Talk:Novi Sad

Sister cities

You miss this section ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.147.223 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhoods and construction

Here are some links to interesting pictures; they even might be free acording to imageshack's policy, but I wouldn't bet on that. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/index.php?t-404185.html

I reorganized a bit the neighborhoods and building data. However, it should be sourced somehow, the statements I added are fairly general (not to say weasel :-) ). I only heard that Novi Sad is/was the 2nd-greatest construction site in the Europe in the past years, and probably the largest but I can't find anything on the Google. The best I came so far are [1] (nice text, but not a WP:RS, maybe by a stretch) and [2]. JP Urbanizam website mostly sucks. Duja► 10:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling, Syrmia

The article is now a mixture of British (centre) and American (neighborhood) spelling, and it should be sorted out. I don't mind one way or another.

I dislike using Syrmia throughout; sounds strange in modern context. I know the title of that article is result of a "treaty", but the common practice in such cases is that each country uses its own spelling in articles related to it. Duja► 12:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The transliteration from Rusyn says gorod, how a mistake like that can be made is beyond me, it's horod, let's get it together people, stop being retarded! Nroscha (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

This is totally ridiculous - everybody who dislike existing infobox want to change it and then when it is changed, other users change it again and that repeat over and over. I really do not care which infobox will be here, but if you do not stop with this constant infobox change, I will revert article to the first infobox that was ever posted in it. PANONIAN (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a major mess. I reverted for the time being, but {{Serbia city}} is up for deletion, as well as Template:Infobox_City_Serbia4. They want to replace it by {{Infobox city}}, which in my opinion sucks, as a too general and not customizable per country. I'm not sure what to do either, but substing the {{Serbia city}} by Lord Eru is probably the worst solution of all. I'll join the TfD discussion and try to find a permanent solution. Heck, even Paris uses a country-custom infobox. Duja► 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My idea was to have one template for all 4 cities in Serbia, that is why I created one for NS to use on all cities, which looks like {{Infobox city}}. Paris uses template {{French commune}} template. If we have one template for municipalities in Serbia, why wouldn't we have for cities in Serbia (NS, KG, NI, BG) ? --Göran Smith 09:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. That was my idea too, but the TfD seems doomed. In any case, I gave a try to {{Infobox city}} which seems to work just fine, with almost all links properly customizable. Plenty of work to convert, though (but it should be simpler for the other 3 cities now if we decide so, by just copying/pasting/modifying this one). In any case, I'm against content forking when there's no pressing need to do so; if the community wants to impose Infobox city, so be it. For 4 cities, it's not a big deal, but I'd be heavily opposed if anyone should feel like deleting {{Infobox Serbia municipality}} — it was a major work to fill and convert data in 170 articles. Duja► 10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I really do not care which of the infoboxes will be posted here (they all look same to me), but this really went too far. It is natural that somebody think that template sucks and there will be always the people who will think that for every template that is posted in the article. The problem is: should everybody who think that template sucks to replace this template with another one and then when new users come here to replace it with new one and that to repeat over and over to eternity? Please, people, can you find agreement which template to post here or I should ask for arbitration, like in the Kosovo article? PANONIAN (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, could anybody to fix problem with coat of arms in the infobox, which show both, Cyrillic and Latin name of the city? PANONIAN (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted article to previous infobox. I said that I do not care which of the infoboxes will be posted here, but I meant "which of the CORRECT AND FUNCTIONAL infoboxes". The last one is not one of those, as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novi_Sad&oldid=125559744 - I see no other solution to solve this problem with coat of arms instead to remove this infobox. PANONIAN (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with the coat of arms? Could you restate the question? —MJCdetroit 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't mind any kind of infobox as long as it works either. My changes were an experiment to check whether the Infobox city would work satisfactorily, and it seemed so. Now, could you be more specific what was the problem with the CoA? The version you provided looks perfectly fine for me (although I do know that your browser and screen settings are quite unusual—it's not a critique, just, it's well usable for "debugging" purposes). The only problem I saw was the wrong tooltip over the CoA, and it now seems fixed by MJCdetroit. Duja► 08:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You do not see what is problem with coat of arms? The problem is that it say "Coat of arms of Нови СадNovi Sad" instead of "Coat of arms of Novi Sad". PANONIAN (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I did notice, but it seems to be fixed now by MJCdetroit. Besides, it was only a problem in the hovering tooltip (as far as I could see); it wasn't such a big deal to require a wholesale revert. In any case, is everything OK now? Duja► 11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, it looks OK :) --Göran Smith 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem occurred because there were two names placed in the "official_name" name field when only the English name should have been there. "other_name" and/or "native_name" are where the Cyrillic and Latin names should have gone. It has been corrected and seems to work fine in Firefox (Mac OS 10.4 and WinXP) —MJCdetroit 12:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Density

