Jump to content

Talk:Novi Sad/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Population of Novi Sad

I am wondering if someone can clarify the definitions of certain terms. In the "Population" section, the "urban" area of Novi Sad is defined as consisting of the two "municipalities" of Petrovaradin and Novi Sad. However, in the "Demographics" section, it refers to the "urban" population of Novi Sad as being lower that the "municipal area" population of Novi Sad. If "Novi Sad" is the name of both a smaller "municipality" and larger "urban" area, should the "municipal area" of Novi Sad not be SMALLER than the urban area, which includes Petrovardin? Or was the author trying to say "metropolitan area" (or something similar) in the Demographics section? Some clarification would help, as I find the wording very confusing as it stands.

The issue is indeed little complicated, so I will try to explain. This map show the entire territory of the City of Novi Sad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Novi_Sad.png This territory is divided into 2 municipalities (which are not shown on the map). Now, both municipalities have urban and rural part. The urban Novi Sad include 3 settlements: Novi Sad, Petrovaradin and Sremska Kamenica (It is shown on this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Novi_sad_quarters.png ). When we speak about "urban Novi Sad" we speak about area shown on that map and when we speak about municipal area we speak about first map. In another words, term Novi Sad have 4 meanings here: 1. The City of Novi Sad (first map) 2. the municipality of Novi Sad (which is not shown on the first map, but I might correct this map to show that) 3. the urban Novi Sad (second map) 4. Novi Sad proper or the settlement of Novi Sad itself excluding Petrovaradin and Kamenica. Also the term "metropolitan area" could define urban Novi Sad (number 3) + Futog, Veternik, Ledinci and Bukovac. PANONIAN (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I draw the map of municipalities now too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Novi_Sad07.png PANONIAN (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the number of 215,000 residents from "census 2002"- there was no such thing. On the official webpage of Novi Sad it clearly says that the last census was undertaken back in 1991, at what time Novi Sad and Petrovaradin had a combined population of 246,000; metropolitan area also includes cities such as Sremska Kamenica, Karlovci etc and combined population reaches almost 400,000. I've just uploaded the info from the official website, check it out: [1]

"I don't know where you got the number of 215,000 residents from "census 2002"- there was no such thing."

Of course there was such thing. Last census in Serbia was in 2002. If you do not know this, visit the official statistical web sites:

You can download there PDF documents with population numbers for all cities and places in Serbia from the last census. The population figure of 215,659 is a population figure from 2002 census for Novi Sad, Petrovaradin and Sremska Kamenica counted together, as these 3 settlements are parts of urban Novi Sad. Also, the area of Novi Sad do not comprise Sremski Karlovci any more, since this municipality was part of Novi Sad until 1989, but after this year it is completelly separate municipality with no administrative connection with Novi Sad. As for this site which claim that last census was in 1991, that site was obviously last time updated before 2002 census. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the document where you have 2002 census results:

PANONIAN (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We have three categories:
  • 1- "City of Novi Sad", whitch is all settlements in Novi Sad and Petrovaradin municipality
  • 2- Novi Sad and Petrovaradin urban municipalities
  • 3- "urban Novi Sad", part which is comprised of Novi Sad, Sremska Kamenica and Petrovaradin
  • 4- metropolitan Novi Sad, whitch is "urban Novi Sad" (NS, Sr.Kamenica and Petrovaradin), Futog, Veternik, Ledinci, Stari Ledinci and Bukovac; because these are parts connected.

(sorry for bad sppeling) --Göran Smith 15:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just two corrections>

  • 1. Only Ledinci (Novi Ledinci) are connected to Novi Sad. Stari Ledinci are not.
  • 2. We have also Novi Sad in its lowest possible meaning, i.e. the settlement of Novi Sad (without Petrovaradin and Kamenica). PANONIAN (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Serbian City

For Lephafta: I wonder why you deleted statement that Novi Sad was largest Serbian city in the 19th century? Here are some quotes about that:

  • Source: Djordje Randelj, Novi Sad slobodan grad, Novi Sad, 1997.

Quote: "Novi Sad was largest Serbian and South Slavic city in the 19th century".

  • Source: Jovan Mirosavljevic, Novi Sad atlas ulica, Novi Sad, 1998.

Quote: "In 1820 Novi Sad had 20,000 inhabitants, of which 2/3 were Serbs".

So, this statement is correct.

Second thing: you wrote that this article is not neutral, but you didn’t specify what exactly is not neutral here. If you think that this statement, which you deleted, was not neutral, then imagine this: What if somebody wrote that Paris was largest French city in the 19th century? I see nothing problematic with this statement. Why you deleted this in the case of Novi Sad? User:PANONIAN

I have problems with the construction of the fact I've erased. I find it incomplete without additional facts. I mean details like why did Novi Sad become a Serbian city, if we could call a city a national city in the Habsburg Empire or even later in the multilingual Austro-Hungarian Monarchy by that time. Lephafta

  • Novi Sad was called Serbian City because it was mainly populated with Serbs. Serbs are Orthodox Christians and that is why it was not allowed for Serbs to settle in neighbouring Petrovaradin. That is why Serbs founded new city on the other side of river Danube, which was called Serbian City (Ratzen Statt) in early historical records. User:PANONIAN

It's fine that you've listed these references, but I'd rather not rely on the literature that was published in the last 80 years, especially between 1945 and 2000. Writers are always inaccurate (checked!) when talking about numbers in Vojvodina. Lephafta

  • These books are based on older sources. For example, Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (reformer of Serbian language) also wrote that Novi Sad is largest Serbian city in 19th century. User:PANONIAN

"History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, 'What is history, but a fable agreed upon?'"

Cited from Dan Brown's: The Da Vinci Code Lephafta

  • I disagree with this statement that history is written by the winners (anybody could to write history, no matter if he "win" or "lost" wars). Also people who "lost" wars usually use irredentist propaganda to justify eventual future political changes. User:PANONIAN

Let me answer your example with another example: Let's say that Senta has the largest Hungarian population in Vojvodina. You can't say that it is the largest Hungarian city in Vojvodina since it's not Hungarian. It's just a town in Serbia predominantly populated by Hungarians! Novi Sad probably was biggest, however, it was also a town in the Habsburg Empire, which seems to be forgotten when mentioned. Lephafta

  • Actually, Senta is largest Hungarian town in Vojvodina. There are two possible ways to use these terms (Serbian, Hungarian, etc.). One of these uses referring to statehood and the other to ethnicity. Besides, there was no independent Serbian state in 1820. Lands and cities populated with Serbs were divided between Austria and Ottoman Empire in that time. But the fact that these Empires ruled over those cities doesn’t change the fact that these cities were Serbian. And I think that I mentioned that city was under Austrian rule. User:PANONIAN

The reason I considered it not to be neutral is that I've found a lot of mistakes, misconstruction and omission of relevant data. Lephafta

  • Sorry, but I do not agree with you. I really tried to write this as much correct as possible and I regard this data as relevant. If you think that something else should be written you are free to write that too, but please do not delete what I wrote with accusation that this is not relevant. Historians who wrote books where I found these facts would not agree with you about that. User:PANONIAN

I'm trying to find a pretty neutral reference but it does not seem to be existing. I found a monography written by Menyhért Érdujhelyi in the 1890's (translated by himself into Serbian in 1894) but he was also angry with the Royalists, so he put a gloss on the truth by magnifying the numbers and leaving out really important facts (he divides the residents into Serbians and Catholics, not mentioning the second group's nationality, probably because he based his calculations on the number of churches). The work (in Serbian) was later republished/reprinted many times in the 20th century.

Next week I will try to collect as many references as I can to make my doubts clear. For the meantime, I think the most relevant media is the "Carte Rouge" (the ethnical distribution in the Carpathian basin). I have a reprint from 1927, so it cannot be scanned. Contact me if you want to take a look at it.

I hope, we'll cooperate!

Lephafta 19:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As for cooperation, I have no problem that somebody include here history of other nations who live in Novi Sad (Hungarians, Slovaks, etc). I only have problem if somebody want to delete history of Serbs. User:PANONIAN

Celts

Original source in Serbian, which I translated into English, says: Prvo utvrdjenje na obali Dunava podigli su Kelti. The source speaks about history of Petrovaradin, and the sentence speaks about the first fortress, which was founded at this location. The meaning is that this fortress was founded by Celts. So, it was not the first fortress of the Celts, but the first fortress at this location. The source only mentions that Celts founded this fortress, but it is not their first fortress, only the first fortress at this location. User:PANONIAN

I was not trying to say that it was the first fortress of the Celts ever; I was trying to say that it was the first fortress of the Celts on the right bank of the Danube, which is what the original version indicated. I was merely trying to rephrase it to make it easier for an English-speaker to understand. To clear things up completely- was this fortress the Celts' first fortress on the entire right bank of the Danube, or was it just the Celts' first fortress at this specific location? The original version before I began editing this article was unclear.
I apologize for the "15th century" Huns edit- I had been making a lot of edits on a number of pages and accidentally included a 1 there. Olessi 21:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now where my mistake was. I didn’t explain this issue well. When I wrote that this was first fortress at this location, then you may ask where are other fortresses if the first one is here, right? Fact is that there were several fortresses at this same location during the history. The first one was founded by Celts, Romans founded the second one, Hungarians founded the third one, and Austrians founded the last one (which still exist). So, these are the other fortresses. The sentence, which I translated from Serbian have nothing to do with other Celtic fortresses, but with the other non-Celtic fortresses at this same location. I hope that you understand now. User:PANONIAN

Axis occupation

For anonimous user 193.11.239.144: I have to inform you about some facts here:

1. What you claim to be "a Hungarian point of view" is actually a Axis point of view. Many Hungarians who lived in Novi Sad were part of the resistance movement and fought together with Serbs, Slovaks and others against the Axis authorities who occupied their city. Also, many ethnic Hungarians in Novi Sad were the victims of these Axis authorities.

