Serbian is official language: , ? In Jagodnjak, Serbs are even in majority, but no use of Serbian name there is allowed in Wikipedia. Is there answer to that? 145.236.211.182 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just restored the Serbian name to the above-mentioned articles on Croatian cities, and I have restored the Hungarian name here. As we say in English, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." I believe that if there is a substantial language minority in an area, and especially if it is recognized as an official language, their name for the city/area/whatever should be included prominently, in the lede and/or infobox. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian name, again 

message: Having read some of the above talk page and thought about the issues, here is a proposed compromise. Why don't you do it the way many of the Swiss articles do it? (They seem to handle their language issues well.) See Delémont, for example. They list each of the names - those of official languages in the local area - at the very beginning of the article. The infobox contains only the most common name used in English - in the case of cities in Serbia, this would almost certainly be a transliteration of the Serbian name, except for Belgrade. So, in the case of Srbobran, the lede would read "Srbobran (Serbian name and pronunciation) (Hungarian name and pronunciation) is ...." The "Names" section could be retained as well. If there were additional local official languages, they would be listed in the lede as well. I don't think this will be too cumbersome anywhere in Serbia, as I don't think there are more than 3 official languages anywhere, are there? Brianyoumans (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the opinion of 27.34.241.18. Thank you!--Nado158 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

text: And why you insist on removing it? It is a small line in the infobox, and a short entry in the lead. It is one of names in official use. Why is it relevant that Hungarian name is not used by the whole local population? It is used by a sizable minority. We have the same information in Temerin, Senta, Kanjiža, Bačka Topola, Mali Iđoš.... In South Tyrol, we have same situation in Bolzano, Badia, ... In Switzerland, there's Graubünden, Valais, then Belgium... And, furthermore, how do you explain the road sign at the town entry if it is not (an) official name? Why is it such a push to remove a valid a sensible entry that stood here for years? Your arguments look just like rationalizations of your nationalist attitude. No such user (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but you want to place Hungarian names into Wikipedia where they are not the majority etc. So, please do not try to present me as nationalist. In the section Name we place already important historical names. Whats your problem and why you push it?--Nado158 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

text: A question: why self-declared advocates of minority rights (Brianyoumans and No such user) are not concerned that Serbian name is deleted by nationalist Croatian user IvanOS from articles about Vukovar and Jagodnjak where Serbian is official language: , ? In Jagodnjak, Serbs are even in majority, but no use of Serbian name there is allowed in Wikipedia. Is there answer to that? 145.236.211.182 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just restored the Serbian name to the above-mentioned articles on Croatian cities, and I have restored the Hungarian name here. As we say in English, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." I believe that if there is a substantial language minority in an area, and especially if it is recognized as an official language, their name for the city/area/whatever should be included prominently, in the lede and/or infobox. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: My take on name issue