Somebody should fix another problem in the infobox with urban density... PANONIAN (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Because there was a comma in the number, it threw off the automatic unit conversion giving an "Expression error". Only RAW numbers should be entered, ie 1600.00 and not 1,600.00. The template will format the number automatically. There is an explanation table for most parameter fields at Template:Infobox City :)—MJCdetroit 12:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

can anyone put any less depressing photo on the top of the page?

bias

Why is there such a detailed description of a massacre against Serbian and Jewish citizens but any attempt to mention Serbian atrocities are immediately eliminated. How else can you explain that the population of Novi Sad has become so homogenous since World War II. This article needs a mention of Partizan atrocities.

Because if you read any book about history of Novi Sad (and I have several), you will notice that all of them speak about fascist genocide from 1942 and non of them say that partizans killed somebody in Novi Sad after the war. I have books that say that partisans killed people in Vojvodina after the war, but none of them do not mention Novi Sad. In another words, provide valid sources for your claims and then we can discuss them. PANONIAN 13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And population of Novi Sad did not "become so homogenous since World War II". If you compare data from 1931 census (before the war) and 1948 census (after the war), you will see very similar data:

• 1931 census: population 63,985, of whom 32,227 (50.4%) Serbs
• 1948 census: population 69,431, of whom 35,330 (50.9%) Serbs

PANONIAN 13:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The serbian state did had many serbian massacres, even after the 1990's. If you can buy new books, you may try it in serbian language or hungarian. Somewhere after 2001 there was also a genocide court settled by a court in Serbia or U.N.

Bogdan188.25.104.231 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

what percent of the population of Novi Sad is Hungarian today compared to 100 years ago?

Don't you think there was a big change?

What is the purpose of this question? I suggest that you read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Novi_Sad There you can find data about size of various ethnic groups in the city in various time periods. PANONIAN 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are on the wrong track, both of you. I will copy paste what I wrote in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Novi_Sad: You don't understand why Kingdom of Hungary was so strong. The main strenght came from the diversity. Most people living there who never had any "blood" connection to Hungarians were proud Hungarians (ie. Kossuth and Petofi, also Karoly Kos, Festetich, Grassalkovich, etc.) Today, influenced by nationalism, we don't understand this. Acording to my opinion, we loose a lot of things with nationalism. Abdulka 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1944 raid

Thanks for the good faith, Nemlehetigaz. However, it's not the problem that you provided a Hungarian reference. The problem is that it's referenced from a wiki, and we don't treat wikis as a reliable source, see WP:RS. It's also not mandatory to use English-language sources (although it's preferred), see WP:RSUE. For that reason, I just substituted the Serbian printed reference on 1942 massacre with 2 online English references, one by Hungarian author. You're just kindly invited to find the source for the claim of 2,000 killed Hungarians in 1944 alone. Hint: I won't accept the paper titled "Fifty thousand hungarian martyrs" as a non-partisan source. A peer-reviewed journal, respected book, preferrably by non-Serbian, non-Hungarian source will do. Thanks. Duja► 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a seemingly respectful one:

Károly Kocsis, Eszter Kocsis-Hodosi (1998). Ethnic Geography of the Hungarian Minorities in the Carpathian Basin. Simon Publications LLC. p. 23. ISBN 193131375X. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-zZ_NVM9mNEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA15&dq=killings+Vojvodina+1944+hungarians&ots=pceuX2YOTz&sig=Tcrct2YA7iPqyJJpvxpDghBp7cQ#PPA23,M1. , quote:

"In areas belonging to former Yugoslavia (Bacska, Banat), in spite of the vendetta of the Serbs in October-November 1944, which claimed approximately 20,000 civilian casualties, the number of Hungarians was dropping far slower"... "In Serbia, Croatia and the Transmura Region of Slovenia, the number of Hungarians either increased or remained unchanged up to the 1960s".

