Talk:Demographic history of Vojvodina/Archive01

message: : This was followed by expulsion of most of inhabitants of the region. The majority of those left in the region were Serbs, mainly now engaging either in farming or military service. Under Ottoman policy, many Serbs were newly settled in the northern places of the region.
Serbs were both expulsed and settled by the Ottomans ? Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ottomans

message: The former Hungarian president Árpád Göncz once said: Belonging to a nation is not the question of birth, but the question of acceptance. or in Hungarian: A nemzeti hovatartozás nem születés, hanem vállalás kérdése. or in Serbian Pripadnost jednoj naciji nije pitanje rođenja, već prihvatanja This is a definition for 21. century, and not rootsmelling.Bendeguz 11:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not talk about what is a meaning of belonging to a nation but about thinking that your own nation is better than other nations. PANONIAN (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity

message: this is non sense. KoH existed from the early 11th century. Moreover the first Magyar settled down to the region right after the Hungarian "conquest", in the pre-KoH period (900 AC). In this period they started to build a hungarian specific state system based on "uruszag" (uruszag=orszag=country in english) (the nomad chieftains owned the people on the land not the land). This system was broken by St Stephen and replaced with a western european like, centralised and christian kingdom.
Plus the Hungarian population bulge was crushed by the Mongols in the 13th century, their expantion outside the Carpathians were stopped and reversed. They did not have enogh man to populate even their former lands, so the hungarisation of Vojvodina was also imposible right after the Mongol invasion ...--fz22 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you talking about? Vojvodina is composed of 3 regions: Banat, Bačka and Srem. Srem belonged to the Byzantine Empire until the 12th century, so the sentence that say "Parts of Vojvodina were conquered by the Hungarian Kingdom in the 10th century" is 100% correct because these parts exclude Srem. So, what is a problem? PANONIAN (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Srem became part of the Byzantine Empire around 1160 during the reign of Manuel I Komnenos. Srem was reconquered after Manuel death by King Bela III of Hungary around 1180. Previously it was integrant part of the Hungarian Kingdom. Moreover the Magyars have lived in the vicinity of Bulgars until 970 when the Bulgarian state was anihilated by the Byzantine Empire --fz22 21:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Srem might belonged to Hungarian Kingdom some time before 1160, but before this (in 10th-11th century) it belonged to Byzantine Empire and Bulgaria. PANONIAN (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  these are numerical facts. We could decide which version is correct. yours or mine. i claim: Pippin broke the Avars rule in Srem (Frankochorion), later the Franks appealed to Magyars against the Bulgars. The Magyar border reached river Sava around 905AD. King Geza I of Hungary built the Zimony Castle against the Greeks. Emperor Manuel destroyed this castle and conquered Srem for about two decade. It was recaptured after his death by King Bela III. Centuries later was under Serbian rule during King Milutin but also for some decades. Charles Robert of Hungary regainded the control over Sirmium. The Magyars history in Srem ended around 1527...--fz22 08:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact you have a point regarding the name of the country because Hungarian Kingdom was established in 1000 AD, so I changed the name into Hungarian Principality. PANONIAN (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of Vojvodina were conquered by the [[Kingdom of Hungary|Hungarian Kingdom]] 

message: Some issues: 
1. Vojvodina was invaded by Turanic nomads vs Slavs (Severans, Abodrites, Braničevci and Serbs) settled
2. Magyars conquered Srem vs settled in Bacs
3. Vlahs in Vojvodina?? what's wrong in demanding citations? --fz22 08:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what with these issues, fz? You are known Greater Hungarian nationalist and you simply object to these facts because you personally do not like to see them, thus the serious discussion with you is not possible. This time, try not to delete sourced facts simply because you do not like them, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the best way to ommit a quuestion you don't like. Sure I'm a Greater Hungarian nationalist and you're the most impartial person I've ever met ;). Regards --fz22 13:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magyars in Vojvodina reloaded 

