Talk:Subotica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Serbia
 Serbia Portal
Subotica is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Bunjevci

Here are some quotes, which could confirm the information from Bunjevacki kalendar for 1868:

http://www.hr/darko/etf/bunjevci.html

Many Bunjevci for their war service became enobled and became political and communal heads of Backa. Here was the beginning of political municipalities in northen and central Backa with exclusive Bunjevac characteristics. Subotica as the main Bunjevac settlement was proclaimed priveledge in 1743 a cameral city and received posession of 12 wild lands, which are today a source of weath, and Sombor which in 1749 was awarded the priviledge of a free royal town.

In that time, central and northen Backa were populated exclusively by Bunjevci, who governed in the whole of the Zupanija. Their position was secured even the, when at the end of the 18th century the Germans, and later the Hungarians began to settle.

Other events happened in the 19th century, with the Hungarian national revival. The Hungarians began to sucessfully endeavor to assimilate other peoples, so that Hungary would have a Hungarian majority. For even greater sucess of this plan, they began to systematically colonize Potis and central Backa with Hungarians. This mixing of Hungarians and Bunjevci meant the first step in denationalizing the Bunjevci. In particular, many Bunjevci in central Backa were denationalized, among them a portion of the nobility and the majority of the intellectuals.

It was against this situation that the Bunjevci met the Hungarian revolution of 1848. Under the circumstances, the Bunjevci in most part sided with the Hungarians. During the riegn of absolutism, when the Hungarians did not have any influence in public life in Vojvodina, the Bunjevci did not feel any threat of denationalization. However, after the agreement between Vienna and Budapest (1867) the Hungarians, through education attempted to assimilate the Bunjevci, which had a fierce reaction by Ivan Antunovic and others.

User:PANONIAN

[edit] History

Subotica became possession of Serbian mercenaries, recruited in Szerém

This is not correct. Jovan Nenad recruited his soldiers in northern Banat. Srem was Ottoman possession in that time.

the Habsburgs punished the rebel town of Subotica

Punished with what? If this want to suggest that city was punished by becoming a part of Vojvodina of Serbia, then this is tendentious and anti-historical statement, and it is not correct. Habsburgs didn’t have intentions to punish the city. They only placed entire Backa region, including Subotica, into Vojvodina of Serbia.

Do not manipulate, please, with the numbers of Bunjevci, Sokci and Croats

Why you call this a manipulation? Fact is that Vojvodina of Serbia had relative South Slavic majority.

raci=not only Serbs and Bunjevci

Raci was mostly designation for Serbs. The name come from the medieval Serbian principality - Raska.

User:PANONIAN

[edit] World War II

in 1944, when Subotica once again became part of Yugoslavia

Subotica was legally part of Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1944. The city was illegally occupied by Hungarian Nazi troops in this time period, but it still was part of Yugoslavia. User:PANONIAN

Su became H again in 1941. Not everyone who defends his homeland is Nazi

Hungarian troops, which entered Backa in 1941 were Nazi troops and allies of Adolf Hitler. By the way, they didn’t defended their country, but they occupied neighbouring country. User:PANONIAN

Occupation? Then 1918 was also an occupation. Yugoslavia collapsed in 1941

Yugoslavia didn’t collapsed in 1941, but it was invaded and occupied by Adolf Hitler and his allies. Yugoslav government in emigration was legally recognized by the International Community between 1941 and 1945. What ever Adolf Hitler and his allies done to Yugoslavia in 1941 was illegal and was not recognized by the International Community. User:PANONIAN

The actual Hungarian goverment also persecuted the saboteurs

How can you wrote something like this? This sentence clearly supports Nazis. For you the Nazi occupants were "legal government", while people who fought against New World Order of Adolf Hitler were saboteurs!!! It is tragic that you have this kind of historical views. User:PANONIAN

[edit] Habsburg Hungary

Subotica became separated from the Hungarian part of the Habsburg Monarchy

Hungarian part of the Habsburg Monarchy didn’t existed before 1867. In 1849 the entire Habsburg Monarchy was Austrian Empire. Hungary was only one of the Austrian provinces (a Habsburg Hungary). User:PANONIAN

The Hubsbufgs were kings of Hungary, hence H was not just a province

First, see this:

Second, see the title of Habsburg emperor:

His Imperial and Apostolic Majesty,Franz Joseph I,

By the Grace of God,Emperor of Austria,King of Hungary and Bohemia,King [of Lombardy and Venice,]1 of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem etc., Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow, Duke of Lorraine, of Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and of the Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz [O?wi?cim] and Zator, of Teschen [Cieszyn/T?šín], Friuli, Ragusa [Dubrovnik] and Zara [Zadar]; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent [Trento] and Brixen [Bressanone]; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg, etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro [Kotor], and in the Wendish Mark; Grand Voivode of the Voivodina of Serbia etc. etc.