Nis > Novi Sad

Nis

• City: 375,027
• Urban: 225,025

Novi Sad

• City: 299,294
• Urban: 216,583

References

Popis stanovništva, domaćinstava i Stanova 2002. Knjiga 1: Nacionalna ili etnička pripadnost po naseljima. Republika Srbija, Republički zavod za statistiku Beograd 2003. ISBN 86-84443-00-09

You can't compare the City population of Novi Sad to the Urban population of Nis and say that Novi Sad is bigger than Nis. Any reference except the National Census of Serbia can't count as a valid reference if they misinterpret obvious facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but could you offer an official on-line source, such as http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/Zip/SN31.pdf. Can't believe that there are two different official numbers. As you will see in provided link, Nis has 250,518 CITY, not urban inhabitants (page 12 of 36). Novi Sad 299,294 (page 8 of 36). Jdjerich 00:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the reference in question (Knjiga 1, census data, not online, courtesy of PANONIAN). 2006 reference can also be found on the statrzs website. Here are the figures:

2002 census:

• Novi Sad: Novi Sad proper 191,405 + Petrovaradin 13,973 + Sremska Kamenica 11,205; City of Novi Sad 299,294
• Niš: Niš proper 173,724; City of Niš 235,159

20 June 2005 est (no per-settlement data, only the City area):

• City of Novi Sad 310,185
• City of Niš 253,124

So, whichever way you count, the order is the same. Did someone fake Niš data? A be Nišlije, to neće da vam prođe... Duja► 08:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Pristina? --GOD OF JUSTICE 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the polar bears? What Pristina has to do with population of Nis and Novi Sad? As you may check, or remember, census was not undertaken on Kosovo in 2002. Jdjerich 00:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what polar bears you're talking about, and please be serious, this is not child's play, we're writing an encyclopedia. I'm not sure if you noticed that piece of paper some people like to call UNSC Resolution 1244 that says that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, meaning that Pristina is the second largest city in Serbia (with estimates showing 500,000-600,000 people). However, since I don't believe that estimates are enough to cite, I was wondering if anyone had the last census in Pristina info, so that we can change the order of largest cities of Serbia. And Jdjerich, you might be looking for this page: Polar bears. cheers, --GOD OF JUSTICE 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that point of this discussion is to prove that there are cities in Serbia that have more citizens than Novi Sad (apart from Belgrade)? I though dispute is between Novi Sad and Nis? Please notice that only official statistical body of Republic of Serbia can give valid data on population of cities in Serbia. Since census was not held on Kosovo, I don't see how can we believe any estimates. An official census, that will some day be organized on Kosovo (by Serbian or any form of authority that may govern the Province) will give us answer to your question. Thanks for link to Polar bears, I would never remember it. Seriously. Jdjerich 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm trying to say. Maybe there wasn't a census taken in Kosovo at the time when it was taken in the rest of Serbia, but it was taken before, right? Does someone have those stats? Thats all that I was asking. :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.osce.org/kosovo/13982.html Duja► 07:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.citypopulation.de/Kosovo.html if you scroll down it gives data from the 1991 census (which was an estimation since the albanians boycotted, and the 1981 census). Cities in Serbia go like this: 1. Belgrade 2. Novi Sad 3. Nis 4. Pristina 5. Kragujevac 6. Subotica 7. Prizren etc. Yugo91aesop (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are too many sources most of which are inaccurate, false and highly misleading, why can't we use only official source i.e. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/axd/en/ according to this source City has only 191 000 inhabitants, adding metro or wishy washy numbers make this article highly inaccurate and full of nationalist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mic of orion (talk • contribs) 14:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it is almost 10 years old data, maybe? The source we permanently use for Novi Sad population is its Public Enterprise for Informatics, which manages all of city's statistics. [3], and it is updated every 6 months or so. So, please get acknowledged with sources which are "inaccurate, false and highly misleading". And sign your posts on talk pages. No such user (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dnevnik article

This page and related ones were (sort of) analysed in a recent article in Dnevnik (Novi Sad):

http://www.dnevnik.co.yu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=31810