message: this is the most stupid thing I've ever heard :)). Let's see the facts:
we have around 54 geographical/topographical names from the time of the first Hungarian King, Stpehen. Out of this 54 names 45% is of Slavic origin (Dordomest, Duldumast, Grintzari), 36% Magyar (Fyzeg, Hurhyda, Kopus), 15% Turcik (Patadi, Tzitoum), and 4% German, the rest is of unknown origin. But this names come mostly from the mid and northern Pannonia, only 2 crosses the Danube
2. We have around 6800 personal names dated between 1138 and 1240. 35% are of Slavic, 25% christain name with an unknown etnich background, 20% of old-Magyar, 15% of German, 5% of unknown origin. This datas could be interpreted in many ways. One thing is clear your assertion is false ...--fz22 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fz, your "facts" are nothing but invented nationalistic crap. I can give you a long answer to your post, but I do not see a reason for it. You really becoming tiresome, and, unlike you, I have also something usefull to do for Wikipedia instead to answer your (same) questions over and over on various talk pages. You will notice that most of my edits on Wikipedia are about improving its quality (correcting grammatical errors, adding categories to the articles, sorting images, adding infoboxes, etc), while most of your edits are nationalitistic attempts to prove that Transylvania, Slovakia and Vojvodina should belong to Greater Hungary. Very sad indeed... PANONIAN (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, see your own edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographic_history_of_Vojvodina&diff=81176581&oldid=81000522 You deleted reference and then asked for citation (and citation was there until you deleted it). It is a clear example of vandalism. When you become serious, then we can have serious discussion. PANONIAN (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look Pannonian, these aren't my thoughts. Moreover these are my citations from a reliable hungarian historian Gy. Kristo (BTW he put the number of Magyars-Slavs to 1-1.5/2.0 in 1000AD ;) When I ask for citation it doesn't mean you should put a source by a Serbian scholar. This is Serbian POV not a citation. Citation is when you add an extra number of geographical name (to my above mentioned 54) saying, no you wrong there are more than just 54 and taking those in consideration your results are incorrect. Capishe?--fz22 19:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My source was written by Serbian author, but he used Hungarian sources for his book. The statement that "number of Hungarians was negligible compared with number of Slavs before the 13th century" he took from 2 Hungarian authors: 1. Vili Frankoi, Magyarorszag egyhazi es politikai osszekottetesei a Szentszekkel. Szent Istvan tarsulat kiadasa, Budapest, 1902, and 2. Laszlo Szalai, Magyarorszag tortenete, Pest, 1861. What you will notice about these sources? Both were published before Trianon in 1920, i.e. in the time when "Hungarian authors could allow to themselves to be objective" (those are not my words, but a quotation), so, fz22, why you do not search these sources to see is this correct? PANONIAN (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, what ever, delete this sentence if you want: this article discuss history of Vojvodina, not history of the KOH, so the data might not be relevant for this article. However, fz22, the reason why I did not assumed good faith in your edits here, is the first edit that you made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographic_history_of_Vojvodina&diff=80879426&oldid=80468983 You simply deleted sentence (not even asked for quotation) that spoke about Slavic population in the area, and that cannot be seen as a good faith edit. Regarding the needed quotations, I wrote this article long time ago (In fact I do not even remember was I the one who wrote some of its parts), but I will see to find proper quotations. Just do not delete sentences simply because you do not like them, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Öcsi, you are relativelly new user here. I know fz22 for a long time, and following that fact, I simply cannot assume good faith in his edits. Somebody else (except fz22) might lost his credibility here (and it is not me). And according to sources that I have, before the 13th century, both, south and west Bačka had mixed Slav-Hungarian population, while Banat and Srem were almost entirelly Slavic. Thus, even if north Bačka had mostly Hungarian population, the entire Vojvodina (including all Slavs from Bačka, Banat and Srem) had more Slavs than Hungarians before the 13th century. PANONIAN (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way Öcsi, there are some strange things here. For example your contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=%C3%96csi Your last Wikipedia edit was in 10 October and now you came exactly here after 3 days in which you did not edited and the only article that you edited is this one. Furthermore, this edit that you made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_people&diff=80585187&oldid=80407773 You claim there that you "come from Bihar" and if you check User:Fz22 userpage, you can see that he is "Wikipedian from Oradea" (and Oradea is part of Bihar). So, do we have here a strange coincidence that two Wikipedians from Bihar have special interest for this article or I should ask for sockpuppetry check? Some people believe in strange coincidences, but not me. PANONIAN (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, user panonian, take a look on my Userpage on the German Wikipedia. Then you can see that I live in Austria. My roots, as you can read there, are in Bihar (in the Nagy-Sárrét, that's a region around Berettyóújfalu), in the Bácska, in Budapest, and a bit in the Szeklerland. I have no relatives from Oradea, only from Salonta, but I even don't know them personally. Öcsi 10:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Und außerdem: Kann Benutzer:Fz22 deutsch sprechen? Ich glaube nicht. Öcsi 14:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, du glaube wohl ;) BTW thank's for your Userbox-ancestry tip --fz22 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (In this time, the number of Hungarians in the Kingdom of Hungary was negligible compared with the number of Slavs). 

