Talk:Demographic history of Vojvodina/Archive01

Ottomans

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)

---

It was exactly as I wrote. Part of Serbs who lived in Vojvodina before the Ottomans were expelled and other part left in the region (Hungarians were all expelled). In empty land Ottomans settled new Serbs from the south. One more thing, I do not agree that Vlachs are same as Romanians. Vlach was the name for all Romanised inhabitants of Balkans (Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, etc). Romanians are mostly descendants of Romanised Dacians, while Vlacs, which lived in Vojvodina were both: Illyrians and Dacians by origin. Also, Serbs are descendants of Vlachs as much as Romanians are. No matter that Serbs speak a Slavic language, according to anthropology and genetics, Serbs have more Dinaric (Illyrian) genes than Slavic (Romanians also do not speak the language of ancient Dacians, but have Dacian genes). So, both nations, Serbs and Romanians are descendants of Vlachs (not only Romanians). User:PANONIAN

---

Contradictions

Why the 13th century is so important for Romanians and Serbs? They speak always about this century as a starting point, when the evil Hungarian Kingdom subjugated the "aboriginals" of the region (slavs of vojvodina, romanian in Transylvania, slovakians in the north) :) And what about that 300 years between the Hungarian conquest and the 13th century?? Even Auchtum was descendent of a Magyar chief settled into this reagion after the conquest. OKay I accept the mountainous region was not occupied right after the Hung-conquest but this lowland was perfect for the nomadic Magyars

The Slavs were already assimilated until the 13th. I have a feeling that every Slav who lived in the region during the last millenium all at once became Serb or forefather of present day Serbs.

The slavic element appeard in the region around the 14th century paralel to the first Osmanli attacks, they resettled the paritaly depopulated Srem. I'd like to see your arguments which speak about a Slav majority in the whole vojvodina before the 17th century

That ethnic map is also false. Suspiciously it corresponds to a present day demographic map. In my oppinion between the 16-18th centuries the Serbian ethnical frontier had almost reached the present day Slovakian border (just think on the many Serbian village near Budapest - RaczKeve - name of the old county Keve in the Banat, Szentendre, etc, etc)

It is funny to hear that the Serbs lost their majority due to many other non-Serb colonists :) While in 1690 200,000 Serbian arrived to Vojvodina after the Habsburg failure in one of their campaign. I admit after the Mid 18th century also Magyars arrived from Nograd, Pest ...--fz22 07:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should read more history books. If they all speak about 13th century, then must be some reason for it, right? The reason is that Magyars who settled in the Pannonian plain in the 9th century were small nomadic tribe which created Hungarian state and ruled over it but which did not made up major part of its population. Until the 13th century, many native Slavs and Vlachs became Magyars, thus it is the 13th century when Magyar population increased, first in the central parts of the country, and after 13th century in other parts too. Regarding Ahtum, he was not Magyar, but Bulgarian by origin (He was descendant of Bulgarian duke Glad, who ruled over Banat before Magyars settled in the Pannonian plain, not after that). And no matter that plains were perfect to be settled by Magyars, the number of Magyars in the 9th century was too small to populate entire plain. Also, much of Vojvodina and Banat Slavs were assimilated into Magyars between 10th and 16th century, but not all of them. It is correct that since the 14th century new Slavs from the south (mainly Serbs) settled in the region. After Ottoman conquest in the 16th century, the entire Hungarian population of Vojvodina fled, and since then the region had Serb majority (this is confirmed by the Ottoman tax records - defters). And Serbian ethnic border between 16th and 18th century did not reached Slovak border. The Serb ethnic border was north of Pecs and Szeged, and the settlements with Serb majority northern of that line were only isolated pockets outside of Serb ethnic territory. And yes, some Serbs did arrived in 1690, but before that arrival the Serbs were also majority in the region. By the way, in 1690, much of what is now Vojvodina was still under Ottoman rule, thus part of these settlers settled only in western parts of Vojvodina (notably in Bačka) which were under Habsburg rule, and other part settled in territory of present-day Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the numerous "aboriginal" population was assimilated into a small group of nomads :) ...

Glad is a fictitious personality from the Gesta Hungarorum. There is no other hisorical document which inform us about the existence of such a "Prince Glad" (btw: the Romanians pretend he was Romanian ;)) We only know that his name has Turcik roots ... but about his origin we know nothing. Kabar, black-magyarm bulgar who knows?. St Stpehen legend speak about him as a descendent of a "Magyar" (or Kabar) chieftain ... the ruling class among magyars was of Hun-Onogur-Turcik origin... so this can explain his name.

Not as isolated ... there were huge Serbian etnical islands near Buda (Csobanka, Pomaz, Szentendre; Erd,Batta,Thokol)--fz22 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was a good chance for Hungarians to be assimilated into Slavs (like were the Bulgars), but two important things are "guilty" because this did not happen: 1. The Hungarian rulers from that time were aware that Hungarians could be Slavicized, thus they settled into Hungary other non-Slavic peoples (for example the Cumans), thus these peoples were assimilated into Magyars, not into Slavs, and number of Magyars increased. 2. The second thing is Catholic religion of the Magyars, since the language of Catholic church was Latin (and not Slavic like in Bulgaria), the Hungarians were not Slavicized through the church (like Bulgarians were). I agree that existence of Glad is controversial question, as well as claim that Ahtum was his descendant, but most of the sources I have about Ahtum claim that he was Bulgarian by origin (that also explain the fact that he became Orthodox Christian in Vidin in Bulgaria). PANONIAN (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think such a natural process like the assimilation could be reversed or impeded by the king or the ruling class. BTW the bulgar rulers were not aware?? Settling the Cumans was a latter event, 300 years after the Hungarian conquest. You also have to take a look over the settlements names ... most of them were Hungarian. I think a 1/3 "aboriginals" vs 2/3 Magyars is resonable. Moreover until the 13th the Magyars have had enough demographical "capacity" to settle outside the Carpathians forming notable diasporas in Terra Cumanorum ...--fz22 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Assimilation is not always natural process, very often it is a result of the state policy. I do not know were Bulgar rulers aware that they will be assimilated, but unfortunatelly we cannot ask them now. I know when Cumans were settled and I did spoke about that time period, not about time when Magyars arrived to the plain. Regarding names of the settlements, for example in Banat, more than half of such names are of Slavic origin (and I mean in entire Banat, not only in part that belong to Serbia). Another interesting thing is that Hungarian historians tried to see name of old Hungarian tribe "Ker" in the places with name "ker" in Vojvodina, but "ker" is simply Serbian word for dog, hence these names. :) The number of 2/3 Magyars and 1/3 others is likely for the period after 13th century, but certainly not for the period when Magyars arrived to the plain. Of course, the question why Magyars were not Slavicized is very interesting, but certain state policy can to achieve desired kind of assimilation. Take present-day Israel as an example, modern Israely nation was made up from 50 different ethnic groups. Hebrew was dead language 50 years ago, but today, people of Israel speak Hebrew as their native language. The state policy of Israel created a single nation from 50 different groups based on common religion and language that was not spoken by anybody. The achievement of Hungarian rulers is much smaller than this one because Hungarian was not dead language in that time. And regarding Magyar diaspora, the real question is were those people from diaspora "real" Magyars or were Magyars simply because they lived in Magyar state. PANONIAN (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