2. Between 1941 and 1944 Yugoslavia was internationally recognized sovereign state and Novi Sad was legally part of it. All foreign troops in that time were illegally located on the territory of one sovereign state - Yugoslavia. The occupation and partition of Yugoslavia was never recognized by the international community. So, I do not write here against any nation. This article do not say anything bad about Hungarians. This article only speaks against Axis ideology and its followers. Most Hungarians do not accept this ideology and do not agree with it. Also, the history I wrote in the article was from the official publication published by the City Council of Novi Sad.

3. There is no neutral way to write about Axis authorities. One of the generally accepted truths of the World is that Axis Powers were evil, and the only way to write about them is to condemn them and their policies.

4. I changed the word "liberation" since you did not like it. What is your objection now?

5. Last thing: I also have the pictures of the killed civilians in Novi Sad during the Axis occupation and I have list with the names of every single murdered citizen (And there are many Hungarian names in this list). If you like I can make a new article only about this. Something like: "Genocide in Vojvodina and Novi Sad between 1941 and 1944". User:PANONIAN

1. I am only trying to make you understand why you can´t in any form use the word "liberation" in a neutral encyclopedia. The word "liberation" is always onesided.

2. The occupation of Yugoslavia 1941, can be seen from many point of views. From a Hungarian point of view it (the reannexation of Vojvodina to Hungary) first of cource was a "liberation" for the Hungarians. When it later turned out to become a nazi-german, and fascist-italian invasion, then of course the "liberation" became something else...for everyone.

I hope that your word "liberation" of 1945 meant the liberation from the Nazis. That was truly a liberation. But if you talk about the liberation 1945 as a liberation from Hungary, this of cource becomes offending in the eyes of the Hungarians. It would also be just as offending in the eyes of the Serbs if I would have written that "the Hungarian army liberated the city 1941 and it was reannexed to Hungary". I never did so. It is wise to not use the word "liberation" when it comes to a dispute between two nations. The word "liberation" is always offending to one nation or another.

3. Novi Sad, and Vojvodina was truly reannexed to Hungary. I don´t know why you delete that... Is it not true? Another Hungarian "propaganda" that must be under cencorship? You clame that it formerly belonged to Austria-Hungary. That is in only partly true. The Kingdom of Hungary still remained as a suvereign state, and Vojvodina with Novi Sad was then a part of Hungary. And Hungary in turn was a part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire.

I already told you, do not use the term "Hungarian point of view", since it is only point of view of Hungarian nationalists from that time period. Most of the present day Hungarians do not share this view. And I already explained the situation about Yugoslavia and Novi Sad during the WW2, no reason to repeat. It was no "reannexation of Vojvodina to Hungary", but it was illegal occupation of the part of one sovereign country - Yugoslavia. The only legal recognized government in that time was the Yugoslav government in exile. All other civil and military structures located on the Yugoslav soil were illegal and were occupants (or traitors and enemies of the people, of course).

So, the liberation in 1945 means both, the liberation from Axis authorities and the liberation from foreign country, of course. And I do not see how can any decent Hungarian to be offended by this.

Also you cannot possibly compare the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary, which was part of Austria-Hungary and one expanzionist Axis state from WW2. Vojvodina was part of the Kingdom of Hungary before WW1, but this Kingdom was disintegrated after this war. The Hungarian state, which was created after this was something very different and Vojvodina was never part of it. Even during WW2 it was not part of it, since it was legally part of Yugoslavia and was occupied by the foreign troops, which came from that neighbouring state. User:PANONIAN

Are you trying to say that there is no Hungarian point of view? Didn´t the Hungarians see the reanexation of Vojvodina to Hungary as a liberation? I don´t think the half million Hungarians of Vojvodina were crying when the Hungarian army liberated the area... No, the Hungarians in Vojvodina had been living for 23 years under harsh conditions, until The Hungarian army liberated them from the cruel Serbian authorities.

Now you will say that this is all Hungarian propaganda, fantasies and non-sense. I know you will...

But I can tell you as God is my witness that the Serbian authorities weren´t any better to Hungarians and other minorities of Vojvodina after the 1918 and 1945 "liberation" then the Hungarian authorities were to Serbs in the 1941 "liberation". We all know what happend to the Hungarians living in Vojvodina in 1918 and after 1945, and what still is happening!!!!

You CANNOT denie it! The Nazis of Germany cannot denie the jewish holocaust! No country and authorities can denie there crimes. Not the Hungarians, not the Serbs.

Because you seem to be a Serbian nationalist you censored my previous contributions, so I will write then down here, once again and add some new.


1) "It was no "reannexation of Vojvodina to Hungary", but it was illegal occupation of the part of one sovereign country - Yugoslavia"

You talk about illegal occupation? Was the Serbian occupation of southern Hungary 1918 legal? It certanly was an illegal occupation of a part of one sovereign country - Hungary.


2) "Only the hard line Hungarian nationalist who still dream to occupy part of my country can be offended by this. Sorry pal, but your political views are very nationalistic and very bad."

Still dream to "occupy"? Oh no!! Not "occupy", but "liberate" my friend...

Excuse me pal....a part of YOUR country? Even a hard line Serbian nationalist could not say that Vojvodina was a part of Serbia before 1918. It is certanly not a lie to say that Vojvodina was a part of Hungary before 1918 and again in 1941-45. To take back a piece of a land that got lost is called reanexation. It is a correct technical term for the event.


3) "Also you cannot possibly compare the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary, which was part of Austria-Hungary and one expanzionist Nazi state from WW2."

You certanly got lost here... After the WWI Hungary was disintegrated by the victorious states of the Great War. Most of Hungary was stolen, or given away as a reward to those who supported the Entente side of the war. As Hungary was forced upon the treaty of Trianon 1920, 2/3 of the country was given away (mostly by the French). Since 1920 Hungary became a small but almost ethnicly homogenous country. But 1/3 of the magyar population was left outside the new borders because of the treaty of 1920, leaving Hungary as the only country in the world completely surrounded by her historical self! Now what happened? Hungary became an revisionist Monarchy. Not an expansionist Nazi state. Expansionist states are those states who dream of extending there borders into territories that NEVER BELONGED TO THE EXPANSIONIST STATE BEFORE! Therefore Hungary, NEVER can be counted among the expasionist countries during the WWII. And certanly not a Nazi state!


4) "Now tell me this: what kind of a country is a country which killing people only because of their ethnic origin?"

Interesting question. Where shall I start? Well, Serbia is a very good example of such a country. So was Nazi Germany, so was the Sovjet Union and so on... Serbia was also a good exaple of a country where racism, and ethnic cleansing was the daily agenda during the Kosovo war just for an example.

So let me ask you instead: What kind of country is Serbia where the police don´t act when people from a minority get beaten up just because of their language and ethnic origin?

What kind of a country is Serbia where scools of ethnic minorities are closed down just because of the childrens ethnic origin?

What kind of a country is Serbia where churches and properties are confiscated from people just because of their ethnic origin?

What kind of country is Serbia where people from ethnic minorities are forceassimilated?


5) "And kid, listen to this: my own cousins and ancestors were murdered in 1942 only because they were Serbs."

First of all.....don´t call me kid...!! Second of all: I am truly sorry if your cousins and ancestors were murdered.

By the way, I know people slaughtered on the battlefields of Kosovo. Forced to fight in the frontlines, of a war which they had nothing to do with. Forced to the frontlines, to achiev minimun Serb casualties. Just because they where of a different ethnic origin.

Now, tell me! What kind of country is Serbia?

And last of all. There is nothing but one Hungary, not WWI Hungary or WWII Hungary and such non-sense. At the present Hungary is disintegrated. As long as the surrounding countries can´t take the task of protecting minority rights seriously there will ALWAYS be a Hungarian point of view on everything.


P.S It would be very nice to stop this arguing....

