Jump to content

Talk:Subotica/Archive 2

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

Original Research

The following text (bold) was recently added to the Name section: "The Hungarian name for the city may derive from the adjective szabad meaning "free", and the Slavic suffix -ka, an affectionate diminutive which indicated a strong habitation by Slavs in this region. " This unsourced addition sounds purely as a WP:SYNTHESIS. Please note, it is not a question whether Slavs lived in the territory earlier (this is discussed in the History section) and it is also clear that the "ka" suffix in the Hungarian language has Slavic origin. However, this "ka" suffix is widely used in the Hungarian language, so the fact that it is also found in the Hungarian name of this town does not indicate anything about its previous Slavic population. Stating this is a clear example of synthesis, and it is like saying: the name "Saint Petersburg" indicates strong previous Greek and Jewish habitation of that region, since the word "saint" has Greek origin and the name "Peter" has Jewish origin... Clearly false reasoning. Thus, I have deleted this addition. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I saw the changes yesterday but I did`t had the time to study them. At the first look it appeared strange to me to. Adrian (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I also agree that sentence is now a bit strange. It needs some rephrasing. Firstly, we have source that says that name itself derived from Slavic word "zabat" instead from Hungarian "szabad", so by all means, presentation of two theories should be more neutral. In current version of the text, the Hungarian theory is somewhat favored. 79.175.67.57 (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope that everybody is happy with my current version of that paragraph? 79.175.67.57 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, your version is fine with me. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep :), this is fine. Adrian (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


In the section about the origin of Subotica's different names, I've deleted the information about the theory of the Slavic origin of the Hungarian name of the city. Firstly, this assertion seemed complitely illogical to what is said few lines before, when speaking about the Slavic origin of the name Subotica. Namely, if the Hungarian version of the city's name would have taken it's origin from the Slavic word zabat, why would have called the Slavs (few centuries later) the same settlement with another Slavic name (subota), that is to say, Subotica? Secondly, it's not an opinion, that the Hungarian word Szabadka may have derived from the Hungarian adjective szabad meaning "free", and the suffix -ka, an affectionate diminutive; it must be absolutely clear for everybody who understands Hungarian: Szabadka and Zabatka or Zabadka are the slightly different spelling of the very same word. It has passed since 1391, when the settlement was first mentioned, several centuries! It is absolutely normal that the spelling has slightley changed. Thirdly, the suffix in the Hungarian verision of the city's name had been widely used in the Hungarian language when the first documents mentioned Szabadka. And this document was written in Hungarian language! And finely, one has to take into consideration also the fact, that the Slavic word "zabat" has absolutely no trace in the Hugarian language, whereas the word szabad and the suffix -ka hase been clearly used since 1391. Thus, the opinion about the Slavic origin of the Hungarian name of the city is pure WP:SYNTHESIS without any fundation. So, I've deleted the following passege from the section about the origin of the city's name:
Another opinion holds that the medieval name Zabatka could have derived from the South Slavic word "zabat", which describe parts of Pannonian Slavic houses.[2] The suffix -ka is a typical Slavic, but it exists in Hungarian too, as a word borrowed from Slavic.
The final sentence is again a WP:SYNTHESIS
Possible Slavic origin of the city name might indicate a strong habitation by Slavs in this region in the 14th century[citation needed].--Vedran.b (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Source: [1] Quotation from source: "Mi bismo na sve to mogli da uzvratimo tvrdnjom koja nam se zasada čini najprihvatljivija - da srednjovekovno ime potiče od z a b a t a sa panonskih kuća". English translation: "We can reply to this with statement, which looks most probable to us, that Medieval name is originating from z a b a t from Pannonian houses". We have source, it says what it says and that is enough to conclude this discussion. Personal opinions of editor Vedran.b are not more valuable than verifiable source. 79.175.110.163 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you please provide bibliographic information for this source (author, publisher, year, etc.), so we can decide whether it is a reliable (e.g., academic) source. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This is article in "Bunjevačke novine" ("Bunjevci newspaper", Number 8, February 2006.). It is newspaper of Bunjevci ethnic community, which is published in Subotica: [2]. However, I see that there is no any source provided for claim that medieval name "was a variant of the current Hungarian name for the city". 79.175.75.113 (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm, it may have problems with reliablility if it does not cite any "serious" (e.g., acedemic) source. In this case, we must treat it as a fringe theory, see WP:FRINGE. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Koertefa, I suggest that you watch your behavior here. You deleted "citation needed" tags without giving proper citations. I haven't asked citation for meaning of modern Hungarian word "szabad". What I asked for is a source that says that "medieval name Zabatka originating from Hungarian word szabad". You failed to provide such citation, and unless you do this, please do not remove "citation needed" tags. Many of place names or personal names that could be found in some Hungarian literature that you would consider a "Hungarian" are actually corrupted Hungarized Slavic names. It could be only a coincidence that name Zabatka is somewhat similar to modern Hungarian word "szabad". You actually try to dispute validity of sourced statement about name origin from Slavic word "zabat", but you in same time propagating statements not supported by any source and you deleting "citation needed" tags that are asking for such sources. Such behavior might be proper for a vandal, but not for user who want to have clean name in Wikipedia. Please refrain yourself from such actions in the future. 79.175.66.29 (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
You must be joking, right? Next time if you want to ask for a source supporting ONE claim (i.e., that the word "Zabadka" is the earlier form of the Hungarian name "Szabadka"), then put only ONE citation needed tag, otherwise it becomes confusing. Please, read WP:TAGGING for more details about constructive tagging. You should also consider registering, since I don't know, for example, whether user 79.175.67.57 was you or someone else. And, of course, I am still waiting for a reliable (e.g., academic) source claiming that the name "Zabatka" derives from the Slavic word for Pannonian houses. Otherwise, it will be treated as fringe theory. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Again I agree with Koertefa, please present a valid academic source. You are stating a newspaper that is printed maybe 1000 copies as rock solid source? If you use a media (newspaper or similar) please use some respectable media, something that is well known. Adrian (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree honestly more with 79.175.66.29--Nado158 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. That is your right but after all it is important what scholars say, and not me, Koertefa, or you. Present with an academic source and everything is fine by me. Adrian (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adrian, your approach is appreciated. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
"Bunjevačke novine" is an respected newspaper. It is founded by the Bunjevci National Council. I see no reason to consider this source fringe. Perhaps you have problem with ethnicity of people who publish that newspaper? Hungarian authors are welcomed to present their opinions but Slavic ones are not, right? 79.175.93.185 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, that sounds a bit paranoid. In general, please, assume good faith during these discussions. And naturally, the ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, skin color, etc., of the author(s) are fully irrelevant in this question. However, it is relevant whether the author is a specialist of the topic (scientist/scholar), whether the article was peer-reviewed, whether it was published by a reputable publisher, etc. In some case, a local newspaper can be accepted as a reliable source, for example, if it reports about a local event, but in scientific questions its reliablility can be debated. If a scientific statement is only supported by an (non-scientific) article published in a (non-scientific) local newspaper, then it should be treated as a fringe theory. Thus, please, try to look up a verifiable, academic reference for that claim. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, what we have here is an local newspaper that speaks about local issue (it does not speak about some general scientific questions). I see no any problem with this source or with the fact that info from this source is mentioned as a second opinion (this info is certainly not forced as a "main opinion"). 79.175.106.227 (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The ethology of a word is not a "local issue", it is a scientific question and should not be answered by a simple journalist, but only by qualified researchers. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Szabadka as a Hungarized Slavic name?