State policy to be assimilated by an "inferior" (don't misunderstand this) population. It's absurd. Considering Occam's principle the best answer is: Magyars were not assimilated because they simple exceeded the Slavs in number. There is a consensus between the Slovak and Hungarian scholars that the aboriginal Slav population numbered around 200,000. The big question is the number of the nomad Magyars settled into Pannonia. This number varying between 150,000-1,000,000 according to Hungarian historians but considering the population of Hungary in the 12-13-14th centuries plus the only reliable source about the men-power of the Magyar tribes in 860AD (20,000) a quite good estimation is they numbered around 500,000 before the conquest (100,000 were killed by the Pechenegs during the conquest) so 400,000 Magyar arrived into the Carpathin Basin ... Up to the 13 th century they increased their percentage to 75-80%. I accept this is only what Hungarian historiography teach ... will write again soon --fz22 20:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have one interesting book about this which is based on Hungarian sources. The source for this book (Balogh Pal, A nepfajok Magyarorszagon. Kiadta a Magyar Vallas es Kozok-tatasugyi Miniszterium, Biudapest, 1902) say: "The Magyars were only warriors and rulers, while aboriginal Slavs cultivated land, and these Slavs were majority (in Hungary). In the first centuries of Hungary there was no any Hungarian urban life". Also, my source say that in the time when they became Christians, the Magyars numbered total 20-30,000 families. Another Hungarian author (Szalai Laszlo, Magyarorszag tortenete, Pest, 1861) claim that in the time when Magyars became Christians, the number of Magyar settlements in Hungary was negligible compared with Slavic ones. Anyway, the best proof that present-day Hungarians are mostly descendants of these assimilated Slavs is that present-day Hungarians are racially European, while original Hungarians who came from Asia were (and still are) racially Asian. You still have two Hungarian tribes (Khanty and Mansi) who live in Siberia and who do not belong to European race. The point is that those Hungarian historians who after 1920 trying to prove Hungarian "right" to lands outside Hungary simply have no idea how to explain racial difference between Hungarians in Europe and Hungarians (Khanty and Mansi) in Asia. Of course, the objective Hungarian historians who wrote about this before 1920, and whose opinion was not affected by the results of Trianon Treaty did explained this, although results of their scientific research are today hidden behind propaganda wars for national goals. PANONIAN (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You can also see the pictures how original Hungarians looked (the modern Khanty tribe): http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/images/4jordan4.gif http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF2003/Warren/Warren02.jpg I do not think that any European Hungarian could say that he look like those people. Original Hungarians who settled in the Pannonian plain in fact were assimilated by more numerous Slavs, although they imposed their language and name to the Slavs. The Bulgars also imposed their name to the Slavs in Bulgaria, but not the language. PANONIAN (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations for your hair-raising theories about Hungarians. Khanty and Mansi as Hungarian tribes is totally imbecile. They divorced from Hungarians cca 3000 years ago and went to Siberia. You don’t write about Russians as Serb tribe, or about Serbs as Ukrainian tribe up to now, but nobody knows. About pictures... if you demonstrate us that they (Khanty & Mansi) remained racially intact in this 3000 years then OK. Otherwise... About assimilation... What is behind this phenomenon?

To be an average Hungarian is quite easy. You declare yourself as Hungarian, say “Köszönöm” and you are a Hungarian (Uđeš, izađeš i gotovo).

To be an average Serb is very difficult. You must be a member of SOC (SPC). You must have a gun. You must celebrate almost one month per year, and you must hate one of the surrounding nations, Germany, USA or Vatican.

You see that’s the main reason why Serbs cannot assimilate their neighbours or just in small procent, but they know well oust them from their homes.Bendeguz 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyway, you just proved my point, although I doubt that you understand what I wrote. I did not said that Khanty and Mansi are tribes of present-day European Hungarians, but tribes of ORIGINAL Hungarians that were not racially European. The whole point of the post is that in the 9th century, the Slavs were dominant ethnic group of the Pannonian plain, and that present-day Hungarians are mainly descendants of these Slavs (even Hungarian historians do not deny this). As for your "observations" about the Serbs, those are not worthy of commenting at all. PANONIAN (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

According to some recent genetical researches (using highly informative mitochondrial DNA markers): present day Magyar and Szekely population have only 5% Asian and 90% Europian DNA, but the first Magyar settlers of Hungary have had also 66-70% Europaian DNA (the Asian part represented around 25%) --fz22 07:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we cannot know what was DNA of the first Magyar settlers in Hungary. The researchers may open few graves and look for DNA in them, but the question is what population those people buried in these graves represent. These people might be also Slavs (Slavs in fact were the only people belonging to European race that lived in areas of eastern Europe from which Magyars came). However, it is highly unlikely that there already were 66-70% Slavs among Magyars when they settled in the Pannonian plain, thus this research is mostly speculation. PANONIAN (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually we just started to know. According to some recent experiments (1994,1997,1999 in Hungarian-Finnish, hungarian-Turkish cooperation)we can declare the followings: first genetically we have nothing in common with the Finns (they have meassured the genetic distances between the two population), second the presence (66%) of caucasian/europaian DNA markers in the Magyar population around 1000AD. --fz22 08:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, all depends who conducted this research and what methods were used. I do not think that we have efficient method to know exact DNA of the entire Hungarian population that lived 1000 years. All researches of this kind are based on samples that could be found, and DNA from such samples might or might not be common for the rest of population. However, if the data is correct, that certainly would raise a question what other peoples were among Magyars when they settled in the Pannonian plain, because original Finno-Ugric peoples belonged to Asian race, thus if Magyars who lived 1000 years ago already were Caucasian, that would lead us to ask whose descendants then they were. Of course that question is not same with the question whose descendants are present-day Hungarians. I also saw one genetic research about that, and according to that research, the closest genetic relatives of Hungarians are the Serbs. A very interesting results of the research, dont you agree? PANONIAN (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't dig out the whole Magyar population from the 11th century :) we should wait until the Ressurection ;) BUT they compared the mortal remains of Magyars from 11th century, 13-14th centuries, Cumans from the 13-14th centuries + present-day Magyars from Kiskun-Nagykun, Jaszsag, Orseg, Szekelys from Bucovina, Csangos from Moldavia, Matyo, and Palocz people. While Magyars are not genetical uniform I could not accept your point of view about Hungarian-Serb relationship :). --fz22 11:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, see it for yourself: http://www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/bloodtypes.html Here is a list from that link which list the peoples that are genetically most similar to Hungarians:

• Serbs (99% similarity)
• Greeks (97%)
• Austrians (97%)
• Albanians (97%)
• Romanians (96%)
• Bulgarians (96%)
• Slovaks (94%)
• etc. etc... PANONIAN (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about mtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms and much more (I'm not an expert) which definitely differs from the blood types--fz22 08:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your obsession with the races make me cautious. Are you racist? ...No, we aren't from heaven as you, we are from Mars.Would you like to be a Martian? You just declare yourself as Martian, say “Köszönöm” and you are a Martian. Simple. The green colored skin isn't necessary.

