Talk:Srbobran

Untitled

"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)[reply]

So what is your problem really? I never wrote anything against Hungarians on Wikipedia. I only want to clean the Vojvodina articles from the Hungarian, Croatian (and other) anti-Vojvodinian nationalistic POV. If somebody is a Hungarian nationalist then it is obvious why my work would disturb him. As for the history of Hungarians in Vojvodina, there are several articles about Hungarian history here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_Vojvodina

So, the one who want to read something about Hungarian history could very easy to find these articles. User:PANONIAN

Names

No such user, I am not arguing about usage of languages by local authorities (and by the way, official usage of language and usage of names are different things). Can you quote a Wiki rule that say that Hungarian name should be used in this infobox. I understand why we could use these names for infoboxes of municipalities with Hungarian majority, but this is municipality with serb majority and Hungarian name is not widely used by local population. PANONIAN 15:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no particular policy, but I'm fairly certain we agreed somewhere to list all official names in the infobox headings. That is the only fair solution, because head-counting seems fairly arbitrary. For example, what to do in a cases where there are 4999 Hungarians and 5001 Serbs? There aren't so many alternative names (IIRC Subotica has four, the most); Hungarian name is widely used by local population which speaks Hungarian. No such user (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who agreed and where? Can you show page where that agreement is located? Also, as I said, languages are official, not names (or you can quote source which say that names are official?). Besides that, all relevant names are listed in proper part of the article, so I see no reason to list them in infobox too. Wikipedia is not place where minority rights are to be officially implemented, and usage of Hungarian name in infobox is very controversial if we speak about ethnic Serb, Slovak or Romanian towns in Central Europe. For many people, these Hungarian names are symbols of colonialism and oppression and due to controversial nature of such names we should not use them in infoboxes except for the towns where ethnic Hungarians are in majority. In fact, the only neutral way of usage of these names in the infobox would be that we use all alternative names of the town, including German, Croatian and other. PANONIAN 15:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Vojvodina/50697/Nazivi-ulica-samo-na-jednom-jeziku-

See the photo?

It is not our business to protect minority rights indeed, but since they're official, we might as well follow suit instead of inventing our own criteria. Your opinion that "Hungarian names are symbols of colonialism..." is certainly not shared by the lawmakers and Provincial ombudsman, and even most people:

U opštini Srbobran tvrdili su da je naziv Sentomaš provokacija za srpsko stanovništvo, ali su, kako nalaže zakon, ipak postavili propisane žute dvojezične table. Prema rečima Ivice Šmita, direktora Radio Srbobrana koji je zastupao pravo na dvojezične table, svi narodi u Vojvodini imaju pravo da naselja zovu u svom tradicionalnom duhu. - Pravo na jezik i tradicionalne nazive mesta u kojima vekovima žive doprinosi boljem suživotu i približava nas evropskim vrednostima - kaže Šmit.

As for the discussion about it, I'll try to find it. It was certainly long time ago. No such user (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well quotation from your source which say "U opštini Srbobran tvrdili su da je naziv Sentomaš provokacija za srpsko stanovništvo" is clear evidence that this way of usage of Hungarian names is controversial and this source is certainly not an evidence that such opinion is "not shared by most people". Even that table on city entrance is controversial for local population, not to mention Wikipedia articles. Also, Hungarian language in Slovakia does not have any official status and if we strictly follow official policies, then we probably should remove Hungarian name from Komárno article, no matter that Hungarians are in majority in this town. I say that we would make a mistake if we blindly follow official policies. It would be best that we use Hungarian names for towns where Hungarians are in majority. PANONIAN 16:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, your opinion, or that of an unnamed municipal official, is above the law? Sorry, that is a very poor excuse, and on top it is the one used by Serbian nationalists ("Hungarian toponyms remind us of World War II atrocities"). Again, we're not a protector of minority rights, but we're not a vehicle for made-up political correctness, too. I doubt that Hungarians like the name Srbobran ("Serb+defend") very much either -- should we remove that as well, because it hurts their feelings and reminds them of Treaty of Trianon?