Duja► 09:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian sources

This article uses a lot of Serb sources. For example Branko Ćurčin, Slana Bara nekad i sad, Novi Sad, 2002 is used to prove that the etymology of village names are of Slavic origin. If we can use Serb sources to prove various aspects of this article, then it is hypocracy saying that using Hungarian sources is not independent. Either we remove all statements that are based on Serb and Hungarian sources, or we keep them both. If you want to prove that the Hungarian source is BIASED, then prove it! Find a book that proves there were no attrocities in Novi Sad in 1944. Until proven otherwise, the Hungarian source is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.54.149 (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What Hungarian sources? You haven't provided any that proves that there were attrocities in 1944, and you expect us to prove otherwise??? (By the way, I don't doubt there were killings, but the numbers and scope are very unclear)
I provided a couple of sources above, in the #1944 raid section. On request, I also changed sourcing for the contentious material from WWII from Serbian to non-Serbian (moreover, Hungarian) sources. You provide a reliable source—you include the contents. If you ask me, I'll gladly dismiss the Ćurčin's thesis on Slavic etymology (hard to tell on the book's reliability, but looks like a local chronicle far more than a thorough historiography book) and remove that material, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has never been a good argument. Duja► 09:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You see, I do not refuse to include the said info, but I do like being treated with some honesty and respect in return. "Yes it does, read the book" is a lie. You can't even be bothered to include the book in the <ref></ref> tags. You weren't even aware about existence of the book until you saw it mentioned above, did you? Since you have read the book, you won't have the problem to briefly quote or point the page where Novi Sad is put in the context of 1944/45 killings, will you? Duja► 13:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are used to people lying, because you are living in a society where everyone is a liar. So here's a quote from that book

From those Hungarians who remained in Vojvodina ca. 20,000 innocent civilians became the victims of the bloody Serbian vendetta[3] in October and November 1944 (our estimation and see Cseres T. 1991).

Quote from Tibor Cseres: Serbian Vendetta in Bacska

During the first week some 1,500 men were killed on the island. Most of them were shot and pushed into the Danube. Some are buried in a land called Shanghai, on the floodplain behind the slaughter house between the highroad to the village of Katy and the Danube. From 1941 to the fall of 1944, this floodplain area had been a frontier zone, where the Hungarian corp of engineers had built a primitive defense line with trenches made from wood and earth. These trenches served as common graves later. Partisans were patrolling railway stations, roads, and trains, and ruthlessly killing everyone who did not have a travel document issued by them.

Links:

• http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/hmcb06.htm
• http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/cseres/cseres05.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.189.54 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Novi Sad is not mentioned in the book you cite, but in quite another one. However, you feel inclined to add some racist comments to illustrate that your misrepresentations do not really matter, as we all are liars? Great. Duja► 15:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Racist? Did I insult your race?
Like I said, it may be normal for people in Serbia to call others LIARS, but in normal parts of the world people think before they accuse someone of lying.
You have your proof, it's in those books. What more do you want? 77.46.189.54 15:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

I recommand this one for deletion: "City's assembly - Official site"

The first one is official. See for yourself...

Actually, both are official. The first one is of city major and "city government", and the second one is of city assembly. Both should stay. Jdjerich (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian name

Hello, The Hungarian name of the city should appear alongside the latin and cyrillic Serbian versions.George Adam Horváth (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? Jdjerich (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Hungarian name of Novi Sad is already in the "Name" section of the article. I understand why you would want the Hungarian name in the first sentence of the article, since Novi Sad is the capital of Vojvodina and in Vojvodina there are several official languages, however that would be an aesthetic catastrophe, because then we would have to add the name of the city in other official languages as well. It is Wikipedia policy that the different name of the city is listed in the opening sentence only when there is a different ethnic majority in the town compared to the largest ethnic majority in the country. This is why Vojvodinian towns such as Subotica, Backa Topola and Mali Iđoš, which all have a Hungarian majority, have the Hungarian name in the first sentence as well. Novi Sad is predominantly Serbian (ethnically), but as I've said, ALL the names are already in the "Name" section. Cheers, --GOD OF JUSTICE 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The name of the city should be in a list, and not in a sentence.
2. The name should be in the english alphabet, since my keyboard lacks some oriental & arabic diacritics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.104.231 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

translation of motto souds way off

"grad"= city "gradana"= citizens, but "po meri" to me translates into "as a measure of its'" or "as measured by its'", even "defined by its'" would be a more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.184.241 (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the chief source for the motto is Wikipedia itself, and the exact phrase yields grand total of 170 Google hits, many of those being Wikipedia mirrors. There is something like an action by the city government called like that, but it's not even mentioned on the city's official page, at least I cannot see it. No such user (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