Sorry, I have forgotten: ... and the genuine Serbs use only cyrillic letters.Bendeguz 19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My obsesion with the races? If we want to explain the origin of Hungarians it is important to mention racial difference between Hungarians in Hungary and their linguistic "cousins" in Asia. Why somebody who speak about this is a racist? Racist is the person who think that his race is more superior than another race. And did I ever said something like this? No, I did not. I know that you want to present all Serbs like nationalists and racists, but you should first do something with your own shauvinistic "opinions" about the Serbs (presented here, and in some other talk pages as well). Once you become good citizen of the 21st century that do not think that his nation is "superior" compared with other nations, then you will have right to talk about others. PANONIAN (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your rootsmelling isn't important in 21th century. Chauvinistic "opinions"? I just keep the mirror before your (Serb) deeds. Let you stay in face of the mirror and ask yourself Wich of these opinions suits to me?. And answer to yourself. I know that these opinions aren't complimentary. Sorry, not my fault.Lets talk about problems

I am not chauvinistic. On the contrary. What about you? PANONIAN (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Identity

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)

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)

Parts of Vojvodina were conquered by the Hungarian Kingdom

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Magyars in Vojvodina reloaded

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)

4. Avars 250 years old Empire entirely disappeared and were quickly absorbed by the local population?

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)

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)

(In this time, the number of Hungarians in the Kingdom of Hungary was negligible compared with the number of Slavs).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And another fact is that your opinion, my dear pannonian, is quite nationalistic (and "old-fashioned") too. In addition to that, Fz22 has right once again, so, in my opinion, you are beginning to lose your credibility. Öcsi 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read your edits, pannonian, and I have to say that they are false. Only the Southern Bácska was magyar-slav mixed. The Northern region was inhabited (nearly) only by hungarians. Öcsi 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Und außerdem: Kann Benutzer:Fz22 deutsch sprechen? Ich glaube nicht. Öcsi 14:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, du glaube wohl ;) BTW thank's for your Userbox-ancestry tip --fz22 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Map Wars

Dear Pannonian. Can we put an end to this time wasting crap of map war? Why don't you accept other oppionions than yours? If you have your own map, OK put it on the page, but please do not delete others work with such a hollow pretext that it is nationalistic, or Hungarian propaganda. I repeat what I've tried to create is a map reflecting the mainstream Hungarian historiography. These are not my discoveries as your maps, I think, don't belong to you neither. Why do you think if the official scholars were unable to come to a common denominator so far, we, some outsiders, can make such a page neutral. No doubt, we can improve wikipedia with adding as many oppionions (side by side - and this is the main benefit of this WIKIPEDIA project) we can ... BTW also a romanian view must be deployed in Vojvodina+Banat article. You will delete that one too? Best regards, --fz22 09:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fz, I already told you to do something usefull here instead of constant POV pushing in various articles about Transylvania, Slovakia and Vojvodina. It is not only that you done nothing usefull here, but you also forcing other users to repair damage you made, so you stoping them to do usefull contributioons as well. Magyars were a small nomadic ethnic group (numbering 25,000 people) that conquered Pannonian plain mainly inhabited by Slavs. We cannot speak about larger number of Hungarians until the 13th century, when many Slavs were assimilated into Hungarians, thus their number increased. PANONIAN (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a real POV. A small nomadic tribe numbered around 25,000 people came here in 895AD and subdued around 500,000-1,000,000 Slavic + 400,000 - 500,000 Romanian people for a thousand year. First by force later by assimilation, and ... after a devastating Mongol attack ... they spread further, forming a grand kingdom in the late 15th century ... Do You really believe this? --fz22 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, and no! We speak here about 10th century when number of humans was much smaller. Number oh inhabitants of Central Europe was not so large in that time. The correct numbers of this are that 25,000 Magyars settled in the region populated by 200,000 Slavs. Those are realistic numbers for that time period. The nomadic groups that migrated to Europe in the Middle Ages were not large by numbers, thus the number of 500,000-1,000,000 Magyars that migrated to Central Europe is not only impossible for that time period, but also ridiculous (If so many Magyars were there they would conquer entire Europe, not only its central part). PANONIAN (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And, fz, here are again pictures of Khanty (the real Hungarians): http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/images/4jordan4.gif http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF2003/Warren/Warren02.jpg If Hungarians came to Central Europe in such large number they would look like those people, not like Slavs. Only the blind man cannot see this difference. PANONIAN (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look on this: http://migration.ucc.ie/population/eupophistory.htm

Plus the article is not about what you and other Serbian scholars think about the number of Magyars. We can preserve this estimation too, if you want. But for the God's sake! why only the hungarian POV, estimations, maps are deleted all the times. --fz22 14:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing usefull in the link you provided. And if you ask why Hungarian POV is deleted all the time, exactly because it is POV, because it is false, and because it is insulting for your neighbours. Do you think that I do not know what were your true intentions when you posted this map? You wanted to show that Serbs "stole" land from Hungarians, but you do not want to mention that Hungarians in fact stole land from Slavs. I really do not understand how Hungarian nationalists can possibly claim that their neighbours "stole Hungarian land" when the Hungarian history begin with the fact that Hungarians came to Central Europe and stole Slavic land. Did logic died here or what? PANONIAN (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The author of this page puts the population of Europe to 36million. so a 400,000 population was not as huge as you suggest ... and why do you extrapolate your way of thinking on me? I never said the Slavs stoled land from Avars, Gepids, Langobards, etc. Sure these are Hungarian POVs you can't be naive to think we can come to common denominator when most notable scholars failed?? --fz22 16:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A 400,000 population of what? I do not dispute that 400,000 people might live in Central Europe in thatn time, but I dispute that so many people MIGRATED to Central Europe in that time. Migration of such large number of people was not characteristic for that time period, thus if 400,000 people lived in Central Europe, they were mostly natives of the area, not nomads that came from the east. Regarding Avars, Gepids, Langobards, etc, they were not in great numbers and they were also just a lords of the Slavs (like early Hungarians). PANONIAN (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Magyars, of course. What we know:

1. According to Ibn Rusta and Djaihani around 890 AD the Magyars manpower numbered around 20,000 warior.

2. In the Battle of Lechfeld 5-10,000 Magyars were killed, from a 10-15,000 expedition contingent.

3. According to a Charter of the Pécsvárad Abbey (from 1015AD) a population of 1100 family was able to support 200 miles (warrior)

4. So the number of Magyars could be estimeted to 20,000 x 5 (the number of families) x 5 (2 adult + 3 children) = 500,000 before the conquest. 100,000 were killed by Pechenegs, Thus we have a 400,000 Magyar population powerfull enough to support a western European campaign until 955AD and to occupy a territory larger then 300,000 square km.

5 Your so-called Hungarian sources (you read about them from a Serbian author, i guess) ... so sorry to say that but you've been had :) The lovest estimation is 70,000 (Elemer Malyus)