So, you can see that Habsburg emperor even was a king of Illyria and Illyria didn’t existed in that time. The fact that he was a king of Hungary have nothing to do with political status of Hungary. There was no such thing as Hungarian part of Habsburg monarchy before 1867. Before this year there was only Habsburg Hungary, not "Hungarian Hungary". User:PANONIAN

[edit] Anti-Hungarian possession

PANONIAN, I do not think it had any sense to be envolved with you in a discussion concerning Hungarian history. You have alraedy had such debates, and I am quite amazed about your narrow mindeded way of proceding. One can think that your mission on Wikipedia is nothing but vigilate about any article in which Hungarians are mentioned and undermine their history all the time when you can.

  • My mission here is to write about history of Vojvodina and history of Serbs in Vojvodina. It is fact that books written in both, Budapest and Belgrade, tend to underestimate autochthon Vojvodinian history. The reasons for this are obviously political. These political goals, about which I speak, are named Budapest imperialism and Belgrade centralism. So, I intervene everywhere where I see that these two political perspectives influencing history of Vojvodina. I will argue with everybody who want to present any of these two views about history of Vojvodina because these two views do not represent the neutral point of view. Of course, if you want to write about autochthon history of Hungarians in Vojvodina, I will support you in this. However, the political relationships between Vojvodina and Budapest during the history are very delicate issue. User:PANONIAN

Only one example. In the original text about Subotica's history by Bogdanovich there was no mention of any nation in the paragraph about the Second World War period. I think he/she thought it was horrible enough for all nationalities. There were facts how many people died, the author mentioned partisans and communist, bombardments, holocaust, etc. But you could not help it, and your first reaction was to correct the text: the Hungarians were Nazis and the Serbs were killed. When people then re-corrected it (different people, many times), you called it vandalism.

I do not think that to inflame national hetred would fit the policy of Wikipedia.

  • Yes, I was wrong about mentioning nationalities here. However the fact is that original paragraph was tendentious and wanted to present in very negative light the time when Subotica was liberated from the Nazis, while there was no single word that Nazis were guilty for crimes too. And I didn’t write that Hungarians were Nazis. What I wrote is that Hungarian Nazis occupied the city. There is big difference between Hungarians and Hungarian Nazis. You can see that in my last change about this subject I wrote that Hungarians fought against the Nazis. Some other people here wanted to identify Hungarians with Nazis. And I will ask you this: do you really do not have anything else to write about history of Hungarians in Subotica except the centralistic historical views from Budapest? I am sure that there were lot of local Hungarian nobles and famous people from Subotica, about whom you can write. User:PANONIAN

[edit] Number of Roma

I notice that the remarks on both Roma people and Roma lanugage were recently removed, based on the claim that, according to the census, they are less than 1%. Unless Subotica is very different than the places I know in Eastern Europe, I would imagine that a census typically undercounts the Roma. They are not exactly the most likely people to cooperate with census takers, nor to preserve a clear, fixed abode. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:05, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 100% Hungarian population?

I do not believe the claim of a 100% Hungarian population in 1918. I don't have a citation, but I doubt that the person who wrote this had one, either. Not a Jew in the city? Not one Gypsy? Not even someone who had married a foreigner? I don't believe it for a moment. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

There is citation in the article from 1910 census, the similar ethnic composition was in 1918 too. However, according to the article in local newspaper, which I read recently, according to the 1920 census, Subotica had 100,834 inhabitants, of which 72,500 were Bunjevci. This could mean that many of the inhabitants of Subotica, which were listed to speak Hungarian language in 1910, were actually ethnic Bunjevci. User:PANONIAN

[edit] Could someone look at this edit?

Uncommented, uncited, anonymous edit, pretty substantive; I'm way out of my depth here in evaluating it; it either makes some worthwhile corrections or the opposite, it might be useful for some clueful (unlike me) non-anonymous (unlike the author) editors to weigh in. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bunjevac language was not recognized as such in 2002 census (but it will be rocognized in the future). Ethnic Bunjevci mostly declared that their language is Serbian or Croatian. The majority of ethnic Croats also declared that their language is Serbian. That is how you have situation that Serbs comprise 24.1% of population, while Serbian language is spoken by 47% of population. It is the best to count Serbian and Croatian language together because it is hard to say what is exactly Serbian and what is Croatian in this case. User:PANONIAN

Also, it is very interesting that ethnic and linguistic composition from 2002 census in fact correspond one with another:

  • Serbian and Croatian language together = 52%
  • Serbs, Croats, Bunjevci, Yugoslavs, and Montenegrins (all together) = 53%
  • Hungarian language = 39%
  • Hungarians = 38.5%

User:PANONIAN

Thanks, very useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subotita?