There is no "Hungarian point of view" here. The term "Hungarian point of view" would mean that absolute all Hungarians think the same about this and it is not the case. The view, which you presenting here was only the view of hard line Hungarian nationalists from that time period (WW2). Even in that time, there were Hungarians who did not share these views, for example Pal Teleky, the Hungarian prime minister, commited suicide because he did not agree with the Hungarian aggression against Yugoslavia. Here is what he wrote: "We took sides with scoundrels. We’ll become the vultures! We’ll become the most despicable nation. I failed to prevent that. I feel responsible." So, there were many Hungarians who did not share the nationalist view and please do not try to identify Hungarians with hard line nationalists. And no matter how some Hungarians in Vojvodina felt about the Axis occupation, they were no ethnic majority there. According to Hungarian data, the occupied territories in 1941 had a population of 463,000 Serbs and Croats, 301,000 Hungarians, and about 200,000 others. The Hungarians were only about 30% of population. The percent of Hungarians who supported Axis regime was much lower than this of course.

Also, Hungarians in Yugoslavia were never persecuted as were Serbs and Jews in WW2 Hungary. The story about "persecuted Hungarians" served in that time only to justify the genocide against Serbs, Jews and others in WW2 commited by Hungarian Axis authorities. And here is what Pal Teleky wrote about "persecuted Hungarians in Yugoslavia": "Because the news on alleged atrocities (against Hungarians) does not contain a single word of truth! Neither the Hungarians nor even the Germans are threatened!".

"You talk about illegal occupation? Was the Serbian occupation of southern Hungary 1918 legal?"

  • Actually, it was, since these parts of Austria-Hungary were recognized as part of Serbia by the London contract in 1915. Serbian troops only entered in their part of dissolved Habsburg monarchy. Also the demarcation line from November-December 1918 as well as the Treaty of Trianon from 1920 confirmed this, while the Hungarian Axis occupation in 1941 was never recognized by any internationl document. Also, the Austria-Hungary was the one who attacked Serbia and started WW1. The one who start a war should not to cry when lost that war.

"It certanly was an illegal occupation of a part of one sovereign country - Hungary."

  • And yes, Hungary was not a sovereign country in that time, but part of Austria-Hungary.

"Even a hard line Serbian nationalist could not say that Vojvodina was a part of Serbia before 1918."

  • Vojvodina was not "part" of Serbia but Vojvodina itself was Serbia. The official name of Vojvodina between 1849 and 1860 was: Vojvodina of Serbia and Tamiš Banat (Duchy of Serbia and Tamiš Banat).

"It is certanly not a lie to say that Vojvodina was a part of Hungary before 1918 and again in 1941-45. To take back a piece of a land that got lost is called reanexation. It is a correct technical term for the event."

  • Vojvodina before 1918 WAS NOT a part of Axis Hungary as it was in WW2. It was part of Budapest part of Austria-Hungary and that is very different thing. Next, thing, the word "reanexation" was used by Hungarian Axis authorities, because they wanted with this word to justify their illegal occupation. And they did not only wanted to justify their occupation, but also their crimes and genocide commited against non-Hungarian local population. So, the word "reanexation" in this content acctually means a "justification" - justification for crimes and justifications for genocide, thus it is not acceptable.

"After the WWI Hungary was disintegrated by the victorious states of the Great War. Most of Hungary was stolen, or given away as a reward to those who supported the Entente side of the war."

  • Before the WW1, ethnic Hungarians were only 48% of the population of Hungary. So, the "Hungary" was not a "indefeasible property of Hungarians", but a multiethnic state. After WW1, the nationalities of Hungary simply took their part of the country.

"Hungary became an revisionist Monarchy. Not an expansionist Nazi state. Expansionist states are those states who dream of extending there borders into territories that NEVER BELONGED TO THE EXPANSIONIST STATE BEFORE! Therefore Hungary, NEVER can be counted among the expasionist countries during the WWII. And certanly not a Nazi state!"

  • Wrong. If your country is "small" and if you want to make it "bigger", then your country is a expansionist state. Also, if your country is ally of Nazi Germany, then your country is a Nazi State. Second thing: "the historicall ownership of land" is a Nazi idea. Every land belong only to people who live in that land in the mentioned time period, no matter who ruled over that land in any specific part of history. I can also claim that Hungarian town of Baja is a "historical property of Serbia" since it was part of Vojvodina of Serbia and Tamiš Banat between 1849 and 1860.

"Serbia was also a good exaple of a country where racism, and ethnic cleansing was the daily agenda during the Kosovo war just for an example"

  • Did I ever said that I support the acts of Serbian authorities in the time when Slobodan Milošević was in power? I did not. So, do not put words into my mouth. I have absolute same opinion about Vojvodina and Kosovo: both lands belong to people who live there now, and nobody is a historical owner of these lands. End of story. Besides this, Serbia is democratic country now, and minorities are treated well.

"By the way, I know people slaughtered on the battlefields of Kosovo. Forced to fight in the frontlines, of a war which they had nothing to do with. Forced to the frontlines, to achiev minimun Serb casualties. Just because they where of a different ethnic origin"

  • So, what you want to say? You want to say that Serbs who also were forced to go to the frontline in Kosovo had something with this war? That is where you wrong of course. Nobody who lived in Vojvodina or in the Central Serbia no matter was he a Serb, Hungarian or something else, and who was forced to go to the frontline in Kosovo war, had nothing to do with this war.

"There is nothing but one Hungary, not WWI Hungary or WWII Hungary and such non-sense. At the present Hungary is disintegrated. As long as the surrounding countries can´t take the task of protecting minority rights seriously there will ALWAYS be a Hungarian point of view on everything."

  • As, for Hungary, it is quite obvious that independent and autonomous Hungary can not be the same. And one more thing: do not insult the decent Hungarians with your claim that "nationalistic point of view" is a "Hungarian point of view".

"P.S It would be very nice to stop this arguing...."

Emotional terms

Emotional terms like "liberated" and "occupied" should be removed. (Not only in this article.) Other claims should be discussed here. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Millosh, the only proper term, which is used in the historical books to define the status of the city during WW2 is "occupation". City was legally part of Yugoslavia during entire war, and it was illegally held by invading Nazi troops. In the juristical terminology, the word "occupation" is only proper word for it. Besides this, we speak here about the Nazis, remember. Or you would say that Europe was not liberated from the Nazis in 1944/1945? User:PANONIAN

But, before the WWI it was a legal part of Austro-Hungary. Serbia won the war and (what?) Novi Sad; Austrians won the war against the Turks and (what?) Novi Sad; Turks won the war against Hungarians and (what?) Novi Sad; Hungarians came from Asia and (what?) Novi Sad (if Novi Sad existed in that time; I don't know)... "Liberation" is emotional term (unless we are talking about slaves and and similar situations). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that is why I removed word "liberation" from the sentence which spoke about 1918, but the situation in WW2 is quite clear. Entire Europe was occupied by Nazis, not only Novi Sad. There is difference between various armies, which conquered the city during the history, and Nazis from WW2, which clearly were occupants (even in their own countries). When Soviet Red Army entered Berlin in 1945, it was liberation of course. The fundamental principle on which our World is based is fight against Nazis in WW2. If we use the "neutral" view when we talk about Nazis, then we will disrupt the base of our society. User:PANONIAN

I have some interesting examples here (just some randomness articles):

"The city remained under German occupation until October 20, 1944, when it was liberated by Yugoslav Partisan forces and the Red Army."

"Warsaw became an occupied city under the control of the Nazi SS."

"1938 after political betrayal of allied (France and Britain at Munich) Germany occupied Sudetenland and in 1939 whole country"

"In April 1941 it was occupied by Italy"

etc, etc...User:PANONIAN

But, people from Latvia think that Germans liberated them (from Soviet occupation). Also, (around) 30-40% of inhabitants of Vojvodina (Germans and Hungarians) might think that Germans liberated them. When we are talking about Belgrade, Kragujevac, Ljubljana etc. -- we have more clear situation then about Zagreb, Subotica (or even Novi Sad), Sarajevo. In those cities majority or significant minority felt that they are liberated. Also, I don't think that we can talk about "liberation" of Sudetenland, too (there were, as I think, majority of German population). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Think about Yugoslav wars: what is the date of occupation of Knin and what is the date of liberation of Knin? The war is ended and "stable situation" means that it is under Croatian government. But, (maybe?) 80% of it's (former) inhabitants think that the town is occupated. So, it is better to sublimate the term "liberation" with some other term whenever we talk about not-so-clear situations and events. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will not comment how Latvians felt about German occupation, but I know how majority of people in Vojvodina felt about this. You might be right about the number of Germans and Hungarians who lived in Vojvodina in 1941 (I am not sure, since I do not have numbers from 1931 census), but you just cannot say that all of them supported invading Axis troops. It is just not correct. I know that almost entire German population was indoctrinated with Nazi ideology, but it is not the case with the Hungarians. Many Hungarians were partisans and fought together with Serbs, Slovaks, Croats and other nations of Vojvodina against the Axis troops. For example, the 15th Vojvodinian partisan brigade was composed entirely of Vojvodinian Hungarians. You cannot simply calculate the number of Hungarians in Vojvodina and say that they all supported Axis occupation. One number of them did, but the other number of them did not. And if we talk about Novi Sad only, for the majority of inhabitants of this city the entry of Axis troops was occupation and not "liberation". Besides this, all historical books, which I have about this time period claim that it was "occupation". I do not see different way to write this. By the way, Millosh, you should first to remove word "occupation" from the history section in the article about your own city, and then to propose similar removal here, dont you agree? :) And here is another example about liberation: the fact that somebody is a Serb and live in Serbia still do not mean that he is "free". I did not felt "free" in Serbia when Slobodan Milošević was in power. I simply do not understand what kind of "freedom" anybody can have if he live under the regime of Adolf Hitler or Miklos Horthy? User:PANONIAN