6 The population of the Carpathian Basin was around 200,000 consisted of Slavs, Bulgars, Avars, Gepids, and remnants of romanised population. totaly 600,000 in 900AD ...--fz22 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is one thing fz that destroying your entire theory: when you see yourself in the mirror, why you see European face and not Asian face? If modern Hungarians are descendants of old Hungarians, why they look like Slavs? No answer, right? PANONIAN (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite simple. Because they were not Asians of Mongoloid stock. They lived in Europe for more then 900 years. The Magyars came out of the eastern steppes as a nomadic nation like the Germanic, Slavonic, and other Indo-European tribes earlier. --fz22 18:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, fz, that is a science fiction story. Why Khanty and Mansi are not European too? How you explain this? And by the way, the only European people in whole Eastern Europe were Slavs. The Finno-Ugric languages are of Asian origin and original speakers of these languages belonged to Asian race, thus the old Hungarians simply could not be of European origin. It is against every logic. PANONIAN (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, panonian, I have the explanation for you why many hungarians doesn't look very similar to Khantys (although half of my family does) --> their genes are more turkic than finno-ugric, only their language is an ugric one. These are the newest results of recent researches: [1] -- Öcsi 14:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, mister Öcsi, that is really not an explanation. Turkic peoples also originally belonged to Asian race and if Hungarians have Turkic genes then they would still look like asians. Nice try anyway. :) Your "friends" will develop 1000 ridiculous theories just because they do not want to admit obvious - that they had Slavic genes. A sad thing indeed, my Slavic brother. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course many of them have slavic genes (me probably included). But they are no slavs, you have to be aware of this. If you were able to read that article, you would see that e.g. Paloc's genes are 40-60% similar to turkic ones and 10% to finno-ugric ones; so ~50 + 10 = 60% hungarian. And the Csangos have even 20-30% finno-ugric genes. My brother from Novi Sad. Öcsi 20:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, genetics is relativelly new science and different genes could be used by different researchers to prove all kinds of theories. I also speak about one research that I saw, and according to that research about 60% of all Hungarians had Slavic genes. Well, according to same research, Serbs had more Illyrian genes than Slavic, but who can claim that this is not truth too. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the genetics are different from region to region. E.g. about the half of Budapest's inhabitants has a high procentage of slavic genes (30-60% or higher). But if you go to the country the numbers decrease, even to 10-20% percent. And even the south-eastern hungarians are not so slavic, as thought (according to this research). But some researches only prove some parts, and not the whole truth. Maybe we should make an own research (just kidding) :)). --Öcsi 10:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, those are facts claimed by Hungarin authors, i.e. those that wrote their books before the Treaty of Trianon, and whose goal was objectivity, and not political goal to "prove" that entire Central Europe belong to Hungarians. After the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, it is hard to find real objective Hungarian historians who write about history of Central Europe. There is an quotation that "Hungarian nationalism is one of the most developed in Europe", thus the works of Hungarian authors are much influenced by it. The facts are simple, Slavs lived here before Hungarians, and one small nomadic ethnic group settled in their land. It is exactly what my map about 10th century show. Now about 12th century, the sources that I have claim that there were no Hungarians in Banat before the 13th century (and you draw in your map that entire Banat was settled by Hungarians in the 12th century, so what is wrong there, fz?). So, fz, your map is far from accurate: it practically show that there were no Slavs in Vojvodina at all in this time (areas that you labeled as "mixed" could mean anything. Why you did not labeled them as "Slav-Magyar mixed"?). Regarding your map, I did not deleted it last time, but another user. And what Romanian view you speak about? PANONIAN (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, user panonian, but fz's edits accord to the real history (even archaelogical finds prove that the Banat, above all the North-east, was mainly hungarian populated). 138.232.251.206 13:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Really, should I trust your words here? Then why more than a half of place names in Banat are of Slavic origin? Perhaps "your" Hungarians spoke Slavic? PANONIAN (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More than a half of place names in Banat are of Slavic origin and what's about the other half? Guess! Yes you've guessed right! They were hungarian --> and this proves the fact that big parts of the Banat (as fz's map suggests it) were hungarian-speaking (almost three times of today's hungarian-speaking territory in the Banat) in the Middle Ages. PS: I advise you to use the sandbox, for creating fictional maps. 138.232.251.147 17:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, mister sockpuppet of fz22, half of the place names in Banat are Slavic and other half are non-Slavic, which do not mean that they are Hungarian, but also Vlach, old-Bulgarian, Avar, Gepid, etc, etc... And the only fictional map here is one drawn by your sockpuppet master, fz22. PANONIAN (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It has no sense to dispute with you further on. 138.232.251.124 11:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A seriuos discussion (if possible?)

Now, fz, I checked some sources, and here are what my sources say about this:

• 1. some sources claim that Hungarians were dominant ethnic group in Vojvodina between 13th and 16th century (not before that and not after that).
• 2. some sources claim that the number of Hungarians in Vojvodina was never large (not even between 13th and 16th century).

We also have "your" sources that claim that Hungarians were "always" in large number. So, to whom I should trust? I will try to be objective and to accept "middle solution" as most accurate, i.e. the one that claim that until the 13th century dominant group in the area were Slavs and between 13th and 16th Hungarians. Therefore, "your" map in fact show situation from the early 14th century because it is the time when number of Slavs in the area was lowest, according to my sources. I suggest that you correct your map and write 14th century instead of 12th century. There are two reasons why there were no so many Hungarians here in the 12th century: 1. Banat was almost completelly populated by Slavs until the 13 century, it was even ruled by local Bulgaro-Slavic rulers, i.e. it had special status within the Kingdom of Hungary. 2. Before the late 12th century, Srem was under Hungarian rule only in brief time periods (in much larger periods it was under Byzantine and Bulgarian rule), hence we cannot speak about large Hungarian population in Srem until the end of the 12th century. To resume: in 12th century, both, Banat and Srem were mainly Slavic, while only Bačka had mixed Slavic-Hungarian population (exactly what I presented on the map). PANONIAN (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha Panonian your serious "some sources" ha ha ha. Here is my source:

Magyarország története-Előzmények és magyar történet 1242-ig. (History of Hungary-From beginnings until 1242) Akadémiai Kiadó Budapest 1987, book 3, chapter 3, Államszervezés (Constitution of the state) author Györffy György (1917-2000). Page 767 In 1003 Bruno of Querfurt was among the Black Hungarians (Nigri Ungri) to convert them, without success. Black Hungarians lived in the region what is today South-Banat, between present-day settlements as Titel, Pancevo, Kovin, Vrsac and Zrenjanin. Page 768 In his letter to the emperor Henry II (1009), he write that the forced conversion is in progress among the Black Hungarians.

Let's see:

• Vili Frankoi: Title of writing, Publisher, Date, Book, Chapter, Page, Quotation.

Vili Frankoi = Fraknoi Vilmos ;) a notable scholar in the Bishop of Oradea, Lipovnyicky's court (among others: Bunyitai, Rómer, Czobor, etc) ;)--fz22 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Laszlo Szalai: Title of writing, Publisher, Date, Book, Chapter, Page, Quotation.
• Dr Dušan J. Popović: Title of writing, Publisher, Date, Book, Chapter, Page, Quotation.
• and others

Bendeguz 20:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Medieval Ages, term "Hungarians" did not designated only "real" Hungarians, but also all inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary, therefore the term "Black Hungarians" do not neccesary designate ethnic Hungarians, but could also designate Slavs that were citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary. Names of the Medieval inhabitants of Vojvodina were often written in Latin and their names were common Christian names, that could be names of both, Hugarians and Slavs. For example, the medieval poet from Titel, Janus Panonius could be also Slav because Jan is well known name among Slavs. Regarding full description of sources, no problem:

• Vili Frankoi, Magyarorszag egyhazi es politikai osszekottetesei a Szentszekkel. Szent Istvan tarsulat kiadasa. Budapest, 1902.
• Laszlo Szalai, Magyarorszag tortenete. Pest, 1861.
• Dr. Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, Novi Sad, 1990. PANONIAN (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In Medieval Hungary you can find settlements as villa Sclavorum(Page 1093), Slav village, villa Latina(Page 1098),_Italian village, villa Franca, (Page 1098), village of Franks, Fruska Gora also derived his name from Franks. So the term Nigri Ungri is for Hungarians.

Not neccessary. Different authors could use different names for different things, so there is no single proof that Nigri Ungri designate ethnic Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And your madieval namesake is from Cesmice, Croatia.