Did Novi Sad get it's name due to vineyards in surrounding area (e.g. Fruska gora)? -- Bojan  04:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Novi Sad has little Industry. It lays on Danube and has machinery industry to build ships, airplanes, electrics, and machines for agriculture. The second branch of industry it the clothing & foot-wear manufacturing. The third one is public alimentation related and woodworking. Since agriculture is the oldest human habbit, and the surroundings are in low plains terrains, you could overlook wine, or the grapes- culture since, there is three hills, if you look up closely. Yes, the climate is able to sustain vineyards for wine production, and even exports. The main advantage is the Danube river which gives it magnificent acces routes to Europe, and to the Far-East laying over the Black Sea. Bogdan188.25.104.231 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Romanian

Romanian is, as far as I know, not an official language of Novi Sad city administration. That roughly means, that if you submit a document in Romanian to the city clerks, they're not obliged to answer it. I can check that in the city statute, but I'm pretty sure that's the case (and I'll gladly revert myself if it isn't); every other municipality of Vojvodina also takes only a subset of the 6 languages as official for their local purposes. Please check Official status of Romanian language in Vojvodina#Local use -- it's referenced there, and Novi Sad is not one of municipalities.

It is true that Romanian is an official language of provincial administration, but I argue it has no relevance to Novi Sad; there are virtually no Romanians there, so it's not particularly relevant how they call it. By that logic, we should include Albanian name as well, because Albanian is an official language in Serbia, or, we should add all 6 names to the lead of every Vojvodina municipality, which is at least impractical, and cluttering.

While Wikipedia is not bound by official documents, the choice of official names in Vojvodina city articles on the basis of officialdom in the municipality is taken as the practical measure: if, say, Hungarian is official on local level in municipality X, that means that there is a fair amount of Hungarians, and that Hungarian city name is relevant for the lead.

So, please note that I reverted only as the matter of principle: if non-official names are not in the lead of other articles, they shouldn't be in this one either. There was a lot of nationalist contention on Wikipedia just concerning the alternative city names in neighboring languages, so I'm reluctant to make a concession here; it opens a Pandora's box, in my opinion. No such user (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Fair and with arguments. I understand. iadrian (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I argue Wikipedia is not bound to official documents. One policy says any information should come from a printed material. Books and official documents come first in that class of sources.Bogdan188.25.104.231 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"there are virtually no Romanians there".well apparently in Novi Sad live 1000 romanians that "virtually' don`t exist.And some of them recently had a meeting that didn`t happen. http://www.rgnpress.ro/categorii/reportaj/255-comunitatea-romanilor-din-serbia-a-serbat-unirirea-principatelor-romane-la-satul-nou.html There is an important number of romanians that live in the serbian part of Banat . Therefore the article should also mention that the romanian name for this city is Satul Nou (New Village).this would also explain the etymology.

--Mitridatu (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm is helpful. According to the 2002 census, there are 860 Romanians living in Novi Sad, 0.29% of the total population. Appropriateness of adjective wikt:virtual is left for the reader.

As for the term "Satul Nou", this is the first time I hear about it, and the search for "Satul Nou" "Novi Sad" yields <100 GHits. Since it is not mentioned even in ro:Novi Sad, I must assume that it is an error of some kind. Or maybe wishful thinking. No such user (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

...and, the news article above refers to Banatsko Novo Selo (Satul Nou), village near Pančevo. No such user (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ko stalno stavlja broj stanovnika od pre osam godina?

AKO NEZNAS,IDI NA: +informatika novi sad+,PA POGLEDAJ TRENUTNO STANJE STVARI!!!