Inače Miloše da bih malo razjasnio problem, citiraću ti neke navode iz knjige "Vojvodina u borbi" (Zbirka članaka iz narodnooslobodilačke borbe, uredio Živan Milisavac, Novi Sad, 1951). Poglavlje u knjizi je naslovljeno: "Učešće jugoslovenskih Mađara u narodnooslobodilačkoj borbi", a napisao ga je Karolj Brindza:

"U Vojvodini su i mađarski komunisti prionuli organizacionom radu. Naročito uspešan bio je rad u Subotici i Novom Sadu. Već 1941, u junu i julu, osnivaju se partijske organizacije u Subotici, Senti, Adi, Topoli, Čantaviru, Moravici, Somboru, Telečki, Bezdanu, Novom Sadu, Bečeju, Petrovom Selu, itd. i u partijskim redovima svugde nalazimo, u nekim mestima, - u Senćanskom i Topolskom srezu - čak u većini Mađare. U Subotičkom okrugu sekretar i većina članova partiskog vođstva su Mađari, odnosno pomađareni Jevreji. U Topolskom srezu organizovano je oko stotinu komunista, od toga 95% Mađara."

"Među Mađarima uspešno obavlja organizacioni rad Erne Kiš. U prvim danima okupacije već je član Pokrajinskog komiteta. U leto 1941 okupatori su ga uhvatili, a segedinski preki sud osudio na smrt."

"Najbolji mađarski komunisti shvatili su da će samo tako doprineti oslobođenju svoga naroda, ako se bez kolebanja angažuju u ovoj borbi koju je Komunistička partija Jugoslavije pokrenula za oslobođenje svoje zemlje i da bi pomogla borbu Sovjetskog Saveza, kao i čitave antifašističke koalicije."

"Prvi požar buknuo je u futoškom hataru u okolini Novog Sada. Pet odlučnih komunista zapalilo je nekoliko zamašnih kamara žita. Među ovima su dvojica Mađari: Antal Nemet i Đerđ Nemet. Antal Nemet je zajedno sa jednim drugom Srbinom pao odmah tu u borbi koja je vođena sa žandarima"

Inače, poglavlje je poduže, ali sam ovde samo citirao neke zanimljive delove. Dakle, vojvođanski Mađari su se itekako borili protiv okupatora i potpuno je pogrešno gledište identifikovati Mađare sa Hortijevim režimom. Dakle, ovde se uopšte ne radi ni o kakvom sukobu Srba i Mađara, već o sukobu fašizma i antifašizma (S tim da su i Srbi i Mađari bili na obe strane u ovom sukobu). To je ono što ja uporno ovde zastupam. Neki današnji pokušaji da se rehabilituju ustaše ili hortijevci su primer nasilja nad istorijom i smatram da takvo nasilje ne treba tolerisati. User:PANONIAN

Under the Danube Bridges section, I notice "built" is misspelt as "builded". There is no such word as 'builded' - User:Lowzeewee :)

Famous citizens

I deleted Milan Grbović and Đurđica Šolak from the list of the famous citizens. I never heard for them and google search results do not show anything which can define these 2 persons as famous. PANONIAN (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Novi Sad in the past had many citizens of all ethnicities, at least some of which (German and Jewish for sure) used to be much greater than they are now. I think there must be some more citizens from minority-ethnicities worthy of making the list. This would also emphasize the city's former role as Srpska Atina, a confluence of many groups with significant intellectual activities.

If you know some other famous citizens, please include them. PANONIAN (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Double standards

It's very nice that the atrocities committed by Hungarian and German forces 1940-1944 are mentioned here. However, there is no mention of the atrocities committed in revenge by partisans in 1944-1945. Could someone do a bit of a research on this and augment the article? Panonian perhaps? I'm not an expert on this, and it is almost impossible to find neutral sources on this on the net.

In the meantime, here is a quote from a neutral source (it doesn't go into detail, but at least it confirms that atrocities against Hungarian and Germans did happen, in case anyone would doubt this):

The Partisans exacted brutal retribution against the indigenous German, Italian, Hungarian, and Albanian populations. In the cases of the Germans and Italians in particular, most of those who were not killed by the Partisans or did not flee were expelled, including the "Schwaben" from Vojvodina and the Italians from Dalmatia and Istria, whose families had lived in those areas for centuries. Radio Free Europe--Tamas 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Tamas, Partisans did killed some people after the war, but it is simply not correct that it was "retribution against the indigenous German, Italian, Hungarian, and Albanian populations". Partisans were not "Serb nationalists who kill people because of their ethnic origin". Partisans were internationalists, and members of these mentioned ethnic groups (except Germans) also participated in the Partisan army. My last citation for Milosh about this was in Serbian, but it spoke about participation of the ethnic Hungarians in the Partisan resistance movement (The original article about this was writen by one ethnic Hungarian from Vojvodina). Just for example, in all mentioned places where Partisan resistance movement was formed, the ethnic Hungarians participated in this movement. In Bačka Topola, Senta and Subotica, most of the Partisans were ethnic Hungarians. Erne Kiš (ethnic Hungarian) was one of the organizers of the resistance movement among Hungarians, and he was killed by the Hungarian authorities in 1941. That is about what happened during the war. Now here is what happened after the war: Partisans did killed some people after the war, but the reason for these killings was political, not ethnic. The exception of this was German population: the entire German population was labeled guilty because during the war its members were not participated in the resistance movement (which was not the case with other ethnic groups). All other people were killed because they collaborated with Nazi authorities during the war or because they did not want to accept new socialistic system of rule. And fact is that killed people were of all nationalities (including majority Serbs). If we speak about Yugoslavia as a whole, very large number of people killed by the Partisans after the war were ethnic Serbs. So, I repeat, the reason for the killings was political, not ethnical. Also, I spoke here about entire Vojvodina and entire Yugoslavia. If we speak about Novi Sad city, I do not have information are some people killed in this city too after the war (I know that they were killed in some other parts of the country, but I do not know about Novi Sad). Every history book about Novi Sad, which I have, speak only about the killings during the war (especially in 1942 raid). PANONIAN (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to collect some sources. As far as Novi Sad is concerned, I know about a Hungarian Catholic priest (a young Franciscan) who was killed by partisans (or some related irregulars). Again, I don't say this was official policy, but such things did happen. But I can't corroborate it with sources right now, I'm sorry.--Tamas 12:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the partisans or people calling themselves so, in corroboration with the Red Army, perpetrated many crimes against minorities, religous figures, and the educated, as well as real and perceived Nazi-collaborators. This is not an article on the partisans, though - irrespective of who did it, many women were raped, many children were killed. The Schwaben (as they call themselves and correlating to svaba in serbo-croatian) still in Yugoslavia in 1945 were devoid of men of fighting age. I'm not sure I believe in "ethnic" strife, since the bottom line is this behaviour was animal and opportunistic and perpetrated by and against members of every group (though not equally), so those who wish can call it "political" certainly may without my objection, but it definitely merits mention that a significant community within Novi Sad does not exist anymore, and that not all left voluntarily. I might add that many Schwaben made significant efforts towards integration, being sent from their villages to Serb boarding schools in Novi Sad, and fighting against and even being captured by the Nazis (as part of the Royal Yugoslavian Army). Adam Mathias

Population data from various times

The early population data is fairly complete - numbers from the Ottoman times and 1820 are both given - but maybe a breakdown of ethnic groups at the time of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes would also be informative. A lot happened between 1820 and 2002. It would also be nice to show the traditional quarters of the city (where each group was concentrated). Adam Mathias

I have some population data from the time of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, but showing only a number of Serbs and Hungarians, not number of other ethnic groups. If I find data with the number of all ethnic groups, I will post it. As for the city quarters, the traditional quarters of the city are same as the modern quarters (with many new were built later). I only know that ethnic Hungarians were mostly located in Telep in the past. Today, most of the city quarters have Serb majority, but in few of them there are lot of Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians, so I do not know who is majority there. PANONIAN (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

But the 1931 Vojvodina census shows two groups that are not even listed for some of the later dates: 21.000 Jews (who were no doubt mostly concentrated in Novi Sad and thus probably had a quarter), and 21% Germans, who no doubt also had a general quarter (despite being mostly in villages). I could probably get the numbers of just Germans, but that would be of course imbalanced with figures for others. Thanks for all your work. 

