Talk:Novi Sad/Archive 1

message: I am wondering if someone can clarify the definitions of certain terms. In the "Population" section, the "urban" area of Novi Sad is defined as consisting of the two "municipalities" of Petrovaradin and Novi Sad.  However, in the "Demographics" section, it refers to the "urban" population of Novi Sad as being lower that the "municipal area" population of Novi Sad.  If "Novi Sad" is the name of both a smaller "municipality" and larger "urban" area, should the "municipal area" of Novi Sad not be SMALLER than the urban area, which includes Petrovardin?  Or was the author trying to say "metropolitan area" (or something similar) in the Demographics section?  Some clarification would help, as I find the wording very confusing as it stands.
:The issue is indeed little complicated, so I will try to explain. This map show the entire territory of the City of Novi Sad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Novi_Sad.png This territory is divided into 2 municipalities (which are not shown on the map). Now, both municipalities have urban and rural part. The urban Novi Sad include 3 settlements: Novi Sad, Petrovaradin and Sremska Kamenica (It is shown on this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Novi_sad_quarters.png ). When we speak about "urban Novi Sad" we speak about area shown on that map and when we speak about municipal area we speak about first map. In another words, term Novi Sad have 4 meanings here: 1. The City of Novi Sad (first map) 2. the municipality of Novi Sad (which is not shown on the first map, but I might correct this map to show that) 3. the urban Novi Sad (second map) 4. Novi Sad proper or the settlement of Novi Sad itself excluding Petrovaradin and Kamenica. Also the term "metropolitan area" could define urban Novi Sad (number 3) + Futog, Veternik, Ledinci and Bukovac. PANONIAN (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I draw the map of municipalities now too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Novi_Sad07.png PANONIAN (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have three categories:
*1- "City of Novi Sad", whitch is all settlements in Novi Sad and Petrovaradin municipality
*2- Novi Sad and Petrovaradin urban municipalities
*3- "urban Novi Sad", part which is comprised of Novi Sad, Sremska Kamenica and Petrovaradin
*4- metropolitan Novi Sad, whitch is "urban Novi Sad" (NS, Sr.Kamenica and Petrovaradin), Futog, Veternik, Ledinci, Stari Ledinci and Bukovac; because these are parts connected. 
(sorry for bad sppeling) --Göran Smith 15:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population of Novi Sad

message: For Lephafta:  I wonder why you deleted statement that Novi Sad was largest Serbian city in the 19th century? Here are some quotes about that:
* Source: Djordje Randelj, Novi Sad slobodan grad, Novi Sad, 1997.
Quote: "Novi Sad was largest Serbian and South Slavic city in the 19th century".
* Source: Jovan Mirosavljevic, Novi Sad atlas ulica, Novi Sad, 1998.
Quote: "In 1820 Novi Sad had 20,000 inhabitants, of which 2/3 were Serbs".
 