I just pointed out that there are precise information(http://www.nsinfo.co.rs/).It is the official city statistics.It regulates every month and a half.We apologize for the arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.183.121 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The site you provided is out-of-date and updates regularly, thus is not a proper source. Please use printed materials, prefferably found on google.books, scribd.com Bogdan188.25.104.231 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Out of date" and "updates regularly" are contradictory statements. Which is it?

And you are wrong about the preferred type of sources. The thing that matters most is that they are reliable; also, being up-to-date is definitely a bonus. It does not matter if they are printed or online, but having it online is definitely a convenience for fact-checking. No such user (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Novi Sad - picture

Someone please change the main picture of Novi Sad it is really dark and not so nice, please put some better picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.132.188 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Plantation or garden?

Sorry for being stubborn but can Novi Sad in Serbian mean New Garden (as Novy Sad means exactly that in Russian)? SkyBon (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can. If you ask me, it's more a "plantation". Jdjerich (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

main picture

Please change the main picture it is ugly, put several pictures in row like every city has please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.18.56 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Outesticide

Ok, Oesticide, your edit has basically two things that should be elaborated:

1. Name "Baksafalva" - original name of this settlement was simply "Baksa" (or Slavic "Bakša"). Hungarian word "falva" (the village) is added later, so if we speak about origin of the name, this later addition is irrelevant. Bakša is a typical Slavic name (just see simple google search results for name its self of for surname Bakšić that derived from it) There is simply no any evidence that this name is of Hungarian origin. PANONIAN 22:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Why you deleting info that some of these villages were initially inhabited by Slavs? It is well known that Hungarians settled in this region centuries after Slavs. See these maps: [4], [5]. Seems that you do not know when (old) Hungarians came to Pannonia, who lived here before them and from whom (modern) Hungarians are descending. If Slavs did not lived here then modern Hungarians would look like Asians, not like Europeans. There is simply no scientist of today who can say that modern Hungarians are not descending from Slavs. I really do not understand how somebody can hate so much his own origin. PANONIAN 22:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• • My sources write otherwise, but this modification is acceptable. Outesticide (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Serb vs Serbian