There is a very clear and logical criterion when to use a name in the infobox: when it is in official use. If it is good enough for the traffic table, it is good enough for the infobox. No head-counting, no ad-hoc majority criteria.

I can't find the discussion right now, but {{Infobox Serbia municipality}} says "*other_name Name in minority language, 'where officially accepted" (emphasis mine). No such user (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but Hungarian place names are often added into Wikipedia by Hungarian nationalists, not as way of "protection of minority rights", but as way of emphasizing "historical rights of Greater Hungary" towards desired territories. So, please do not try to present me as nationalist. I also think that Serbian names should not be used in Kosovo-related articles and that probably would imply that I am an Albanian nationalist, right? I am trying to clean Wikipedia from nationalist approach and to ensure NPOV way of presentation that will not be insulting for readers. Anyway, if you want Hungarian name there, you can have it, but I also included into infobox some other relevant names, for the sake of NPOV approach. As for the Treaty of Trianon, Srbobran was one of Serb towns in Bačka that successfully resisted magyarization and where Serbs remained in majority even in 1910 census, so I do not see why any Hungarian would cry because town with Serb majority was not assigned to Hungary by the Treaty of Trianon (or why any Serb would cry because any Albanian-populated town in Kosovo is part of independent Kosovo and not part of Serbia). Nationalists in all Balkan and eastern European countries who cry because of these things would one day have to accept right of nations to self-determination and to understand that their own nation is not given by God to rule over others. Also, I did not contributed to the description in "Infobox Serbia municipality" about meaning of term "other name", but I can change that description as well so that it reflect other important historical names, not only those from languages which are used by local authorities. PANONIAN 08:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of being a nationalist, but I said that excuses you used are used by nationalists. I apologize if you feel offended.

Other names are not relevant for the infobox, because they're historical, not used by city administration, and probably not used by anyone anymore. Please do not dilute NPOV by including an absurdly wide spectrum of names. That sounds a bit WP:POINTy.

Well, you created this map, didn't you? As far as I can tell we have routinely used Hungarian (and Hungarian only, no German, Croatian, Latin or Martian) infobox names for all places painted green: Čoka, Bečej, Subotica, Kanjiža, I don't know if all those have exact Hungarian majority, but I don't see why Srbobran should use a different principle. I do not see how this, quote, endorses "way of emphasizing "historical rights of Greater Hungary" towards desired territories". That sort of reading is fairly extreme. And I'm going to revert you on the template as well: you're going to change a long-standing practice because of a content dispute on a single article. No such user (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but your "long-standing practice" was implemented only in few articles. And interestingly, it was implemented only in those articles that are seen as parts of "delvideki tarsnemzeti regio", which was proposed by extreme Hungarian nationalists from 64 counties movements. If you check another map that I created, you will see that Hungarian is in official use in much larger number of municipalities (together with other minority languages), but you insisting on implementation of what you see as "official policy" only here. Why? Also, do you think that official policy should be implemented on towns in Slovakia in which Hungarians are in majority and that we should remove Hungarian names from these infoboxes since Hungarian is not in official use there? It is obvious that you are the one who trying to impose a point here. As for municipalities "painted green" in my map, you should read a legend which say what that green color represents (which you obviously failed to do). Unlike in Srbobran, there is an actual Hungarian ethnic plurality (or relative majority) in Subotica and Bečej, so cases are not same by any mean. Anyway, I do not have time to waste on these stupidities since this issue is not so important and there are more important things that I have to do, but consider that this issue is not over. POV-ization of Wiki articles is simply not acceptable and it would require NPOV-ization. PANONIAN 09:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that the practice was implemented only in few articles, because only a dozen Serbian municipalities have significant national minority which uses a non-Serbo-Croatian language. And of course I have read the map: the limit of 20%, denoted by light-green, conveniently coincides (if I recall correctly) with the legal limit for official use, i.e. with over 20% of population the minority language must be in legal use.

I don't want to get personal, but I really don't understand your concept of "neutral point of view": if the name is legally promulgated, and good enough for a table on the town entrance, how does its appearance in Wikipedia endorse irredentist views?