And where is your quotation, page number,chapter, book? Bad, Panonian very bad. Bendeguz 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Bendeguz, something else is bad here, and that are not my quotations. PANONIAN (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think diversity is not among different authors but probably in your head.

I must denounce your source in almost everything(author, work, timing, circumstances, presentation).

• A.Lazar Stipić (1890-1944) was a marginal poet, prose writer and journalist whose "serious work" is Truth about Hungarians (Istina o Madžarima (sic!)). A little tendentious. Too POOOOOOOOOV! (Sorry I lost my capital "o" ).
• B. He isn't a historian.
• C. The first edition was in 1929. This period was the darkest for the minorities in first Yugoslavia (Dictatorship of King Alexander).
• D. The second edition was published in 2004 in the time of Fascist arousal in Serbia. In this time atrocities against Hungarian minority in Vojvodina was of common occurrence.
• E. The second edition was edited in Srbinje and Novi Sad. Srbinje is well known for murders, rape and other "nice things" (between 1992 and 1995) during the Bosnian War. Srbinje as name has also a message for minorities.
• F. Please write us just first hand informations. If I claim (for example) Panonian is a fiddler! this is not the same as (for example) Juro says, that Tankred said, that Bendeguz claimed Panonian is a fiddler!. Don't be childish.

And what claimed Vili Frankoi and Laszlo Szalai exactly? Bendeguz 19:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bendeguz, it is ridiculous that you talk about Serbian nationalism, when you are one of the greatest nationalists on Wikipedia and your hate towards Serbs is just amazing: for you all Serbs are "murders, fascists, etc", but if you compare how many murders and fascist you can find in your own nation, you will see that Serbs are angels. Regarding the source, the "source" for this whole map is User:Fz22, so if we accept him as a source for Wikipedia, we should accept Stipić too. By the way, did you know that Stipić was murdered by Hungarian fascists during World War. If he did not wrote the truth about their "country", why they killed him? PANONIAN (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your level Panonian. If you haven't arguments, you abuse your presumed enemies. I can't fall thus far.

I wrote you once, and I must repeat myself I just keep the mirror before your (Serb) deeds. Let you stay in face of the mirror and ask yourself Wich of these opinions suits to me?. And answer to yourself. I know that these opinions aren't complimentary. Sorry.

Another lie. Lazar Stipić died in bed on May 14 1944. 10:00 a.m. in Maria Valeria Hospital in Subotica (today City Hospital). You can read here about this lie in Magyar Szó under title Félrevezettek bennünket (They mislead us) which is took from Građanski List. In this article the editorial staff of Građanski List ask forgiveness from their readers for false information, from exhibition in Hotel Putnik in Novi Sad on July 12 2004. Hit the road Jack...Following your logic Lazar Stipić wrote lies about Hungarians because he died in bed. Oh my God. Our future historian. The big Wikipedian. Bendeguz 21:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I abuse my presumed enemies??? No, Bengeguz, I do not "abuse" you, I simply said my observation about your edits on Wikipedia. I have in mind your previous edits in other articles and hate towards Serbs is quite obvious from almost all your posts. Even in your previous edit on this page you speak about "Fascist arousal in Serbia in 2004???!!!!". I think that every comment to this is futile. Another thing that you said here: "I just keep the mirror before your (Serb) deeds". Another example of your "opinion" that Serbs are "collectivelly guilty as a nation". Interestinglly, I never said something like this about Hungarians as a people - I only spoke about Hungarian nationalists and Hungarian fascists and always made a clear distinction between them and Hungarian people (It is fact that during world war II, the Hungarian people was also a victim of Hungarian fascist regime). Regarding Stipić, my source claim one thing, your source another, and it is just your opinion what is "lie" and what is "truth" here. Finally, I accepted your both suggestions regarding article: 1. I corrected maps to include Hungarians from Banat, and 2. I did not used quotation from Stipić as explanation of the map. So, having this in mind, would you please said to what else you object here and why your sockpuppet reverted article again? PANONIAN (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your paranoia is endless Panonian. If you really think that 195xyz is my sock, than here is your medicament, and heal yourself.

You can't make a distinction between caricature, irony, mock and hate.

"collectivelly guilty as a nation". How interesting, you claimed this about Danube Swabians, and I asked you why hurts when somebody claims the same for your nation? I didn't write that: "Svi smo mi Radovan" (We are all Radovan (Karadzic)).

"Fascist arousal in Serbia in 2004???!!!!" When I wrote this I thought about: Dveri Srpske, Obraz,Nacionalni stroj and Serbian National Movement Svetozar Miletic.It's very interesting that Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Backa Irinej Bulovic participates in conducting of the movement. Enough?

My sources are visible and unambiguous opposite your sources which are "my source" or "my sources" or secondhand informations from your books. Bendeguz 09:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Bendeguz, if that was not your sockpuppet then you please accept my honest apology. You was simply my first logical choice here, but there are few other users here who could be masters of this sockpuppet of course. :) Regarding collective guilt, I did not claimed that Germans were collectivelly guitly as nation, but that Yugoslav post-WW2 authorities claimed that they were collectivelly guilty and I spoke about reasons why they were labeled as enemies of the people by Yugoslav authorities. And I also did not wrote that "We are all Radovan", so you should ask yourself who wrote that and more important - why he wrote that? Dont you think that "Obraz", "Nacionalni stroj" and similar organizations are simply an reaction of the people who read what you (and your friends) writte on Internet about Serbs? The bat have two ends, mister Bendeguz. Regarding the sources, do you want that I list here names of all 50-60 books that I have about this subject? Sorry, but I do not have time for that. However, if you want that I say where I found any specific quotation, I will be happy to help. PANONIAN (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What a honour Panonian! I, (and my friends) are responsible for arousal of Fascism in Serbia! I, (and my friends) like modern Gavrilo Princips were created the history of the Balkans! I thought that SANU and their Memorandum (under slogan "What Serbia got in war, it lost in peace!) are responsible for the Balkan eventsbetween 1991 and 1999. Sorry, my fault! The bills of the war costs send to my address, please.

Legend:

• green -Irony.
• orange -Mock.
• red -Hate, but somebody calls it truth.
• brown -Caricature.

Bendeguz 20:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bendeguz, it is exactly as I said, "your friends" are responsible for recent extremism in Serbia (in 2004 as you said). The irredentist propaganda against Serbs in Vojvodina started several years ago (for example this shit was published as early as in 1999). It is quite natural that some Serbs who read that shit form organizations like Obraz as a reaction to these threats. PANONIAN (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The fascism is mainly choice of the losers. Collectively as states or societies, and personally too. Serbia lost four wars between 1991 and 1999. Serbia is a loser state even today, I'm afraid a hopelessly loser. And this is the hotbed of the various isms.

This and similar "shits" are beans (pičkin dim) in comparison with TV Dnevnik (TV News) on Belgrade TV in the Milošević era. About half of the population is functionally analphabetic, about quarter of the population is analphabetic in Serbia, so the main informations come over the TV. And the knowledge of foreign languages is at very low level, consequently the internet isn't the first information channel. Please, feed somebody else with this nonsense.Bendeguz 00:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Milošević is dead, mister Bendeguz, if you did not noticed this is 2006 now. By the way, it is very questionable whether Serbs lost or won some of these wars - in Bosnia Serbs have their own entity and in Serbia, let just say that Serbia will be more stable country without 2 million Kosovar Albanians in it, so yes, Serbia did lost these Albanians but what it would do with them anyway if they stayed in Serbia? After few decades these 2 million Albanians will become 6 million and then they would be majority in Serbia, not Serbs. So, is it really a "lost" for Serbia? I do not think so... PANONIAN (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing which is responsible for extremism are intolerant people like you, my dear panonian, who cannot endure that people with other culture, other language, other look are living in their country.