Ok, Buttons, lets discuss this: term "Serbian Athens" is not a correct translation of original Serb name "Srpska Atina". "Srpska" is correctly translated as "Serb" and Serbian language never used name "Srbijanska Atina", which would be equivalent to English "Serbian Athens". Main problem here is different meaning of these names. While "Serb Athens" means "the Athens of the Serbs", term "Serbian Athens" would rather mean "the Athens of Serbia". Since this name was introduced in the 19th century when this city was part of the Austrian Empire and not part of Serbia, correct historical meaning of this name is "Athens of the Serbs", not "Athens of Serbia". Same issue are first settlers. In 1694 there was no country with name Serbia and therefore term "Serbians" (with meaning "people of Serbia") cannot be used if we describe this time period. These settlers were Serbs, not "Serbians". Historically, name "Serbia" derived from name "Serbs", not otherwise. People in the Balkans always rather identified themselves as members of certain ethnic groups instead as citizens of the states. Therefore, while term "Serbians" could be used for citizens of Serbia (at least in these time periods when country with that name existed), it cannot be used for ethnic Serbs who were not citizens of Serbia in some parts of the history. PANONIAN 10:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're translating Serbian into English a bit too literally. In English, the adjective wikt:Serbian can mean either "of Serbia" and "of Serbs" (the adjective "Serb" can only mean the latter). It is true that on Wikipedia we generally use "Serb" rather than "Serbian" when the distinction matters (such as when discussing Yugoslav Wars). However, I don't think that a distinction in "Serbian Athens" is particularly necessary here, and "Serb Athens" just does not sound right and idiomatic. Google produces 357 results for "Serb Athens""Serb+Athens"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, and 12,000 results for "Serbian Athens" "Serbian+Athens"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, wiki mis-parses these links, so type for yourself so we should really go for the latter. No such user (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Serbian" can mean either "of Serbia" either "of Serbs", but nevertheless "Serb" would be still more correct translation. Anyway, I would not strongly object that term "Serbian" is used instead "Serb", but usage of "Serbians" instead "Serbs" is completely wrong and inaccurate. PANONIAN 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys up north Panonian, but we centrals frankly frown upon the use of Srbijanci, but that's neither here or there right now. I have to agree with No Such User, Serb Athens just sounds awkward and considering Novi Sad is a city in Serbia I think it’s perfectly suitable to use Serbian Athens in this day and age. Anyway, I'm not too picky about it. Regards, Buttons (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing you forgot here: we do not speak here about current events, but about historical ones, so the facts that term "Srbijanci" is used today or that Novi Sad is today in Serbia are irrelevant for historical context of these events. If we speak about 17th century, we cannot use word "Srbijanci" simply because that word was not used in that time. As for "Srpska Atina", that name too is rather historical and refer to cultural and political influence of this city in the early 19th century and it is clear that in this time it was "the Athens of the Serbs" instead "the Athens of Serbia" because of the simple fact that it was not part of Serbia in that time. It is clear that present-day Novi Sad is not such cultural and political center either of the Serbs or of Serbia because present-day Belgrade is an undisputed cultural and political center of both, Serbs and Serbia. So, the "Srpska Atina" is clearly an historical nickname of Novi Sad and should be used in respect to historical context. In Serbian language, only term "srpska" is used for this and that term can have only one meaning in Serbian: "the Athens of the Serbs". If it does not have meaning "the Athens of Serbia" in Serbian language then I do not see why it should have such meaning in English. Novi Sad was cultural and political center of all Serbs in the 19th century and it is exact meaning of this name - it was never a cultural and political center of Serbia and when Novi Sad joined Serbia in 1918, it was Belgrade that already acquired the role of cultural and political center of Serbs and Serbia. PANONIAN 09:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We hear you, and your analysis is basically correct. Where we disagree is that it has any consequences on translation. There's almost 100 years since the city is part of Serbia, so today the precision does not particularly matter. While the nickname is a bit old-fashioned, it is still occasionally used as a term of endearment and pride. I'm just proposing that we go with the idiomatic translation, because, even if it is slightly ambiguous, precision is not relevant. (If we were talking about e.g. War in Bosnia, "Serb forces" vs. "Serbian forces" would pose a problem; here, it simply does not matter.) No such user (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the correct translation does not matter. I agree that term is used today as well, but it is again used with meaning "the Athens of the Serbs". Serbs do not live only in Serbia and meaning of the nickname, historical and modern, is that Novi Sad is "the Athens of all Serbs" no matter in which country these Serbs live. I do not see why we should limit this meaning to current borders of Serbia only when meaning always referred to all Serbs in all countries. PANONIAN 19:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But "Serbian Athens" is not incorrect translation. It can mean either "Athens of Serbs" or "Athens of Serbia". No such user (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Population figures

Re this: I think we agree that JP Informatika is an accurate source. However, the catch is that is seems to be updated daily, directly from their database. I could accept that I made one typo when retyping those data, but three? (I'll revert that, just for sake of consistency with the reference's accessdate and figures in the article). We do need reasonably up-to-date information (i.e. newer than 2002 census), but not on daily level.

Re the church photos: OK, we reached sort of compromise to have both churches. I still disagree that having the Catholic one more prominent is any sort of POV -- simply, it is much better known landmark of the city, and it should appear earlier in the article. There are two additional problems:

• File:Saborna_crkva.JPG is of horrible quality. It's blurry, grainy, lacks contrast. Maybe I have a better one in my own archives, but I'd have to dig it through. Panonian, do you have a better one?
• Do we have to have both images in the same section? The layout is now broken, because the #Historical population section is short, and two images just push the rest down. I can't find a suitable section which could keep them both in an acceptable layout.