I don't know about Slovakia (WP:OTHERSTUFF), but I can say that in places like Belgium or South Tyrol exactly that kind of practice is used. No such user (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then you obviously do not "endorsing official policies", but your personal point of view by which "if there is more than 20% members of minority community then their name should be in the infobox". Well, then forget Slovakia and please try to implement your view in articles about towns in Croatia. For example, in article about Vukovar (where 32.88% of population are Serbs), an Croatian user removed Serbian Cyrillic name even from "Name" section, not to mention how he would react to your idea that this name should be used in infobox. Therefore, partial implementation of certain point of view in this article only is indeed example of POV. Anyway, since 2011 census will probably show less than 20% Hungarians in this municipality, we will solve this issue when census results are published and we will then probably have this discussion about Bečej instead about Srbobran. PANONIAN 09:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat, but this time try to read it: it is NOT my personal point of view that the 20% is the limit. It is mandated by the LAW. Some municipalities have adopted the minority languages as official at much less. And I was slightly wrong, it's not 20% but 15%:

ZAKON O SLUŽBENOJ UPOTREBI JEZIKA I PISAMA, art. 11:

Na teritoriji jedinice lokalne samouprave gde tradicionalno žive pripadnici nacionalnih manjina, njihov jezik i pismo može biti u ravnopravnoj službenoj upotrebi.
Jedinica lokalne samouprave će obavezno svojim statutom uvesti u ravnopravnu službenu upotrebu jezik i pismo nacionalne manjine ukoliko procenat pripadnika te nacionalne manjine u ukupnom broju stanovnika na njenoj teritoriji dostiže 15% prema rezultatima poslednjeg popisa stanovništva.

ZAKON O LOKALNOJ SAMOUPRAVI, art. 93: Skupština jedinice lokalne samouprave utvrđuje praznike i odlučuje o nazivima ulica, trgova, gradskih četvrti, zaselaka i drugih delova naseljenih mesta na svojoj teritoriji, uz prethodnu saglasnost ministarstva nadležnog za poslove lokalne samouprave. Ako je na području jedinice lokalne samouprave jezik nacionalne manjine u službenoj upotrebi, u postupku promene naziva ulica, trgova, gradskih četvrti, zaselaka i drugih delova naseljenih mesta, pribaviće se mišljenje nacionalnog saveta.

No such user (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know for this law and exactly because of that I said that 20% limit is your personal POV. Limit prescribed by the law is 15%, but many municipalities are officially using minority language even if there are less than 15% members of these minorities in municipality. Novi Sad is good example of the later case. That return us to the question why you insist that your interpretation of how these official policies should be used in Wikipedia is implemented only in this article? You also edited Novi Sad article, so why you did not implemented your views there? Do you have answer to this? What makes this article to be so special? PANONIAN 14:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said, quote, "the limit of 20%, [...] coincides (if I recall correctly) with the legal limit for official use". Do you ever assume good faith? Concerning Novi Sad, the answer is simple: I simply forgot about it. I paid attention to this article because 1) I had it on my watchlist and 2) noticed the addition by User:GOKSSSSSY and your revert. Now that you mentioned it, I added it.
May I ask, what is the reason for the POV-tag? Look, we can sit and establish different criteria for the infobox titles, but you cannot put a POV tag every time when you're get frustrated with the debate. (Serbia under German occupation is what I have in mind). No such user (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian name, again

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? {{Infobox Serbia municipality}} 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)[reply]

My take on name issue

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)[reply]