So, this statement is correct.
Second thing: you wrote that this article is not neutral, but you didn’t specify what exactly is not neutral here. If you think that this statement, which you deleted, was not neutral, then imagine this: What if somebody wrote that Paris was largest French city in the 19th century? I see nothing problematic with this statement. Why you deleted this in the case of Novi Sad? User:PANONIAN
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have problems with the construction of the fact I've erased. I find it incomplete without additional facts. I mean details like why did Novi Sad become a Serbian city, if we could call a city a national city in the Habsburg Empire or even later in the multilingual Austro-Hungarian Monarchy by that time. Lephafta
* Novi Sad was called Serbian City because it was mainly populated with Serbs. Serbs are Orthodox Christians and that is why it was not allowed for Serbs to settle in neighbouring Petrovaradin. That is why Serbs founded new city on the other side of river Danube, which was called Serbian City (Ratzen Statt) in early historical records. User:PANONIAN
----
It's fine that you've listed these references, but I'd rather not rely on the literature that was published in the last 80 years, especially between 1945 and 2000. Writers are always inaccurate (checked!) when talking about numbers in Vojvodina. Lephafta
* These books are based on older sources. For example, Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (reformer of Serbian language) also wrote that Novi Sad is largest Serbian city in 19th century. User:PANONIAN
----
"History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash,
the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history
books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered
foe. As Napoleon once said, 'What is history, but a fable agreed
upon?'"
Cited from Dan Brown's: The Da Vinci Code
Lephafta
* I disagree with this statement that history is written by the winners (anybody could to write history, no matter if he "win" or "lost" wars). Also people who "lost" wars usually use irredentist propaganda to justify eventual future political changes. User:PANONIAN
----
Let me answer your example with another example:
Let's say that Senta has the largest Hungarian population in Vojvodina. You can't say that it is the largest Hungarian city in Vojvodina since it's not Hungarian. It's just a town in Serbia predominantly populated by Hungarians! Novi Sad probably was biggest, however, it was also a town in the Habsburg Empire, which seems to be forgotten when mentioned. Lephafta
* Actually, Senta is largest Hungarian town in Vojvodina. There are two possible ways to use these terms (Serbian, Hungarian, etc.). One of these uses referring to statehood and the other to ethnicity. Besides, there was no independent Serbian state in 1820. Lands and cities populated with Serbs were divided between Austria and Ottoman Empire in that time. But the fact that these Empires ruled over those cities doesn’t change the fact that these cities were Serbian. And I think that I mentioned that city was under Austrian rule. User:PANONIAN
----
The reason I considered it not to be neutral is that I've found a lot of mistakes, misconstruction and omission of relevant data.
Lephafta
* Sorry, but I do not agree with you. I really tried to write this as much correct as possible and I regard this data as relevant. If you think that something else should be written you are free to write that too, but please do not delete what I wrote with accusation that this is not relevant. Historians who wrote books where I found these facts would not agree with you about that. User:PANONIAN
----
I'm trying to find a pretty neutral reference but it does not seem to be existing. I found a monography written by Menyhért Érdujhelyi in the 1890's (translated by himself into Serbian in 1894) but he was also angry with the Royalists, so he put a gloss on the truth by magnifying the numbers and leaving out really important facts (he divides the residents into Serbians and Catholics, not mentioning the second group's nationality, probably because he based his calculations on the number of churches). The work (in Serbian) was later republished/reprinted many times in the 20th century.
Next week I will try to collect as many references as I can to make my doubts clear. For the meantime, I think the most relevant media is the "Carte Rouge" (the ethnical distribution in the Carpathian basin). I have a reprint from 1927, so it cannot be scanned. Contact me if you want to take a look at it.
I hope, we'll cooperate!
: Lephafta 19:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbian City

message: Original source in Serbian, which I translated into English, says: Prvo utvrdjenje na obali Dunava podigli su Kelti. The source speaks about history of Petrovaradin, and the sentence speaks about the first fortress, which was founded at this location. The meaning is that this fortress was founded by Celts. So, it was not the first fortress of the Celts, but the first fortress at this location. The source only mentions that Celts founded this fortress, but it is not their first fortress, only the first fortress at this location. User:PANONIAN
:I was not trying to say that it was the first fortress of the Celts ever; I was trying to say that it was the first fortress of the Celts on the right bank of the Danube, which is what the original version indicated. I was merely trying to rephrase it to make it easier for an English-speaker to understand. To clear things up completely- was this fortress the Celts' first fortress on the entire right bank of the Danube, or was it just the Celts' first fortress at this specific location? The original version before I began editing this article was unclear.
:I apologize for the "15th century" Huns edit- I had been making a lot of edits on a number of pages and accidentally included a 1 there. Olessi 21:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Celts