- Adammathias

Yes, 1931 Vojvodina census, but only data I have for Novi Sad city from this census say that there were 50,4% Serbs and Croats and 27,1% Hungarians. Even Serbs and Croats are not listed separately. PANONIAN (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

1918 assembly

  • 1. There were 6 German and 1 Hungarian deputy on the assembly, thus it is not correct that these two nations were not represented at all.
  • 2. As for "plebiscite which was administered", the assembly itself was a kind of plebiscite, there was no something like referendum there.
  • 3. Plebiscite was held IN Novi Sad, so no reason to remove this.
  • 4. No reason for us to delete reference that Novi Sad was capital of Danube Banovina, and part of the SCS Kingdom.
  • 5. In 1910 (thus in 1918 too), there were 33.8% Serbs, 28.1% Hungarians, and 21.4% Germans in Vojvodina. It is POV if somebody calculate Germans and Hungarians together and not mention that Serbs were RELATIVE MAJORITY in the region. Second thing is that even if we calculate them together, they numbered together 49.5% of population, which WAS NOT absolute majority. The third problem is that 1910 census recorded only language and not ethnicity, and many Jews who lived in the region spoke German or Hungarian (and some other people declared to speak Hungarian too), thus the "real" number of Hungarians and Germans counted together was probably not larger than 45%. Also, we simply cannot to count together one Finno-Ugric Uralic and one Germanic Indo-European people, because they are VERY DIFFERENT peoples.
  • 6. Finally, it must be noted that borders of Vojvodina with Romania and Hungary were defined in 1919-1920, and NOT IN THE YEAR WHEN THE ASSEMBLY WAS HELD - 1918. Since the border was not yet defined in 1918, we CANNOT TO SAY how large part of the population was represented since we did not know the exact borders of the territory which the assembly represented (If the border was drawn little different, excluding northern Bačka from the country, the Serbs would be absolute majority in the region). PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the sentence that "the ethnic makeup has changed considerably since WW2", it is POV. The ethnic makeup changed many times during the history of the city, and if we mention that it changed ONLY after WW2, that would not be correct or NPOV presentation. Besides this, in 1931 there were 50,4% Serbs and Croats (the larger part of those are Serbs of course), and in 1948 there were 50,9% Serbs. I would not call this "a considerable change". PANONIAN (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot has changed since 2000

I can not speak about the changes to Novi Sad (my birh city) after 2001 since I have been living in New Zealand for the past 5 years, but I must say that Futog and Veternik have now become provinces (i hope it's the right word) of Novi sad. And as was said before the population figures look a bit scetchy because last I remember the estimate was 350,000 then again it's been a while. I'm looking forward to going back. Some say New Zealand nature is beautiful and it is but the culture is not as beautiful there is nothing like my home city (I hope it's not against policy to state opinions in talk). Please e-mail me if I can't be biest on these pages, I know that for writing articles you must be but I don't know about talk.

An updated article may be in order from some one who was there not so long ago like a year or sooner (which rules me out). Just for the figures, the history I'd leave to the very educated users that posted above.

The numbers in the article are those from 2002 census, which is the only relevant source for these numbers. Second thing, Veternik and Futog are still not parts of urban Novi Sad, but separate settlements. PANONIAN (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox edit

Changed the article so that it has the same basic infobox as Belgrade and Kragujevac (and soon Niš). The sources for the information I changed are all on the official city website, namely here (population) and here (territory). Also, removed the twin cities from the box and put them further down in the article. I've taken the city to be Novi Sad, Petrovaradin and Sremska Kamenica, as that is how it is defined at the territory page on the city website. --estavisti 15:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I know the location map is in German, it will be changed in due course, either by me or some other kind soul. Until, it's better than nothing. --estavisti 15:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Good job on the info box edits, it was about time this happened. I've made the Kragujevac one, but you did a good job making it a Serbian table. I'll do the same with other Serbian cities later on.--Krytan 17:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that for the population figures of the Serbian cities we should use official figures from 2002 census. This is already discussed here:

PANONIAN (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

City History

Hmmm... According to this article, the only considerable thing happened between 1867 and 1910 in the city of Novi Sad is Magyarization and the "drastic" change in Serb population from the 1880's 41.2% to the 1910's 34.52%. To proove this fact, detailed census data is shown. Current census data is shown as well (not surprisingly) pretty far from this part of the article. It can be figured out that 1910's 39.72% Hungarian ratio has changed to 2002's 5.24%. And there is not even a single sentence about it and its reasons. Interesting.

Timur Lenk

The part about Magyarization was added to explain census results from 1910, which were added to the article without this explanation. The goal of the person which added 1910 census results was to present that city had Hungarian character in 1910 (which is disputed question, since we do not know for sure whether Hungarians or Serbs were largest ethnic group in the city in this time). Also, the person which added 1910 census results did not wrote that before Magyarization started the city had not relative but absolute Serb majority. Also, the number of 13,343 (39.72%) from 1910 census is not a number of ethnic Hungarians, but a number of citizens who said that they most frequently speak Hungarian language (which does not mean that it was their native language). The number of ethnic Hungarians in the city was probably not larger than 10-11,000. If we already post the numbers from biased and incorrect censuses like the one from 1910, we should at least explain the nature of such censuses. The census in 2002 was not biased, thus I do not see reason to further explain that census. PANONIAN (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The censuses were quoted to demonstrate ethnicity changes. I did not criticize the accuracy of any of the censuses. The ratio of the Serb-speaking population was decreasing until 1910, it is a fact. The point of my comment: why this change is shown as the most important (if not the only) "event" in Novi Sad between 1867-1910. And there is not even a sentence about the decreasing of the Hungarian population (which is a fact, too) as a consequence of "Serbization" since 1918. Why is decreasing in Serb population detailed without mentioning the changes to the Hungarian ethnicity after WWI? Timur

As I said, it was not me who added 1910 census results to the article. I only explained these results and nature of the census. If you ask why only that is mentioned for 1867-1910 period, it is because nobody else did not added anything else about this time period to the article. Regarding Hungarian population after WWI, it in fact increased, not decreased (as example, in 1921 there was 13,065 Hungarians and in 1931 17,354). PANONIAN (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the inaccuracy. That's why I used the word "ratio" - just forgot to write it the second time. Even if statistics show increasing for both (or maybe all) ethnicities of the city in absolute numbers, it is the ratio what determines the ethnic character of the city. Timur

Ok, I do not object to have better covered demographic history of the city. It would be best to have information about all ethnic groups in the city from all censuses in history, but at the present moment I have only partial data about this, which we cannot use to have full demographic picture of the city. If I find more data, I will see to write more about the subject. PANONIAN (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that, it will surely improve the quality of the article. Timur

Old Novi Sad

There should be more about old parts of Novi Sad. Both text and pics. I am sure there are nice photos of the old streets in the center.

Anon's contribs

212.62.54.205, and you got the nerve to present the website www.hunsor.se "Hungarian-Swedish Online Resources" as a serious source? There are policies called Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Undue weight. Here's a quote from the site, in case one doesn't get what's it about:

In lots of cases, the Hungarians still live in discrimination and persecution, just because they are Hungarians. The situation in Vajdaság, nowdays is even more serious. Hungarians has been harassed and heavily beaten just because they are Hungarians.

If you can't find a neutral source describing the events, please refrain from adding partisan sources. Duja 13:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Please note that I have mentioned other sources as well:
It is unfortunate that www.hunsor.se is a nationalist web site, but the specific page I linked to (http://www.hunsor.se/freezingweeks/frmassacre.html) contains real details found in the book by Tibor Cseres: Serbian Vendetta in Bacska.
The list I provided, containing the name, age and occupation of victims is valid, if for no other reason then because it contains the names of members of my grandmother's family that were massacred in 1944.
Fortunately, there is another document made by the Parliament of Vojvodina in 2004, which also aknowledges the massacres. I have not yet been able to find the document on the Internet, but if the mediation requires it I will contact the Parliament and request the document from them (hopefully in electronic format).
Arpad or Hun Tomy or what ever are the names of your countless sockpuppets, I am well aware of your recent efforts in vandalizing articles related to Slovakia and Romania. It was only a matter of time when you will expand your "activity" to Serbia. Since your bad faith edits and inflammable comments have purpose only to disrupt Wikipedia, the serious discussion with you is impossible. However, since you started to use talk page, you will have my answer here: first of all, check your own edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novi_Sad&diff=72582158&oldid=72532945 First check your comment there that I "blocking out the nasty things about Serbs!!!" This inflammable speach of hate is clear example that the whole purpose of your edit is to present Serbs as "nasty people". Also check your whole edit there, and that besides that you added your unproven original research about post-WW2 events in Vojvodina, you also DELETED (with no any explanation) a well-sourced mention of Serbs who lived in the city during Ottoman rule. It is clear example of your racism and negative attitude towards Serbs. You also removed well known fact that all citizens of Novi Sad (including Hungarians) fought against Axis occupants, which show your sympathy towards Axis Powers. Finally, you added completely false statements that "schools in the SCS Kingdom stopped education in minority languages", etc, etc. Now to analyse your sources: all "sources" you presented are written by Hungarian ultra-nationalists, whose only intention was to spread political propaganda for creation of Greater Hungary. The validity of sources that claim that "Ujvidek was renamed to Novi Sad" (http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/cseres/cseres05.htm) or that "Serbian partisans marched in the ancient Hungarian town Novi Sad (Újvidék)" (http://www.hunsor.se/freezingweeks/frmassacre.html) is highly disputed and unacceptable as reliable source. Also, do not try to present yourself as a victim by claiming that "members of your grandmother's family were massacred in 1944", because many my cousins (including my gradfather's father) were massacred by Hungarian fascists in 1942 raid (All their names including detailed description of the occupant's crimes in Novi Sad and southern Bačka could be found in this book: Zvonimir Golubović, Racija u južnoj Bačkoj 1942. godine, Novi Sad, 1991). Of course, there are many more books written about occupant's crimes and the people that were executed after the war were mainly those responsible for such crimes. It is very questionable how many innocent people was among them. Perhaps you should search what members of your grandmother's family done during the war (i.e, if anything from your story is correct because user Hun Tomy/Arpad is well known as permanent liar). PANONIAN (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