And one more additional thing: The Hungarians in Transylvania, Voivodina, the Ukraine and Slovakia wouldn't be irredentist, if they weren't treated like second-class cititzens. I think, that the Serbian nationalists should realize this and change on their intolerant behaviour - and the same thing is of course true for Hungarians nationalists too. Think about this, panonian. Öcsi 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mister Öcsi, why you say that I am intolerant? What exactly in my behaviour is intolerant? Do you think that tolerant person should also tolerate irredentism? No, mister Öcsi, I tolerate people with other culture and language that live in my country - you can notice that it was me that wrote several articles about minorities in Serbia. Now, what is really a problem with Hungarian question here? I will tell you what is problem: I do not see a problem that Hungarians live as majority in several municipalities in northern Serbia (Senta, Kanjiža, etc). Hungarians live as majority in northern part of Vojvodina and that is fact, as well as they live in part of Slovakia and Transylvania. Problem is that some Hungarian irredentists here on Wikipedia want to "prove" that WHOLE Vojvodina, WHOLE Slovakia and WHOLE Transylvania are in fact "ancient Hungarian lands" and that because of this they should be part of Greater Hungary. You see, that is a thing what I have problem with and if one Serb from Serbia want to be tolerant person then he should tolerate Hungarians who live in Senta and Kanjiža but he have no reason to tolerate irredentism. Ask yourself mister Öcsi why Kanjiža article is still a stub, why no single Hungarian editor of Wikipedia still did not wrote history of Hungarians from this town. Instead of this, the Hungarian editors are too busy to prove "Hungarian historical rights" to whole Vojvodina, whole Slovakia and whole Transylvania. It is a clear disruption of Wikipedia. Instead of useful edits that they could made they doing this. It is very very sad mister Öcsi. Finally, mister Öcsi, here is an interesting illustration what an Hungarian author (Bibo Istvan) wrote about Hungarian irredentists: he wrote that after Trianon they were not able to see the difference between former territories of the Kingdom of Hungary that had non-Hungarian majority and were mature enough to be separated from Hungary and territories separated from Hungary that had Hungarian majority. PANONIAN (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that many hungarians only like to argue about the whole Hungarians-abroad-topic and are not really interested in their problems or their culture. But I am.

Nevertheless this is not the thing we are talking about; you wrote that the problems in Voivodina came from the hungarian people living there... THIS IS NONSENSE!!!! They are frustrated, because they are still treated like second-class citizens: They get insulted, beaten up and discriminated, although many of them are working hard and like their home country. Maybe they would like Serbia more, if they were treaten friendlier. It wouldn't need much effort, and the whole situation would improve. Öcsi 20:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No mister Öcsi, I never said that the problems in Vojvodina came from the Hungarian people living there, so please do not put words into my mouth, ok? What I said is that problems in entire Central Europe come from Hungarian nationalists (no matter where they live) who constantly spread irredentist no-Trianon propaganda and insulting all their neighbours with it. The way how Serbs, Slovaks or Romanians sometimes treat Hungarians is a direct consequence of that propaganda. There is an old Balkanic saying (it is not Serbian one) that say that "to be free you have not only to liberate your own village but also to burn the village of your neighbour who belong to other ethnicity or religion". What is a point? When one Hungarian irredentist say that Vojvodina should belong to Greater Hungary and some Serb in Vojvodina heard this, the Serb (not every one, but there are those who would) will go out, find some Hungarian on the street, beat him and force him to leave the country - the logic of that Serb is simple and has much to do with Balkanic saying that I mentioned: if he force Hungarian to leave, then he will ensure that his town and village will never belong to Greater Hungary, i.e. he will ensure his own freedom. So, mister Öcsi, do you see what actually I done here on Wikipedia? By removing irredentist stuff from the articles, I also prevented that some Serb who read that stuff go out to street to beat Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New version of maps :)

Do I see well, dear Pannonian, your maps have started co converge to my keynote map? --fz22 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Úgy néz ki. Hihihi :) Öcsi 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

every single word

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)

• According to them: yes according to those who deny a Magyar majority in Vojvodina, but let me point this out again: according to Hungarian mainstream most of the Slavs were assimilated until the end of the 12th century except those who lived near the Hungarian-Czeck border, in North-east Hungary and in Srem (and of course Croatia). You are obviously smarter then they are to know everything, I guess ... fz22

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)

Magyars were powerfull enough to spread outside the Carphatians, they formed huge colonies in present day Oltenia (Szorenyseg), near the river Ilonka(Ialomita), Buzau/Bodza/Bozam down to the Danube (Galati), and of course in Moldova ... --fz22 08:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have a map here from my historic atlas[2], which shows a map very similar to fz's one, with the title: demopraghics of KOH at the time of the Arpad dynasty. And the Arpad dynasty died out about 1300, therefore assimilation was completed before the 14th century. --Öcsi 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I don't say that my map is absolutely saying the truth, I only added a new fact. I don't know where the Sokácok came from, they (the Sokci), don't know either (the Mars is a quite good option:).

Well, "about 1300" is a beginning of the 14th century, but the death of Endre in 1301 is only the last year of the whole Arpad dynasty, why don't they write: "demographics of the KOH in 1301"? --Öcsi 15:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Öcsi, you just proved my both points here:

• 1. "I don't know where the Sokácok came from, they (the Sokci), don't know either". They obviously do not know where they came from because they came from nowhere, but are a native people of the area. :)
• 2. Since your map also do not mention exact year which is shown on it, it can be demographics in 1301 as well. Of course, I do not dispute that map can also show situation in the 13th century, but early 14th century was time when number of Slavs in Vojvodina was lowest and I do not think that we can have map that show lower number of Slavs than on this one drawn by fz. PANONIAN (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1) They are native, but since when? Since the Middle Ages? Since the Ottoman rule? It's rather the last one, because their first written source is from the end of the 16th century.

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)

• 2) It could be easily, that the map shows the situation in the 12/13th century, because according to another map, a whole hungarian tribe, the tribe of Tas settled in the area of the southern Bácska and western Banat --> the assimilation is much higher, when a whole tribe is involved, than if only some hungarian settlers are living in a slavic populated area, as in the region of the Karpato-Ukraine, which remained dominantly Slavic until the 14/15th century. --Öcsi 13:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

1910 census

I will try to sum up for you again.