message: Emotional terms like "liberated" and "occupied" should be removed. (Not only in this article.) Other claims should be discussed here. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But, before the WWI it was a legal part of Austro-Hungary. Serbia won the war and (what?) Novi Sad; Austrians won the war against the Turks and (what?) Novi Sad; Turks won the war against Hungarians and (what?) Novi Sad; Hungarians came from Asia and (what?) Novi Sad (if Novi Sad existed in that time; I don't know)... "Liberation" is emotional term (unless we are talking about slaves and and similar situations). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: But, people from Latvia think that Germans liberated them (from Soviet occupation). Also, (around) 30-40% of inhabitants of Vojvodina (Germans and Hungarians) might think that Germans liberated them. When we are talking about Belgrade, Kragujevac, Ljubljana etc. -- we have more clear situation then about Zagreb, Subotica (or even Novi Sad), Sarajevo. In those cities majority or significant minority felt that they are liberated. Also, I don't think that we can talk about "liberation" of Sudetenland, too (there were, as I think, majority of German population). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Think about Yugoslav wars: what is the date of occupation of Knin and what is the date of liberation of Knin? The war is ended and "stable situation" means that it is under Croatian government. But, (maybe?) 80% of it's (former) inhabitants think that the town is occupated. So, it is better to sublimate the term "liberation" with some other term whenever we talk about not-so-clear situations and events. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotional terms 

message: I deleted Milan Grbović and Đurđica Šolak from the list of the famous citizens. I never heard for them and google search results do not show anything which can define these 2 persons as famous. PANONIAN (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous citizens 

message: It's very nice that the atrocities committed by Hungarian and German forces 1940-1944 are mentioned here. However, there is no mention of the atrocities committed in revenge by partisans in 1944-1945. Could someone do a bit of a research on this and augment the article? Panonian perhaps? I'm not an expert on this, and it is almost impossible to find neutral sources on this on the net.
In the meantime, here is a quote from a neutral source (it doesn't go into detail, but at least it confirms that atrocities against Hungarian and Germans did happen, in case anyone would doubt this):
The Partisans exacted brutal retribution against the indigenous German, Italian, Hungarian, and Albanian populations. In the cases of the Germans and Italians in particular, most of those who were not killed by the Partisans or did not flee were expelled, including the "Schwaben" from Vojvodina and the Italians from Dalmatia and Istria, whose families had lived in those areas for centuries. Radio Free Europe--Tamas 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll try to collect some sources. As far as Novi Sad is concerned, I know about a Hungarian  Catholic priest (a young Franciscan) who was killed by partisans (or some related irregulars). Again, I don't say this was official policy, but such things did happen. But I can't corroborate it with sources right now, I'm sorry.--Tamas 12:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double standards 

message: The early population data is fairly complete - numbers from the Ottoman times and 1820 are both given - but maybe a breakdown of ethnic groups at the time of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes would also be informative. A lot happened between 1820 and 2002.  It would also be nice to show the traditional quarters of the city (where each group was concentrated). Adam Mathias
----
I have some population data from the time of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, but showing only a number of Serbs and Hungarians, not number of other ethnic groups. If I find data with the number of all ethnic groups, I will post it. As for the city quarters, the traditional quarters of the city are same as the modern quarters (with many new were built later). I only know that ethnic Hungarians were mostly located in Telep in the past. Today, most of the city quarters have Serb majority, but in few of them there are lot of Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians, so I do not know who is majority there. PANONIAN (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population data from various times

message: *1. There were 6 German and 1 Hungarian deputy on the assembly, thus it is not correct that these two nations were not represented at all.
*2. As for "plebiscite which was administered", the assembly itself was a kind of plebiscite, there was no something like referendum there.
*3. Plebiscite was held IN Novi Sad, so no reason to remove this.
*4. No reason for us to delete reference that Novi Sad was capital of Danube Banovina, and part of the SCS Kingdom.
*5. In 1910 (thus in 1918 too), there were 33.8% Serbs, 28.1% Hungarians, and 21.4% Germans in Vojvodina. It is POV if somebody calculate Germans and Hungarians together and not mention that Serbs were RELATIVE MAJORITY in the region. Second thing is that even if we calculate them together, they numbered together 49.5% of population, which WAS NOT absolute majority. The third problem is that 1910 census recorded only language and not ethnicity, and many Jews who lived in the region spoke German or Hungarian (and some other people declared to speak Hungarian too), thus the "real" number of Hungarians and Germans counted together was probably not larger than 45%. Also, we simply cannot to count together one Finno-Ugric Uralic and one Germanic Indo-European people, because they are VERY DIFFERENT peoples.
*6. Finally, it must be noted that borders of Vojvodina with Romania and Hungary were defined in 1919-1920, and NOT IN THE YEAR WHEN THE ASSEMBLY WAS HELD - 1918. Since the border was not yet defined in 1918, we CANNOT TO SAY how large part of the population was represented since we did not know the exact borders of the territory which the assembly represented (If the border was drawn little different, excluding northern Bačka from the country, the Serbs would be absolute majority in the region). PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1918 assembly