--
I'm not Arpad or Hun Tomy, I live in Novi Sad just like you (Novo Naselje). I never edited any Wikipedia page, this was my first one cause I was outraged by your article. Generally, the whole article can be described with these words: "Serbs never did anything wrong, everyone else did something wrong". Your credibility at writing unbiased articles is not very high when you consider that:
  • You renamed Croatian war of independence to Croatian war
  • Your profile contains a map showing Bosnia as Muslim and Serbia as Albanian, expressing fear that this will be the future of Serbs
  • You have many books about Novi Sad, but you've never heard of the massacre in 1944. Do you read the newspapers (Danas, Glas Javnosti or Blic, for example?), have you heard about the fact-finding mission sponsored by the Parliament of Vojvodina?
If you don't mind, let's analyze this article issue-by-issue. I'll explain why I did which change. If you accept some of my claims then let the changes remain, otherwise prove me wrong. Look at the history page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novi_Sad&diff=72582158&oldid=72532945
  • I deleted populated with ethnic Serbs. I have never heard about this, please tell me your sources.
  • I've rewritten At the outset of the Habsburg rule, people. I offered my explanation of how the Serbs got to live in Ratzen, as described in the book by Dimitrije Boarov: Politicka istorija Vojvodine. According to him, the first permanent Serb settlements were established after Arsenije Carnojevic.
  • Etymology of these names show that most of them are of Slavic origin. - Not really. Vasaros (= market town in Hungarian), Sent-Marton (a Catholic French saint: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09732b.htm), Baksa (a Hungarian family name, type Baksa into Google), Bivaljos (bivaly = buffalo in Hungarian). Obviously the etymology of the names I mentioned here show that they are not of Slavic origin.
  • The settlement officially gained the name Novi Sad No it didn't, because the official language at the time was German, so the official name was Neusatz, just like Gyor was officially named Guns, yet few citizens called it that. Or another example: Senta is called Senta, not Zenta, officially.
  • In 1849 the Hungarian army located on the Petrovaradin Fortress - Unfortunately yours was a one-sided explanation of what happenned. It does not explain why the Hungarian guard bombarded the city. While I agree that no reason is justifyable, telling the full truth removes the prejudice of Hungarians bombing the city just cause they "felt like doing it". The truth is Josip Jelasic entered the city and started bombarding the fortress.
  • the city was included into newly formed - Bacs and Bodrog county were actually formed in the 11th century by the first Christian king of Hungary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bács-Bodrog It is false to say the county was newly formed. I would accept that it was abolished in 1849 and incorporated into the Srpska Vojvodina, but after it was either re-established, or better yet just leave the word out.
  • also known as Transleithania - While I agree that the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary was called like that by some Germans, it is also true that the Serbs were called Rac and the Slovakians Tot, yet no one mentiones that because it is a derogatory term. It is offensive to call Hungary "Transleithania".
  • I added The number of Serbs would since then increase drastically. Are you telling me this is not true? In 1918 Serbs = 15.000, Hungarians = 15.000, in 2006 Serbs = 200.000, Hungarians = 15.000
  • all schools stopped education in minority languages - as told by my grandfather who learned Serbian exactly because of this, even though no Serbs lived in his village. Please show me proof that education in Hungarian was allowed.
  • re-annexed - I see you discussed this with someone else earlier. You said it is not re-annexed, because in 1918 the Serb annexation was confirmed internationally, while the 1941-44 was not. Please copy-paste the following two sentences, put them one below another and compare them: In 1920 Hungary was defeated and was forced to sign the treaty, and the victorious sides all accepted it, while the defeated sides had to. In 1941 Yugoslavia was defeated and was forced to sign the treaty, and the victorious sides all accepted it, however, 3 years later they were defeated by the Allies and the treaty was reverted. You've probably heard that "history is written by the victors"? Even if Yugoslavia was not forced to accept the treaty forever (like Hungary was), neither annexation was better than the other. Re-annexation is not a nationalist term, but arguing that it is is a nationalist arguement. Oh yeah, and in your profile you support national self determination. In 1920 Backa was majority Hungarian, but no plebiscite was allowed (as opposed to Silesia, Danzig or Gyor, where they were held).
  • Citizens of all nationalities - communist propaganda, please show me your sources and let them not be written by communists. As described in the book by Tibor Cseres, when the partisans entered Novi Sad the Hungarians were hiding in their houses.
  • Residental areas were cluster bombed several times while its - Which residential areas were cluster bombed several times?
You tell me that I should not present myself as a victim, and then you claim your cousins were massacred Hungarian Fascists. While it is quite sad that both of our families suffered from each other's people, it is even sadder that you think your family tragedy is justification for what the Serbs did to the non-Serbs in 1944, or that it is justification for hiding what they did. The crimes in 1942 are well known, sources exist everywhere, for example in the book you mentioned. The fascist Hungarian government led an investigation and arrested those that committed the murders. They were imprisoned but later they were liberated by German agents and they escaped to Germany.
On the other hand, the Yugoslav government never aknowledged the crimes that happenned in '44. The communist government did so because it was communist, and the current government does so cause, just like according to your article, the Serbs never did anything wrong.
Oh yeah, and that ironical comment that I should investigate what my grandmother's family had done during the war. They were probably Nazi collaborators trying to wipe out your nation, yeah, all 4 of them, even though they were women. Perhaps you should question yourself what the Serbs did in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo in the previous decade, then it won't be so hard to accept that they did the same in '44. Not because the victims were collaborators.
You are not Arpad or Hun Tomy? Then who you are? Come on, do you expect that I should believe that new user on Wikipedia have a knowledge how to use Wikilinks and Edit summary??? This is your supposed first edit on Wikipedia and you very well know to use both: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novi_Sad&diff=72530798&oldid=72179340 And not to mention that you know how to start a request for mediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Novi_Sad&action=history The only logical conclusion is that you are on Wikipedia for long time and my best guess is that you are sockpuppet of Hun Tomy. Therefor, the main reason why you are here is because user Juro is temporarily banned (and your main goal on Wikipedia was to instigate and provoke him), so you simply found another place for fun. As Juro already pointed on some other talk pages you are permanent liar and everything you say is totally opposite. And please do not say such stupid thing that you deleted sentence "populated with ethnic Serbs" because YOU have never heard about this. And you asked me to provide my sources??? Well, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novi_Sad&diff=72597384&oldid=72596512 You can see that I provided my sources, but you simply deleted them together with the sentence!!! Is any comment needed to this? Also, because I have book "Politička istorija Vojvodine", please tell me on what page of this book is what you claim that I can check it. As for etymology of names, most of them are Slavic - Bakša is not Hungarian but Slavic (compare with Jakša, Nikša, Balša, etc, etc), Bivaljoš is from Slavic "bivo", and other places are Slavic too: Mrtvaljoš, Sajlovo, Rivica, Bistrica, Kamendin. So, most of them are Slavic indeed except Vašaroš-Varad, Sent-Marton and perhaps Čenej. And you are wrong about official language in the time when Novi Sad was founded - it was Latin, not German, but the names in all other languages (including Serbian) are also used since then, so it is correct that current name dates from 1748. Regarding Josip Jelačić I will see to read more about this and if you are right, we can mention him here. Bacs-Bodrog county was indeed newly formed because, Bacs and Bodrog that existed in the 11th century were TWO SEPARATE COUNTIES, not one. And when exactly number of Serbs would since then increase drastically? In 1910 were 11,594 serbs, in 1931 32,227 Serbs and Croats. This "increase" was a result that Petrovaradin and Novi Sad were joined into one single settlement, thus this "increase" it is population of both cities counted together. And number of Hungarians also increased: 5,515 in 1880, 13,343 in 1910 and 31,685 in 1941. And I do not think that your (senile) grandfather is a very good source to claim that "all schools stopped education in minority languages". Some other prrof for this claim must be given. And please spare me your crying about "Trianon fate of Hungary" and that "history is written by the victors" The worst versions of the history (full of hate, lies and propaganda) are those written by "losers". It is undisputed fact. Regarding self-determination, Bačka was not majority Hungarian in 1920, but ethnically mixed, and it was only part of the entity (called Banat, Bačka and Baranja in that time) that used its right to self-determination. Regarding sources that claim that ethnic Hungarians were partisans and fought against occupants together with other peoples of Vojvodina, I suggest this one: Karolj Brindza, Učešće jugoslovenskih Mađara u narodnooslobodilačkoj borbi, Vojvodina u borbi, Matica srpska, Novi Sad, 1951. If you read that, maybe you will know the truth and change your pro-Axis views about Hungarians. As for the qustion "which residential areas were cluster bombed several times?" - Vidovdansko Naselje and Šangaj! Regarding the suffer of my family, I never said that it suffered "from your people", but from the fascists. I never said that Hungarians are guilty as a people - it is you who claim that Serbs are guilty as a people (nice racist attitude). Regarding the crimes in 1944, I will accept them as valid if I see that any reliable source speak about it. When I say reliable, I mean any that does not propagate Greater Hungary, and the sources you provided are examples of the opposite. PANONIAN (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, I have no problem with any facts (if they are correct), I only have problem with your attitude. And since you said by yourself that you are here to write "nasty things about Serbs", how can I trust in your good faith here? PANONIAN (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Panonian the fact is that they were all killed without trial, except 5-6 person. And when you kill without trial ... And I found my grandpa on this list. Bendeguz 21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Your argue by is offending people? Truly you are a good history student, which just shows how pitiful the Faculty of Philosohy is.
Do not call me dumb, everyone can figure out how to edit a page or how to start a mediation by clicking on "Help" in the left corner of every page, and reading it. I guess you had lots of arguements with Juro and Hun Tomy and others which frustrated you a bit, so you talk to me without respect, but try putting yourself in my position and read what you wrote.
That said, let's return to the discussion.
  • Enciklopedija Novog Sada, written by No author (???) http://www.prometej.co.yu/knjige/detalj.php?id=00000303 You know, giving a book name is not enough, tell me who wrote the book (or that part of the book) so I can judge if the author is biased, which I think he is
  • Politicka istorija Vojvodine, page 7:

    ... and Belgrade fell on October 6th, 1690. During those months the Serbs obviously had to evacuate to Hungary, to southern Pannonia which was already depopulated two centuries earlier (after the battle of Mohacs in 1526), probably not even dreaming that in this desolate flatland they will have to settle forever

  • Baksa is a Hungarian family name, I don't care if you found similar names in Slavic languages (Jaksa? are you kidding?). I know two unrelated families with that name. If you have solid proof they're Slavic, show me a link. Bivaljos- while the Hungarian world bivaly may have come from Slavic root, bivalj means nothing on Serbian, while it means buffalo on Hungarian. Not to mention -os is a Hungarian attribute (padez). Is this realy arguable? I agree Bistrica, Sajlovo etc. are Slavic, but then again, I never argued Serbs didn't live here after 1690.
  • OK I was wrong about official language. The official name of Novi Sad was Neoplanta. The article should be corrected to Neoplanta (in Serbian: Novi Sad)
  • About Petar Jelasic, when I find a good source I will post it here.
  • Bacs and Bodrog were separate counties, then they were joined. I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that this happenned in 1860, which only proves that Wikipedia is not perfect. The article you relied was false, as Bacs-Bodrog existed since the area was reconstructed after 1690. For example, take the 1828 census of Hungary, where you will see that the two counties were not separate (search for Bacs-Bodrog): http://www.iabsi.com/gen/public/Documents/1828_Census.pdf
  • No comment on Transleithania, which I hope means you realized this is a derogatory term and agree for it to be removed from the article.
  • So according to you the number of Hungarians in Novi Sad in 1941 was 31,685? What was the number of Serbs at that time? Oh, and what was the number of Hungarians in the census of 1948 or 1953? I searched the internet and the book is called Konacni rezultati popisa stanovnistva 1948.god, Zavod za statistiku, Beograd. According to the 2002 census there are 225.995 Serbs and 15.687 Hungarians in Novi Sad, a dramatic change from 50 years ago (but I am more interested in the 1948 census)
  • My grandfather is a very good source to claim that all schools banned education in minority languages. He learned everything in Serbian. This is well known. I don't think I can prove you this, because, like I said, all publication in Hungarian was banned (ever heard about the predecessor of the Magyar Szo newpaper? That's right, there wasn't one!). I am sure you can find tons of publication by Serb authors claiming that Hungarians are the devil and want to destroy the Cyrillic letter (a book I've read a few months ago), but I ask you to find one publication which says that the Hungarians had the right to learn on their own language. The constitution of Yugoslavia before 1941 would be good as well (was there a constitution at all after 1931?)
  • You are right, the worst versions of history are written by the losers. For example, the Serbian version of the war in Croatia, right?
  • Bacska was majority Hungarian in 1921 (Politicka istorija Vojvodine, page 120). The Hungarians had no voting right (I don't think I need to show you source for this). When the Parliament of Vojvodina "voted" to join Serbia, there was 1 Hungarian representative if I recall correctly.
  • Karolj Brindza - I said no commie authors
  • Which areas were cluster bombed? Vidovdansko Naselje and Sangaj - Ah yes, when NATO targeted the rafinery. No people killed, 4 got hurt. Those NATO aggressors really put much effort into cluster-bombing residential areas, huh?
  • You say your family suffered from fascists, but Hungary in 1942 was not a fascist state. Yes it was a dictatorship and an ally of Germany, but the factories were privately owned, there were more than just one party ruling the country and finally, the Jews had more rights than in any other country that allied with Germany. So no, the Hungary that re-annexed Bacs in 1941 was not a fascist state, it would become one after 1944 when it was occupied by Germany. I think your ancestors suffered from something else, maybe they were those partisans that attacked the soldiers stationed in Novi Sad?
it is you who claim that Serbs are guilty as a people - hehe did I say that? No, I said that, according to your article, the "Serbs never did anything wrong, everyone else did something wrong". OK, how about this? Read through your article and find me one sentence which mentiones Serbs in any derogatory term? You already mentioned the Germans were Nazis, the Hungarians fasicts, will you mention that the Serbs killed the Hungarians in 1944 and killed/deported the Germans? Or that they prevented minorities from studying on their own language? Or that after WW2 colonists were brought in to change the population makeup, or more precisely "to keep an eye on the fascists"?
I was thinking of going to the Parliament of Vojvodina and obtaining that document by the fact-finding mission, proving that the attrocities in 1944 happenned, but now I'm not sure it will change a thing. This article of Novi Sad you wrote really shows what Novi Sad is like - nationalist, self-loving, and denying the past. No wonder we have Maja Gojkovic as mayor (bet you voted for her). It may make you feel good to write nice things about yourself, but you disgust everyone else who wants to read about the history of the city.
So, it is not Hun Tomy, but Bendeguz. Well, it is nice that you revealed your "true" identity, although it is not only identity you have (I can tell few more of them, but this is not our subject). And how I offending people? You just revealed yourself, so everything I said was simply an observation that was proven to be correct. And there is really no reason to play this identity game anymore. Regarding the "Enciklopedija Novog Sada", the full bibliography of the source is: knjiga 20, article "Petrovaradinska tvrđava" written by general editor himself - dr Dušan Popov. And by the way you totally twisted the quote from "Politička istorija Vojvodine", but anyway, the author of this book did wrote that area was devastated, but this only imply which sources he used for this. Land of course was non totally devastated before this, but only had a low population density, and dr Dušan J. Popović (Srbi u Vojvodini, knjige 1-3, Novi Sad, 1990) gave very detailed description of people and life in Vojvodina during Ottoman rule. Many of the Serbs that migrated to Habsburg Monarchy in 1690 even did not settled in Vojvodina but in present-day Hungary and some even in present-day Slovakia. The migration is however important because it was largest of all Serbian migrations to Pannonia, and was the one that ensured Serb privilegies given by the Habsburg emperor (therefor the book named "Political history of Vojvodina" begin with that event). However, as Dušan J. Popović wrote, this migration only increased number of Serbs in Vojvodina, since those Serbs that migrated in 1690 only joined to those that already lived in the region. And permanent Serb settlements certainly were not formed only after 1690 migration as you claimed. And finally, the 1690 migration have nothing to do with the foundation of Novi Sad, thus it does not belong to this article. And again, Bakša IS NOT HUNGARIAN NAME. If Hungarian family had surname Bakša, it only mean that it originally was Slavic family that was Magyarized. Other similar Slavic names are valid proof for this. And please tell me how word "Bivaljoš" can come from "buffalo"??? It is linguistically imposible. Please do not invent names just to prove that Hungarians were here before Slavs. You may prove that Hungarians were before Slavs in Yugra, but not in the Pannonian Plain. And regarding name Neoplanta, it was an artificial name, and is certainly better for us to use natural name Novi Sad, instead of artificial one. And regarding Bačka, relative and absolute majority are not same. Here is population of Bačka in 1910: Hungarian language (44.75%), German language (23.47%), Serbian language (17.86%) + about 9-10% Bunjevac and Šokac languages that were listed separatelly from Serbian. Of course, we have population figure for Bačka for 1720 when population of Bačka numbered 115,000, of which 76,000 Serbs, 33,000 Yugoslav Catholics, 5,000 Hungarians and 750 Germans (Politička istorija Vojvodine, page 33). So, tell me, when the referendum in Bačka should be held - in 1720 or in 1910? Or we simply should held it right now? And of course, please spare me of other crap you wrote and stick to the subject. I added 1944 events to the article, so simply say to what more you object here? PANONIAN (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Nisam ja Bendeguz jebote pusti to optuzivanje vec jednom. Covek je odgovorio pre mene. Na ostatak cu odgovoriti sutra, sad idem da spavam...
Well, good night then...mister Bendeguz. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I am satisfied with all the changes you made, but expect the document of the fact-finding mission from me one of these days. The rest, like I said, I will read again tomorrow.