We have concured already that the census system in Hungary was based on native language. OK, so far. Sometime /all the time/ you confuse this term with the spoken languege(s). Right? After 1880, the Hungarian Statistical Office predefinied this term (native language) as the language spoken by a given person in his/her early life and at the time of the survey. Beside this question there were many others (spoken language, denominational appertenence, etc) While other countries (Romania, Serbia) adopted different teqniques (based on ethnicity on his own admission) But the main goal was the same to find out (among others) the precise number of minorities. Taking it all roaund the hungarian specialist projected the results on a map and created the ethnic map of Hungary. Why do you think that the "ethnicity on his own admission" census is much objective, or reliable, then the Hungarian one? Are you a specialist in this domain? We can add a footnote all the time when this problem arise, but I think a link here is quite enough. This is an interactive encyclopedia, marry come up! This is why I said I can't see any further explanation on Serbian maps about the survey techniques. Regards --fz22 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I will give you one example: Subotica. According to the last 2002 census, ethnic Serbs comprised 24.14% of population in this municipality, while Serbian language was spoken by 46.60% of population. You see how these two things are different. In 1910, Hungarian language was not spoken only by ethnic Hungarians, but also by Jews, Bunjevci and others. For example, in 1910 in Subotica were majority Bunjevci who were bilingual (or half-Magyarized), i.e. they spoke both languages, Slavic and Hungarian. During Hungarian rule in 1910 they declared that they speak Hungarian and during South Slavic state (in 1921, 1931) they declared Slavic, but they in fact spoke both languages. Therefore, it is clear that many of declared speakers of Hungarian from 1910 ARE NOT ETHNIC HUNGARIANS. Therefore, if you (or your friend) want to post this map here, then please change this map to reflect REAL situation, not wishful thinking. PANONIAN (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Pannonian, this is another good example that you don't want to understand what is the difference between the native language and the spoken language. In your example are you talking about the first or the second? 24.4 were ethnic Serbs, and in the same time 46% of the population declared the Serbian language as being their mother tounge/native language?? Or what?

Unfortunately I cant recreat ethnic maps according to your criterias. Instead I have maps created by famous Hungarian demographers, whether you like/contest them or not. Moreover these standards are supported by the Statistical Office of the European Union too. You cant simply delete a type of map just because it cannot fit in your POV or it was created using other survey methods ... --fz22 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I corrected map by myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Languages_1910_V.png But, since I have no more than 3 reverts, I will add that map tomorrow. PANONIAN (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, this is not "my" POV, but generally accepted standards that information should be CORRECT. I simply do not understand how user Bendeguz can purposelly to create maps with false information to deceive readers of Wikipedia. If census recorded language, and if we interpret results of the census then WE MUST SAY THAT IT IS LANGUAGE. We cannot say that it is ethnicity because, it is not. It is FALSE information. By the way, the largest language spoken in Vojvodina in 1910 was Serbian, so I also mentioned Serbian first and Hungarian second in this map - the map made by user Bendeguz which mentioned Hungarians first and Serbs 5th (no matter that number of Serbs was larger) is only another example of his nationalism, and the only thing that he will achieve with his behaviour is to collect more votes for Serbian Radical Party. PANONIAN (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy Panonian! There was no Vojvodina in 1910. You HAVE NOT MY PERMISSION to modify my map (Own work, attribution required (Multi-licence with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5)). You can create your own if you want. And your accusations...NO COMMENT.--Bendeguz 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was no Vojvodina in 1910, why you draw its map? Second thing: I first asked you to modify this map by yourself, but you did not done this. Either way, only modified map can be posted here. Either modify it by yourself, either we will use one modified by me, but it is out of question that we use map with FALSE DATA. PANONIAN (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, Bendeguz, I DO HAVE your permission to modify this map because you posted this map under GDFL licence which allow to anybody "to copy, distribute and/or modify this document". PANONIAN (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But this is not the same map. The original map is an ethnic map, created using several questions: {Q1+Q2+...+Qi}=>(HEM)HungarianEthnicMap. Serbian maps are created using other questions: {Q'1+Q'2+...+Q'i} => SerbianEM. You took out a question randomly and you said there were/are no HEM at all, in the last 130 year and the Hungarian demographers have used only Q1 to create their own ethnic maps ... Must be kidding or simply deny a widely accepted census method... Again this is not the projection on a map of the question #1 from the 1910 census, but an ethnic map created using ALL questions and results. --fz22 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, fz, map created by Bendeguz is not an ethnic map because ethnic map would show Bunjevac majority in Subotica and it do not show this. Besides, how you know what questions Bendeguz used? Are you his sockpuppet or what? Also, what questions you talk about? There were only two questions on that census - language and religion. I know mathematics good enough to know that religion + language is not = ethnicity. Map made by Bendeguz correspond with 1910 census results about language that I saw, while ethnic map of Vojvodina in 1910 would be much closer to 1921 census results about language. PANONIAN (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course Bendeguz's map wasn't created by himself personaly, he was not traveled back in time to ask the people about their ethnic apartenence. No, you wrong there were many other questions: native, vulgar, other language(s), religion, etc. And as we both know there were/are many methods to determine the ethnic composition of a region. The method used by Serbians, Romanians, and some other European countries was/are based on the person's own admission about ethnicity. You claim this is the best and single way. I said from many reason (people don't like to reveal their ethnic afiliation directly ) the hungarians, austrians and many other european countries use another methods.

One more thing if you ever saw a map from a Hungarian history atlas you can see maps showing census datas about religion, economy, and native language composition(Qi) etc, but you can find also maps with titles: Ethnic composition oh Hungary, Austria Hungary, Greater Hungary or whatever you want. This is a conclusion(SUM(Qi))!

And what about the Roma people, they are "uncountable" :)(using whichever method). Though they are still present on the modern ethnic maps (conclusion) regards --fz22 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fz, you have no idea what you talk about. See this: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab21.htm You will notice there that this Hungarian web site list there ethnic groups. Now see "sources" section below the table - you will notice that source for this are censuses which recorded mother/native tongue, i.e. the only methodology used there was that mother language data from those censuses was presented as "ethnicity data". That is the whole story about methodology here. Of course, it is different from methodology used in modern Serbia which record both, ethnicity and language, but exactly that is a problem - comparison between map made by Bendeguz and ethnic map from 2002 (assuming that both are made in different methodology) create a false impression about false demographic changes, i.e. that is comparison of something that cannot be compared. Furthermore, see this: http://www.talmamedia.com/php/district/district.php?county=B%E1cs-Bodrog This web site present exact data from 1910 census and list the two questions from the census - language and religion. There is no ethnicity listed there. Wherever you found that somebody presented 1910 census data about ethnicity, you should know that he done nothing else instead to present language data claiming that it is ethnicity data. I already exaplained why this method is wrong especially if there is great difference between language and actual ethnicity (i.e. the existence of Hungarian-speaking Jews, half-Magyarized Bunjevci, etc), thus presenting language data as ethnicity data would also present that ethnic Jews and Bunjevci were in fact ethnic Hungarians (and that is wrong because they were not Hungarians). Regarding methods used in western European countries, these methods are pretty backward and non-democratic because those countries even do not recognize their minorities. For example, in France, ethnic Bretons are not even recognized as an ethnic group, but only as linguistic group. Of course, that is not our subject. Simply, map made by Bendeguz present nothing else instead of language data from 1910 census and there is no single reason that we present here this language data as "ethnicity data". On the contrary, we have every reasons to present census data accurate as it is. Claims that those results show data about ethnicity is nothing but personal interpretation of mister Bendeguz and others involved in this problem, but such claims are far from accuracy. Language data from 1910 census can only approximately to show relative size of corresponding ethnic groups, but in places with high ethnic diversity such was Vojvodina in 1910 even this is not possible. PANONIAN (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, Pannonian, in both country (Hungary and Serbia) the purpose of demographers was to know exactly the ethnic composition of Hungary or Serbia. To achieve this they've used different methods. Hungarians created ethnic maps using their native language based census datas. You said Hungarian's maps must be keep away from this article, or at least reworked ... just because the Serbians use different methodology. Why don't you start reworking your maps, if you want to bring them all to a common denominator?? Moreover, The Hungarians demographers never hide their methods, and IMO it is enough to give a link to Hungarian census system, or Magyarisation page if you like.