message: I can not speak about the changes to Novi Sad (my birh city) after 2001 since I have been living in New Zealand for the past 5 years, but I must say that Futog and Veternik have now become provinces (i hope it's the right word) of Novi sad. And as was said before the population figures look a bit scetchy because last I remember the estimate was 350,000 then again it's been a while. I'm looking forward to going back. Some say New Zealand nature is beautiful and it is but the culture is not as beautiful there is nothing like my home city (I hope it's not against policy to state opinions in talk). Please e-mail me if I can't be biest on these pages, I know that for writing articles you must be but I don't know about talk.
An updated article may be in order from some one who was there not so long ago like a year or sooner (which rules me out). Just for the figures, the history I'd leave to the very educated users that posted above.
----
The numbers in the article are those from 2002 census, which is the only relevant source for these numbers. Second thing, Veternik and Futog are still not parts of urban Novi Sad, but separate settlements. PANONIAN (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot has changed since 2000 

message: Changed the article so that it has the same basic infobox as Belgrade and Kragujevac (and soon Niš). The sources for the information I changed are all on the official city website, namely here (population) and here (territory). Also, removed the twin cities from the box and put them further down in the article. I've taken the city to be Novi Sad, Petrovaradin and Sremska Kamenica, as that is how it is defined at the territory page on the city website. --estavisti 15:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox edit 

message: Hmmm... According to this article, the only considerable thing happened between 1867 and 1910 in the city of Novi Sad is Magyarization and the "drastic" change in Serb population from the 1880's 41.2% to the 1910's 34.52%. To proove this fact, detailed census data is shown. Current census data is shown as well (not surprisingly) pretty far from this part of the article. It can be figured out that 1910's 39.72% Hungarian ratio has changed to 2002's 5.24%. And there is not even a single sentence about it and its reasons. Interesting.
Timur Lenk
::The part about Magyarization was added to explain census results from 1910, which were added to the article without this explanation. The goal of the person which added 1910 census results was to present that city had Hungarian character in 1910 (which is disputed question, since we do not know for sure whether Hungarians or Serbs were largest ethnic group in the city in this time). Also, the person which added 1910 census results did not wrote that before Magyarization started the city had not relative but absolute Serb majority. Also, the number of 13,343 (39.72%) from 1910 census is not a number of ethnic Hungarians, but a number of citizens who said that they most frequently speak Hungarian language (which does not mean that it was their native language). The number of ethnic Hungarians in the city was probably not larger than 10-11,000. If we already post the numbers from biased and incorrect censuses like the one from 1910, we should at least explain the nature of such censuses. The census in 2002 was not biased, thus I do not see reason to further explain that census. PANONIAN (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it was not me who added 1910 census results to the article. I only explained these results and nature of the census. If you ask why only that is mentioned for 1867-1910 period, it is because nobody else did not added anything else about this time period to the article. Regarding Hungarian population after WWI, it in fact increased, not decreased (as example, in 1921 there was 13,065 Hungarians and in 1931 17,354). PANONIAN (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I do not object to have better covered demographic history of the city. It would be best to have information about all ethnic groups in the city from all censuses in history, but at the present moment I have only partial data about this, which we cannot use to have full demographic picture of the city. If I find more data, I will see to write more about the subject. PANONIAN (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City History 