No such user and Brianyoumans, this is problem with you two: you are POV pushers. You claim that for others, but you doing that. Wikipedia was created to be collection of knowledge. And what you two doing to expand that knowledge. Absolutely nothing. Instead to make yourself useful, you just creating fun for yourself by sticking eyes of other people with your political opinions. Yes, you use Wikipedia to push your political views and nothing else. Maybe you two are indoctrinated with your politics, but Wikipedia is not place where you should push it. The whole idiotic issue with alternative names in Wikipedia was invented to satisfy political purpose and not scientific one. This cause countless revert wars in numerous Eastern European articles. There is only one way to stop this: politics must be eliminated from articles. This is Wikipedia in English language, English name should be in infobox and in first sentence and all other names should be in neutral place under „Name“ subtitle if anyone want to know them. This is science and everything else is politics. 27.34.241.18 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my user page, you will see a long list of articles I have written since 2006, none of which have anything to do with Eastern Europe, as far as I can remember. I have not been very involved with Eastern European articles. I certainly agree that the "whole idiotic issue with alternative names in Wikipedia was invented to satisfy political purpose and not scientific one". If an English-speaking person was visiting Srbobran, I think it is important information what a quarter of the population calls the city - I have no problem putting that right up front instead of hiding it in a "Names" section below. As I point out, this is how articles on towns in Switzerland seem to handle it. Or look at Gdańsk and other similar Polish/German cities. I think this is how the situation is handled elsewhere, so why not here?Brianyoumans (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- The criterion for putting a name in the {{Infobox Serbia municipality}} was conceived simple: if this is an official minority language in the municipality. I agree that having laundry list of names in the lead tends to be boring for a reader, and should be reduced to a reasonable amount of contemporary or very important historical names; but Szenttamas is both. The IP is right that "this cause countless revert wars in numerous Eastern European articles" -- though his target is misguided: those revert wars chiefly driven by nationalists as himself, who regard having the "alien" names for "their" towns as a means of territory-pissing contest. Once again: if it is good enough for a table on the town entry, why is it not good for an equivalent place in Wikipedia article? No such user (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - It's not a "table", it's a road sign. I agree that a laundry list of names in the lede is undesirable, but two names seems unobjectionable.Brianyoumans (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianyoumans, I can give you compliments for writing many articles, but I don't understand why you discontinued that good work and involved yourself in choosing sides in Eastern European political dispute. Now about this problem: naming disputes in Eastern Europe are more than 200 years old and there will be always people that support opposite views about this. As scientific project, Wikipedia should not support any political views. From scientific point of view, Wikipedia should inform readers about other names of the city and this is fulfilled here because all such names are listed under "Name". This is science. But, if you want to put such names in infobox or in first sentence this is no more science but politics. Now look this: http://www.worldplaces.net/srb/vo/srbobran/ This is scientific web page with no politics. There you have title "Srbobran" and some info and after that you have info about many alternative names. This is science and argument. Opposite view is not scientific argument but political view supported by two of you. You say that if there is some name on road sign it should be in infobox too. I disagree. There is no scientific support for your approach. 27.34.241.18 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the opinion of 27.34.241.18. Thank you!--Nado158 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you are continuing to ignore my argument that many other articles in Wikipedia, in bilingual but less contentious areas, deal with names as I have suggested.Brianyoumans (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you Brianyoumans are continuing to ignore my argument that your approach is political and not scientific. Nobody actually deleted Hungarian name from this article. It is still there and every reader can see it. I will actually expand article and put there other names from this source: http://www.worldplaces.net/srb/vo/srbobran/ (including few other historical Hungarian names). In that way I will be only person here that actually improved this article and I will clearly demonstrate that I am not against Hungarian names. What I am against is push of political views in Wikipedia. 27.34.241.18 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is strangely reminiscent of the recent discussion at Talk:History of Vojvodina, where a Serbian first objected to the inclusion of WP:Hungary, and, when told it should stay, insisted on adding a long list of other projects. If he couldn't get rid of WP:Hungary, he intended to somehow dilute it by adding lots of other projects, or else just make a mockery of the entire process. There are currently two major components of the population in Srbobran - Serbians and Hungarians. No other language group amounts to more than about 2%. So, what is controversial about including those two groups' names for the town and municipality in the lede? Brianyoumans (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone together. I decided to give my opinion here. I can see no reason why should stand in Srbobran another name, as such, which the city also has ... Srbobran, and this since nearly 100 years. Also, I see no rule that say that Hungarian name should be used in this infobox etc. Hungarian is an official language, but nevertheless is always and only used Srbobran. In addition, yes, languages are official, but not the names. Besides this, here is municipality with Serb majority and Hungarian name is not used by the whole local population. We have all relevant names are listed in proper part of the article, so I see no reason to list them in infobox too. Why is it such a push?Thanks.--Nado158 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [1], [2]? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]