BTW your first link: what is the table's title? "Ethnic structure of the population of the present territory of Vojvodina" You can fight against the Hungarian census system, but this is not the right place. Regards --fz22 09:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fz, the methods you talk about are not methods used in census, but some modern interpretations of its results. The methods in the census were clear - it recorded language and religion and nothing else, therefore the only problem that we have here is how to interpret those census results today. I proved that interpretation offered by you and mister Bendeguz is not correct, thus the best way to interpret results is to interpret them 100% correctly without speculations and guessing. And now I will prove to you what methods were used in this interpretation of census. First see this: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab22.htm You will notice that this site mention number of ethnic Hungarians in Subotica and you will notice that this number is 55,587. Now see this: http://www.talmamedia.com/php/district/district.php?county=B%E1cs-Bodrog You will notice that this web site mention languages spoken in Subotica and that the number of speakers of Hungarian language is also 55,587. What is a conclusion? The conclusion is that the only method used by those who present "ethnicity data" from this census is that they simply list language data claiming that it is ethnicity data. And I will repeat: such claims are nothing but modern interpretations and such interpretations do not correspond with reality (it is only one of many possible interpretations of census results because one other interpretation that would compare those census results with those from 1921 would come to conclusion that ethnic majority in Subotica were Bunjevci and that is only one example). I already said this, but I will repeat: if census showed that 55,587 citizens of Subotica spoke Hungarian, you cannot claim that all of them were ethnic Hungarians because some of them were Hungarian-speaking ethnic Jews or bilingual half-Magyarized ethnic Bunjevci, who spoke both languages, Slavic and Hungarian. Now tell me, what exactly you do not understand here, mister fz? PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

They not just spoke Hungarian ... they said: the hungarian language is our mother tounge!! Do you see what I mean? (I speak romanian not equal I'm Romanian or Romanian is my native language). BTW even today the appartenence to the Hungarian nation is something linked with the culture, native language, and less to the ethnicity. (see Hungarian certificate and Statuw Law) Whether you like it or not you must accept this. According to this in Hungary and other european countries being Hungarian = native language is Hungarian. Even maps were created usgin this criteria. Your example would stand only if we would be able to see two consecutive census from the 1910. One based on ethnicity other on native language. Instead we have one from 1910 and the next census was held after Trianon. As most of the Magyars from Slovakia were forced to declare themself as Slovaks after the WWII, the same thing happened in the post-Trianon Kingdom of SCS ... --fz22 15:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, do you understand what word "bilingual" mean? It mean that person can have more than one mother tongue - not only two, but in some cases person can have even 3 or 4 mother tongues. Difference between 1910 and 1921 census in Subotica clearly show that it was same population that in 1910 declared to speak Hungarian language and in 1921 declared Slavic. But guess what? They were not ethnic Hungarians and if somebody asked them a question what is their ethnic origin, the answer that they would give is Bunjevci. Claim that they were ethnic Hungarians only because they declared Hungarian as their language simply cannot stand and is nothing but personal opinion and modern (wrong) interpretation of census results. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present correct information, if we want to present correct information, we must to say that 1910 census recorded language and not ethnicity. I do not see what possibly could be problem with this? If somebody created "ethnic map" based on language data from census that does not mean that we should do same thing here in Wikipedia. On the contrary, if we have clear indications (and we do have them) that this interpretation is not correct, then we have no reason to do this. Regarding censuses in Kingdom of SCS, those censuses also did not recorded ethnicity, but language - ethnicity is recorded only in post-ww2 censuses after 1948, thus your claim that Magyars in SCS were "forced to declare themselves as other ethnicity" is ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again. Your maps simple conflict with WP:OR, in addition, you maliciously confuse language (declared Hungarian as their language) with native language. Of course, we can negotiate why a huge percentage of the people declared themself as Hungarians in 1910, 20 year later became Bunyevac or why a bilingual family choosed the Hungarian as native language, or why the "Hungarian" schwabians from Sathmar beat other Schwabians just because in 1941 thay became members of Volksbund ;) But your maps are still fake ...--fz22 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again: PEOPLE IN 1910 DID NOT DECLARED THEMSELVES AS HUNGARIANS. There was no question about ethnicity in 1910 census. Why I have to repeat this to you over and over? I already gave answer to all your questions in my previous posts. Map that I modified show 1910 census results about language and it is not fake. If you claim that it is, please prove it. PANONIAN (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't count. I never was asked if I want to be a Romanain subject or not. I was born there -> I'm a Romanian subject (question->conclusion). So the Romanian state decided my apartanance in my stead. Similarly in Hungary was used the formula: Hungarian is native language = Hungarian. As I said you have the right to contest this, but you can't recreate maps on you own concept ... Why don't you create maps saying in Romania there are only 19 million Romanian subject, because 1.4 million Hungarian never declared themselfs as Romanain?!?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fz22 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Question where you was born is not a subject of this article, but unless something was recently changed, the Romanian census allow to people to declare themselves as ethnic Hungarians. Regarding formula used in the Kingdom in Hungary, that formula in fact was that all citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary are ethnic Hungarians. Of course, this formula was rejected by great majority of ethnic non-Hungarians and was seen as an apartheid. Other formula that everybody who speak Hungarian is an ethnic Hungarian is only MODERN INTERPRETATION of the 1910 census. I told you that other interpretation also exist and if you insist on your own interpretation, then I will be forced to draw new map with different interpretation of census results from 1910 (i.e. the map that show Bunjevac majority in Subotica). PANONIAN (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

that formula in fact was that all citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary are ethnic Hungarians This is absolutely wrong and I wonder where do you take this information

that everybody who speak Hungarian is an ethnic Hungarian Obvioulsy you deliberatley mix things up here. The truth is only the native speakers were considered ethnic Hungarians and this is not just a modern interpretation ...--fz22 10:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fz, do you think that Serbs, Romanians and Slovaks that lived in the Kingdom of Hungary fought for their rights only because they liked to fight or because they did not had those rights? The Hungarian administration did not recognized them as ethnic groups - much of political fight of Serb deputies in the parliament of the Kingdom of Hungary was about right of Serbs to be recognized as nation. PANONIAN (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Science fiction?

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).

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)

You explained nothing to me, Panonian. You gabble us about Bunjevatz people and Jews and nothing else. You have no arguments. You didn't catch the difference between spoken language and native language, this is evident.

The 1921 census is at least biased as census from 1941. The goal of the new authorities was to certify the sentence what said a colonist from Lika (Serbian) to the old dayman Miska (Hungarian) in the Veljko Petrović's novel "Miška eregbiroš" so: "This was Serbian land and remains Serbian land". The story is set in the neighbourhood of Sombor ANNO DOMINI 1921-1922.

Let we see the 1931 census. How the deuce happened that after 12 years of ruthless Serbianisation in Subotica the number of Hungarians increased (almost 15,000 people from the last census) and the number of Slavs decreased (more than 7,000 people from the last census)? After the Serbian authorities closed down every Hungarian middle school, theater, cultural associations, everything what smelt of Hungarian. The clerks, the soldiers, the teachers, the actors, the musicians, almost all of the head-workers went to Hungary, and we have these curious results from 1931 census. Really curious! --Bendeguz 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

August 2007 (UTC)