I am sorry, but which source supports the claim that Szabadka is a Hungarized Slavic name? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have sources. 1+1 = 2--Nado158 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you please list and cite the sources here? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already. You can still see it. In adition, its all explained below.--Nado158 (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it the local Bunjevci newspaper which claims that the version "Zabatka" (from 1391) came from the South Slavic word "zabat"? Does it talk about Hungarization? And which is your other source? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
According to Hungarian Catholic Lexicon the origin of its Hungarian name is obscure.[3] The proper form of its first mentioned name is "Zabotka" [4].Fakirbakir (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Subotica. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Subotica. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Synthesis

There is a synthesis in the lead, which I deleted but it was placed back. It claims: "Linguistically the city has a Serbo-Croatian-speaking majority as Serbs, Croats, Bunjevci and Yugoslavs collectively compose 55.94% of the population.". The problem with this statement is that it is an unsourced synthes of individual data that pushes a particular point of view (Serbo-Croatian-speakers vs. Hungarian speakers?). Similarly, we could add hundreds of other synthesis statements, like

  • "The majority of the city's population is European."
  • "Ethnically, the city has a non-Serb majority."
  • "Serbs and Hungarians constitute the city's absolute majority."
  • "The majority of the city's residents are neither Roma nor Hungarian."
  • "Roma and Bunjevci people belong to the minorities of the city."
  • "Ethnically, Serbs, Croats, Bunjevci and Yugoslavs compose of less than half (48.85%) of the city's population."
  • "In the religious sense, Roman Catholics and Protestants are the majority (64.9%)."