message: Do I see well, dear Pannonian, your maps have started co converge to my keynote map? --fz22 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New map is not much different from the old, it is only more detailed and also show Hungarian minority in the Slavic majority areas, which old map did not showed. PANONIAN (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version of maps :) 

message: Why should I fight for every single word???
* Magyarisation in the 13th cenutury?!? Funny :) Have your ever read the Magyarisation article? fz22
::I already told you that Magyarization article should be expanded to speak about medieval Magyarization too. Magyarization started in the 10th century and I have entire book that speak about Magaarization from 10th century to 1918. I might expand Magyarization article in the future. PANONIAN (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well fz, I did not mentioned there those authors that claim that Magyars were never majority in the region, but I mentioned those that claim that they were majority in the 14th century (hope you understand the difference). And claim that most Slavs of Vojvodina were assimilated until the 12th century is ridiculous because even today you have in Vojvodina descendants of original Slavs that were not assimilated (they are known as Šokci and since we know that many of them declare themselves as Croats their number is not small at all). And one more important thing: seems that you speak here about Slavs in the entire KOH, not only in Vojvodina, thus when you found a source that speak about Slavs in Vojvodina only, then we can talk. PANONIAN (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Few Hungarian colonies "outside the Carphatians" means nothing, fz. Why you at all mention Carphatians as border here? Whether in the time of the conquest Hungarians settled in larger or smaller area do not show their size. For example Roma people live in entire Europe, but they for majority only in some small settlements that are scatered throughout Europe. PANONIAN (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, did you read my previous post at all? The assimilation was simply never completed or you would say that Šokci are aliens who came from another planet? (And by the way, "about 1300" is a beginning of the 14th century :)). PANONIAN (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The written source that mention them under this name might be from the 16th century, but older sources mention them under name Tot, thus they are descendants of native Slavs that lived here before Hungarians came. PANONIAN (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A Hungarian tribes were not large, so even if the whole tribe settled in the area that tribe still cannot be larger than local Slavic population. PANONIAN (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, when they settled there. But I talk about assimilation of the Slavs, and not about which population is larger than the other. 
Well, did you read my previous post at all?
, to quote yourself. 
*3) In this book there is also a map showing the nationalities (Magyars, Mixed, Slavs) in the Hungarian Kingdom in the 11th (!!!!) century, and about 2/3 of today's Vojvodina was majoritarily Hungarian populated then (according to the map). --Öcsi 13:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I am not surprised that Hungarian book will show something like this. I am waiting for Hungarian source which will try to prove that Hungarians were here even before Illyrians. But, it is more politics than a history... PANONIAN (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And I am not surprised by your reaction. --Öcsi 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  every single word 

message: Why is this map science fiction? It is based on the question: What is your native language? What you mean, how many Romanies live in Serbia nowadays? 108,193 according to 2002 census? Bullshit. There are more Romanies in Belgrade than in whole census result. They mainly declared themselves as Serbs but they are Romany. Right? Who is responsible for this duality? The census question about ethnicity? The authorities? Themselves?
If you want to see a real science fiction map I can show you one. On this map the Francis Canal exists some 500 years before it was built. Very interesting science fiction map. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bendeguz (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bendeguz, I already explained everything in my previous discussion with user fz22, I have no time to explain this over and over to everybody, just read previous discussion. Regarding DTD Canal, I was not aware of such mistake, but I will see to correct it when I find time. PANONIAN (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I already explained that many Bunjevci of Subotica were half-Magyarized, i.e. they were bilingual and spoke both languages, Slavic and Hungarian (this could be easily by Slavic (Bunjevac) family names of many Hungarians who live in Subotica today), and the reasons why those individuals im some censuses declared Slavic and in another Hungarian are much more complicated. Anyway, nothing give you right to falsify 1910 census results. PANONIAN (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Science fiction?