Talk:Hungarian Regional Autonomy

Benefits

40% of the article are facts, 60% are controversy and 0% benefits. It is a bit unbalanced. I would suggest 60% facts, and 20-20% benefits and controversy. That would sound more balanced. The controversy arguments are interesting, some of them could be acceptable, but they seem to be opinion and discussion rather than facts. I suggest to write a benefits section. Maybe it has got, if most of the Hungarians in Serbia want this kind of autonomy in the last 17 years. Fcsaba 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Civic Alliance

Hungarian Civic Alliance links to the wrong place. There are 2 different parties with the name Hungarian Civic Alliance, one of them in Romania and the other one in Serbia. According to the text this refers to the Hungarian Civic Alliance in Serbia, but it links to the page of Hungarian Civic Alliance in Romania.

I assume Wikipedia is about the sake of 'knowledge'. I would like to ask anyone not to misuse it. I do not see any beneficial in transmiting clearly unbalanced, false information on it. While reading this article, it was clear for me that it was written by someone who is against the discussed idea and trying to collect and share as many information as possible to justify these beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.191 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novi Kneževac

Has Novi Kneževac really been proposed as part of this "Hungarian Regional Autonomy" by the Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians?--Zoupan 20:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian Regional Autonomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811224233/http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf to http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

This article is a classic example of unsourced WP:OR. The Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians supports (continued) autonomy for Vojvodina (as present in statute), not any partition of Hungarian-inhabited territory.--Zoupan 06:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for modification not deletion. The subject is obviously notable. --Calthinus (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your having removed one long, unreferenced section, Calthinus, the majority of the content is still unreferenced. I'm going to tag it for more refs. Given the length of time that's been allowed for development, it needs a push towards some form of decisive action. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy That I do agree with. I'm quite busy but it really isn't hard to find sources for this, not a bit. Here's some: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]][[4]] --Calthinus (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]