No such user (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I do not agree that Informatika is more reliable source than 2002 census results presented by Statistical Office of Serbia. These two institutions are using different methodology and if you check World Gazetteer web site (which is best site about city populations in the World), population of Novi Sad proper was 200,035 in 2010: http://world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=en&des=wg&srt=npan&col=abcdefghinoq&msz=1500&geo=-244 I doubt that 2011 census will show population of 262,000 as Informatika suggest. Anyway, this is not very important issue, so you may use whatever source you want of those, just try to quote exact numbers from these sources. As for the churches, which is bigger problem and an POV issue, I have at least 3 criteria by which image of Orthodox Cathedral should be posted before Catholic one: 1. majority of people in the city are Orthodox and therefore it is question of NPOV presentation that church of that religion should be presented first, otherwise some people might be insulted. In the same way, in Bečej where largest part of population are Catholics, image of Catholic church should be presented before image of Orthodox one. 2. second criteria would be importance of the church: Orthodox Cathedral is main Orthodox church in Bačka and seat of the Orthodox Eparchy of Bačka (therefore this church has wide regional importance), while importance of Catholic church is only local (Real Cathedral of the Catholic bishopric in Bačka is in fact in Subotica). 3. Orthodox church (built in 1734) is much older than Catholic one (built in 1893). Due to these 3 important criteria, image of Orthodox church should be posted before Catholic one. Even if your own criteria that "Catholic church is more prominent" is correct then we would still have 3:1 result in favor of Orthodox church. Anyway, is there any reliable source that say that "Catholic church is more prominent" or it is just your opinion? The fact that this church have larger tower does not mean that it is "generally more prominent" (there are also questions of architectural and cultural value, church interior, etc). Finally, if you think that quality of the image that show Orthodox church is bad that cannot be a reason that such image is not used - it is better that we have bad image instead that we do not have any image at all. Anyway, there is no any better image of this church: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Saint_George%27s_Cathedral_%28Novi_Sad%29 If I find time, I might took another picture of that church (this time with digital camera), but until then I see no reason that this image is not used. As for position of images, which browser you using? It looks quite fine in Opera. I will try to solve that problem with changed size and place of images. PANONIAN 18:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Better now? PANONIAN 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I can agree that census methodology is probably more reliable, but Informatika has fairly comprehensive database so they're very up-to date. Besides, they do that for the money, so I'm inclined to trust them. I wouldn't even mind using 2002 data if the population were more stable, but it has grown some 20% since, thus we do need a newer source. Anyway, we're going to have official census results by the next winter, so the issue would be moot.

I disagree about World Gazetteer. They are just data aggregator, they don't do research of their own. As far as I know, they base their figures on census results, and then they extrapolate that (or maybe even not).

I still don't find your reasons for church selection compelling, but I won't pursue the matter. Still, we do need a better image.

The layout is not about the browser, but about screen resolution and font size. My browser window is some 1000 px wide (not maximized on 1600*1050 screen), with a fairly small font. That makes the text area smaller in comparison with images, which then "protrude" in the next paragraph if packed too tightly. No such user (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are free to move images of churches to any part of the article and to change their size and position in every way you want. I only suggest that they should be together and that image of Orthodox church should be first (because of reasons that I mentioned). As for image quality, I said that I will took another picture of that church when I find time, so have a little patience, OK? PANONIAN 08:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits of IP 188.36.203.61

I reverted edits of IP 188.36.203.61 because of the following reasons:

• 1. Hungarian name Újvidék is certainly not an "native name" of this city as IP suggested. Original name of this city was German name Ratzen Stadt (Serb City) and variants of name Novi Sad were introduced later (in same time in various languages). I do not see how Hungarian name could be more "native" than any other of the names.
• 2. Hungarian name is already mentioned with other relevant names in "Name" section and there is no reason for it to be repeated in the first sentence of this article. There are more important things that should be said about this city in the introduction part instead an rarely used alternative name.
• 3. It is not correct that Hungarian troops attacked Jelasic ban's army in 1849. They simply attacked the whole city and destroyed most of civilian buildings in it.
• 4. There is no reason that sentence that speaks about magyarization and changed demographic situation is removed.
• 5. There is also no reason that sentence that says that it is not certain whether Hungarians or Serbs were largest ethnic group in the city in 1910 is removed. Census from 1910 recorded only spoken language and not ethnicity and if we exclude Jews from speakers of Hungarian from that census, we will clearly see that remaining number of speakers of Hungarian would be smaller than number of speakers of Serbian.
• 6. It is not correct that ethnic Germans and Hungarians were not present in Great Assembly from 1918. And I see no source that can confirm statement that they were "oppressed and expelled from Serbia".
• 7. IP 188.36.203.61 removed sourced statement that most of the citizens killed in 1944-1945 in Novi Sad by the communists were Serbs. The IP replaced that with some claims about number of people killed by the communists in whole of Vojvodina. This is not article about whole of Vojvodina, but about city of Novi Sad and we should focus on events in this city. There is separate article that speaks about communist purges in whole of Serbia. PANONIAN 18:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)