Twin cities

Data taken from offcial site of Novi Sad, [2] --Göran Smith 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

historical

this city was controlled by ottoman turks in a long time period , so to make historical researches by wikipedia more comfortable there should be the turkish name of this city. so I added the turkish name. if there is a problem, please discuss in talk page first than delete it if it is really necessary--Anıl Tuna 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I thnink you could put turkish name somewhere in History, but not in the title. --Göran Smith 19:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that current Novi Sad is composed of 3 historical cities - Novi Sad, Petrovaradin, and Sremska Kamenica. So, it were Petrovaradin and Sremska Kamenica that were part of the Ottoman Empire, but Novi Sad itself was founded after Ottomans and its current name was introduced only in 1748. It might be better that we have Turkish names for Petrovaradin and Sremska Kamenica instead. :) PANONIAN (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, there is part of Petrovaradin which had name Alibegovac (named after Ali-beg or Ali-bey). Beg/bey is a Turkish title. PANONIAN (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I thnink it is better to put that name in Petrovaradin, because it`s older and during Ottoman occupation there was a fortress also. Maybe it was a name for that? --Göran Smith 21:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems that it is not. :) Yeni is Turkish for Novi. For example Novi Pazar is known as Yeni Pazar in Turkish, thus Yeni Bahçe is definitelly not Petrovaradin. It indeed seems like Turkish name for Novi Sad, but I have no idea how this name developed in Turkish since current name for Novi Sad was introduced much later after Ottoman rule here ended. PANONIAN (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
But anyway, we could left this Turkish name here, I even think that Bulgarian name for the city (Mlada Loza) could be also included. I mean, both names are interesting and the article will be only more rich with these two names included. PANONIAN (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You could put even a Japanise name for Novi Sad, like Bulgarian, these names are not official and had never been used for Novi Sad --Göran Smith 08:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Bulgarian was. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novi_Sad#The_foundation_of_Novi_Sad Quote: "renaming it Neoplanta (Latin), Újvidék (Hungarian), Neu- Satz (German), Novi Sad (Serbian), Mlada Loza (Bulgarian)". Bulgarian name was mentioned in the edict that made Novi Sad a "free royal city" in 1748, thus it would be historical. PANONIAN (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC
It was mentioned in the edict? do you have any source to back that information? I ask, because it isn't mantion on the wall of NS city hall, just on latin, hungarian, serbian and german, nothing in bulgarian? --Göran Smith 13:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I founded this information on Serbian Wikipedia (article "Историја Новог Сада"). I do not know who originally posted that information there, but it say there that Bulgarian name is also mentioned. PANONIAN (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

Let's make this a featured article. If Belgrade can be one, why not Novi Sad?

  1. The structure of the article needs to be sorted. I've already made a fews steps in this direction, moving a few longs lists to new subpages: the listiness of the article was one of the main reasons that Belgrade failed its first fac.
  2. We need to introduce an economy section.
  3. The gallery has got to go. We should try to use the pictures elsewhere, but the gallery is going to go. That was another issue the BG article had.
  4. Only the very most notable people should be mentioned, and that should be in a prose passage. Otherwise, we'll have people complaining about that list in the FA nom. The list should be moved to a subpage.
  5. The important institutions section should be removed. The cultural institutions can go in the culture section, the governmental ones in the politics section, the University in the education section etc
  6. The architecture section needs to be written as a prose summary. Again, the list should be moved to a subpage.

Once we've done all that, we can start expanding and thoroughly sourcing the article. // estavisti 07:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti, this is VERY BAD what you started here. I simply do not agree that we remove gallery and list of city quarters. I would rather have good article here than bad article with "featured title", so I will return gallery and city quarters. Removal of other things should be discussed first here. PANONIAN (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with estavisti. My plan is also to have FA article (or etleast good), but first we need TEXT ! When I started to write, Novi Sad article was a giant list (except history). I plan to write about toursism, economy, culture and expend politic, and to add some other stuff. If you want that quality, check some sities that are good (like Berlin, New York City, and ect) I agree that gallery must go, because pictures of Novi Sad go into commons (whitch we have a link in see also). But I am not to delete nothing yet, first write something and then delete the stuff thaht we got now. @PANONIAN, featured title means better then good :))) --Göran Smith 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I just seen NS text, I must agree with Panonian, this is very bad what you done. --Göran Smith 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, you have to realise that we can't have absolutely everything about Novi Sad on this one page. The article is basically a big list. Why should we have a list of Novi Sad quarters on this page? What's the point? It just clutters up the page, doesn't add much information, and can be provided equally well on a subpage. The article should be written in a summary style, with each section having a link to page that provides in depth info on the Culture of Novi Sad (or whatever). As for the gallery, it's pretty useless and contravenes What Wikipedia is not.--estavisti 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Just compare the article with New York City. It has a substantially smaller infobox, it doesn't have list of city quarters. Also, if you take a look there (and Belgrade), you'll see that the Tourism section is under culture, мада it's not претерано важно. PANONIAN-e, кажеш да сам ја засро, ал' лепо ти говорим шта овде фали. Ови спискови су срање на main article-у, и gallery је срање (Wikipedia policy каже: "Mere Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles."). И Горане, због чега се ти жалиш? Сложио си се са оним што сам рекао, а ниси се сложио кад сам то спровео у дело? О чему је ту реч? НС је наш други град, и заслужује бољи чланак, па ајде да се договоримо овде како да га средимо. --estavisti 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Što se gradskih kvartova tiče, u redu, ne moramo ih pomenuti sve, ali zašto ne možemo pomenuti one važnije? Kako misliš da neko pronađe te članke o kvartovima ako ih ne pomenemo ovde? Uvek moramo misliti na nove korisnike koji ne znaju da postoje kategorije, koji ne znaju da koriste search, itd. Pa ne možemo pretpostavljati da su oni vidoviti. I šta fali spiskovima? Ja volim spiskove, pregledni su i olakšavaju snalaženje. Što se tiče galerije, rekao si da si je uklonio jer ni jedna slika nije orphan, a ja ti kažem da jeste (proveri ponovo pa ćeš videti :)). Međutim što se tiče samog pitanja da li galerija tu treba fa bude ili ne ko zna koji je IDIOT pisao tu "Wikipedia policy" na koju se pozivaš i sad mi treba da pratimo smernice nekog što misli da je jako pametan (a ja ti kažem da nije). Kad bi me to stvarno zanimalo ja bih mogao da odem tamo da diskutujem o toj "Wikipedia policy" i garantovano bi ih ubedio da je promene. Ako "poboljšavanje" ovog članka podrazumeva da ga totalno iskasapimo i okrenemo "upside down" ja u tome neću da učestvujem. PANONIAN (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Слажем се да су спискови прегледнији, али место им је на посебним страницама. Људи заиста нису морони, ако неко тражи неки кварт, ваљда ће се сетити да кликне на "Квартови НС-а"?! Наравно требамо да поменемо неке главне квартове овде, али у тексту, не у спсику. За галерију, погледај ти то још једном. Ја сам 2 убацио у чланак кад сам избрисао галерију, па си их ти избацио из чланка кад си вратио галерију. Ево ти та стара верзија. Ако хоћеш да их убедиш да промеме политику, убеди их. Ни ја нисам хтео да бришем галерију са БГ чланка. Побољшање овог чланка неће се постићи тако што ћемо га окренути "upside down", него што ћемо да га направимо прегледнијим и садржајнијим. // estavisti 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Galerija ne mora da se izbriše sada. Poenta onoga što si ti čitao tamo u "policy" je to da se tekst proširi i da se slike iz galerije prebace u taj prošireni tekst, a ne da se galerija jednostavno obriše pre nego što je tekst uopšte i proširen. Kada tekst bude dovoljno proširen za featured article, onda možemo razgovarati koje ćemo slike iz galerije prebaciti u tekst a koje u druge članke. To je poslednji korak, a ne prvi u ovakvom poslu. PANONIAN (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novi_Sad/Archive_1&oldid=1136250769"