message: Data taken from offcial site of Novi Sad,  --Göran Smith 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin cities 

message: Let's make this a featured article. If Belgrade can be one, why not Novi Sad?
#The structure of the article needs to be sorted. I've already made a fews steps in this direction, moving a few longs lists to new subpages: the listiness of the article was one of the main reasons that Belgrade failed its first fac.
#We need to introduce an economy section.
#The gallery has got to go. We should try to use the pictures elsewhere, but the gallery is going to go. That was another issue the BG article had.
#Only the very most notable people should be mentioned, and that should be in a prose passage. Otherwise, we'll have people complaining about that list in the FA nom. The list should be moved to a subpage.
#The important institutions section should be removed. The cultural institutions can go in the culture section, the governmental ones in the politics section, the University in the education section etc
#The architecture section needs to be written as a prose summary. Again, the list should be moved to a subpage.
Once we've done all that, we can start expanding and thoroughly sourcing the article. // estavisti 07:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just seen NS text, I must agree with Panonian, this is very bad what you done. --Göran Smith 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you have to realise that we can't have absolutely everything about Novi Sad on this one page. The article is basically a big list. Why should we have a list of Novi Sad quarters on this page? What's the point? It just clutters up the page, doesn't add much information, and can be provided equally well on a subpage. The article should be written in a summary style, with each section having a link to page that provides in depth info on the Culture of Novi Sad (or whatever). As for the gallery, it's pretty useless and contravenes What Wikipedia is not.--estavisti 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Just compare the article with New York City. It has a substantially smaller infobox, it doesn't have list of city quarters. Also, if you take a look there (and Belgrade), you'll see that the Tourism section is under culture, мада it's not претерано важно. PANONIAN-e, кажеш да сам ја засро, ал' лепо ти говорим шта овде фали. Ови спискови су срање на main article-у, и gallery је срање (Wikipedia policy каже: "Mere Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles."). И Горане, због чега се ти жалиш? Сложио си се са оним што сам рекао, а ниси се сложио кад сам то спровео у дело? О чему је ту реч? НС је наш други град, и заслужује бољи чланак, па ајде да се договоримо овде како да га средимо. --estavisti 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Što se gradskih kvartova tiče, u redu, ne moramo ih pomenuti sve, ali zašto ne možemo pomenuti one važnije? Kako misliš da neko pronađe te članke o kvartovima ako ih ne pomenemo ovde? Uvek moramo misliti na nove korisnike koji ne znaju da postoje kategorije, koji ne znaju da koriste search, itd. Pa ne možemo pretpostavljati da su oni vidoviti. I šta fali spiskovima? Ja volim spiskove, pregledni su i olakšavaju snalaženje. Što se tiče galerije, rekao si da si je uklonio jer ni jedna slika nije orphan, a ja ti kažem da jeste (proveri ponovo pa ćeš videti :)). Međutim što se tiče samog pitanja da li galerija tu treba fa bude ili ne ko zna koji je IDIOT pisao tu "Wikipedia policy" na koju se pozivaš i sad mi treba da pratimo smernice nekog što misli da je jako pametan (a ja ti kažem da nije). Kad bi me to stvarno zanimalo ja bih mogao da odem tamo da diskutujem o toj "Wikipedia policy" i garantovano bi ih ubedio da je promene. Ako "poboljšavanje" ovog članka podrazumeva da ga totalno iskasapimo i okrenemo "upside down" ja u tome neću da učestvujem. PANONIAN (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Galerija ne mora da se izbriše sada. Poenta onoga što si ti čitao tamo u "policy" je to da se tekst proširi i da se slike iz galerije prebace u taj prošireni tekst, a ne da se galerija jednostavno obriše pre nego što je tekst uopšte i proširen. Kada tekst bude dovoljno proširen za featured article, onda možemo razgovarati koje ćemo slike iz galerije prebaciti u tekst a koje u druge članke. To je poslednji korak, a ne prvi u ovakvom poslu. PANONIAN (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article