And so on... These statements are all (likely) true, but unsourced and suggest a particular POV. Therefore, the aforementioned unsourced synthesis should be removed. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. Unless a source specifically groups these linguistic groups together, it is improper synthesis. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right.--Nado158 (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for your comments. Then, we have a consensus about the removal of the above mentioned synthesis statement. Nado158 was a bit too hasty and removed the statement about the multi-ethnic nature of the city, as well. That statement is not a synthesis and should stay. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is not a synthesis? And besides this, we have this informations in the Demographic part.--Nado158 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It's just raw information, it does not syntheses the data. A synthesis would be for example, claiming that "Ethnically, the city has a non-Serb majority." or something like that. About the "Demographic part", the lead is not for providing new information, but for highlighting some of the important information. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have returned the statement. It may be of intertest to contributors that I was the original author just over two years ago. However I did not use the term Serbo-Croat, I merely stated Slavophonic and this information is listed here further down the page[5] so there is nothing synthetic about it. Naturally I cannot say Serbo-Croat because there is every chance that some within the Yugoslav bracket may well have either Slovene or Macedonian as a first language. The percentage is the combined figure for the four groups in question. Language, like religion and ethnicity, is one of the important elements of local identity and for readers not so well versed in local populations, it is helpful that they should know that a majority falls within a certain umbrella group/panethnicity, rather like the Bamar people of Myanmar. To address the points all made on the first post in this thread, those statements are merely random facts and there is nothing that unifies the items listed per statement whilst excluding those outside it. To present examples:

  • . Majority is European - this is irrelevant given the diversity of Europe, moreover not a single essential factor even comes close to unifying the population.
  • . Ethnically non-Serb majority - nothing unifies ex-Yugoslav persons that are non-Serb (eg. Istrian Italians, Bosniaks from Montenegro, and Macedonian Aromanians share nothing).
  • . Roma and Bunjevci belong to minorities - nobody is denying this, but there is no special reason to list these two and not the rest.
  • Ethnically, Serbs, Croats, Bunjevs and Yugoslavs compose less than half. - If this is so then the removal of the statement is fair, as it doesn't meet the criteria for "majority", and without that, even I as original author accept that it is irrelevant. The figures I was working on however were those published in the sources which we observe when editing.
  • Catholics and Protestants are a majority - yes religion is fine to mention, and you'll find Catholics alone form a majority. Obviously Protestantism and Catholicism are bonded by the fact they are both Christian and had the third faith been Islam then such a statement - subject to wording - could have stood. However, as Orthodoxy is Christian too, its exclusion is irrelevant.

In other words, those statements are weak and lacking. A majority being Slavophonic is encyclopaedic and factual and tells something about the city character: I know Subotica very well and the language situation is such that even Hungarians realise when addressing strangers they need to try standard Serbian out first (they don't learn Croatian in schools but some deliberatebly call the language Croatian and that is up to them). Either way, language is an important matter. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 06:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source which states this, i.e., that "Linguistically the city has a Slavophonic majority as Serbs, Croats, Bunjevci and Yugoslavs collectively compose 55.94% of the population."? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Curiously, no! You make a good point. I've looked at what is on offer and believe it or not there really is nothing. I suppose that if a town in Macedonia is 60% Macedonian and 40% Albanian, it will be assumed that the languages match the demographic statistics even though you could have Turkish speaking people identifying as Albanian or Roma speakers identifying as Macedonian. What took my interest though is the language section of the article which placed Serbian and Croatian as separate spoken languages but between them they rise just over 50%. The problem is that this is not sourced either - only a link to the census. So to that end, the whole thing might be able to go. But the likelyhood is that the languages are sourced somewhere, we just need to find it. Once we get this then the source in question can support both sections. Maybe the lede needs a slight rephrasing. I feel it necessary to include the south Slavic majority in some capacity and language seemed to be the easiest way. Had the number of those ethnicities not touched 50% then I really would not have worried about a plurality but since it tops a half, I believe it to be necessary in that it tells of a characteristic. Why don't you tag the sections for a short while (it would look silly me doing it when I wrote the part) and I'll see when there is more time if I can find sources. If not, I'll look at either rewriting or possibly even removing the section. Cheers. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, no worries. I have tagged it and waiting for a source. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Koertefa. I have looked and I'll be honest, it is difficult. On the one hand, the south Slavic umbrella was not invented by me, and the four ethnic designations which fall into that category really do form a majority albeit slight so that isn't SYNTH. On the other hand, maybe that fact is not so relevant that it needs to stand, I'm worried this looks like a WP:POINT by me so it might be a good idea to remove the piece and restore the original ethnicities figure with no hint at language. Readers can click the links of the ethnicities where listed to establish who is what. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 06:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep and thank you, Evlekis (Евлекис). I also think that the statement looked a bit like WP:POINT and I appreciate that you have removed it from the lede. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you also for being patient whilst I was giving it thought and not edit-warring. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subotica/Archive_2&oldid=1211052225"