What's the basis for saying that the Romanian name of this city is "Subotita"? I get a grand total of 14 Google hits for that name. On the other hand, if I search for "Subotica" + "strainatate" ([1]), I get 66 hits, all in Romanian, and presumably there should be a good number of Romanian-language mentions of Subotica that do not happen to include the word "strainatate". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

My intention was to write city name in all 6 official languages of Vojvodina. I simply asked one Romanian what is a Romanian name for the city, and he said - Subotita. Google search for "Subotita" clearly show that this name is used for the city in Romanian language:
But, if I understand correctly your post, you claim that name Subotica is more often used in Romanian than Subotita, right? How can we know for sure what is a correct name? User:PANONIAN
I'm not sure who determines what is correct. Since Romania has an Academy, I guess they ultimately decide. Yes, given the searches described above, both seem to exist, but "Subotica" seems more common. Why don't we just go with "Subotica/Subotita", indicating that both exist? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Croats, reversion

I reverted this set of anon edits, mainly because the work was sloppy: it broke lots of legitimate links, there were many errors in the orthography, etc., and I didn't have time to go through and look to see if there were some worthwhile changes mixed in. The edits largely consisted of adding the word Croats to the article in 20+ places, often inside links. Would someone who knows the topic and knows Wikipedia, and has some time, please look at these to see if any should be restored? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I looked at these edits, they are clear Croatian POV. Croats trying to assimilate ethnic Bunjevci for decades, but ethnic Bunjevac community strongly object to this. Nothing here is not worthy to be restored, especially not reference to the "chetnik government in Belgrade". I have to laugh at this. User:PANONIAN

[edit] Nazis and Partisans

"Citizens of Subotica of all nationalities; Hungarians, Serbs, Bunjevci, Croats and others fought together against the Nazis, leading to many bombings and slaughter, especially in 1944."

This sentence is a bit shaky. Who do you refer to as Nazis? Is it the Hungarian administration/Hungarian military? Although Hungary did collaborate with Nazi Germany and Hungarian soldiers and civilians did commit numerous atrocities, no serious historian nowadays would designate the Hungary or the Hungarian army of the Horthy-era as "Nazi".

On the other hand, this sentence is quite a bit of an understatement:

"After the war, there were executions of many who did not want to collaborate with the partisans."

We should make it clear that (1) these executions had a heavy ethnic dimension (most of those executed were either Germans or Hungarians) and that (2) most of those executed were innocent people, civilians, priests etc., who had absolutely no responsibility in the atrocities committed between 1940 and 1944.--Tamas 21:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Tamas, I already explained this here: Talk:Novi_Sad#Double_standards, but I will repeat: these executions after the war did not had a ethnic dimension. Partisans were internationalists and the reason why they killed some people after the war was not ethnic but political. In Subotica, the majority of the Partisan leadership were ethnic Hungarians (including the party secretary). I simply do not buy the story that killings after the war had ethnic dimension since I know this. I do not know were the majority of killed people in Subotica ethnic Hungarians and Germans, I should trust you on this, but I know that people who ordered the killings (the local Partisan leadership) were ethnic Hungarians. You must know that many Hungarians joined the Partisans during the war and they fought for the idea of a "future autonomous Vojvodina where all nations will be equal" (Just for example, the 15th Vojvodinian Partisan brigade was composed entirely of Vojvodinian Hungarians). What is my point? The people who were killed by the Partisans after the war were not killed because of ethnic reasons. They were mostly killed because they collaborated with Nazi authorities during the war or because they did not want to accept new socialistic system of rule. As I already said in another talk page, the large number of killed people in Yugoslavia after the war were ethnic Serbs, and that simply contradict with the statement that killings had a ethnic dimension. Second question is: were the killed people innocent or not? It is certain that many of the killed people were not innocent in the manner that they were involved in Nazi crimes against the civilans during the war. As for those who were not involved in these crimes, and who were killed only because they did not agree with the new communist regime, they were innocent of course, but as I said, the reason for these killings was not ethnical, but political. The last question is: Who was a Nazi during the war? It is fact that every state which was involved in World War II as a part of Axis Powers was a Nazi State. Serbia was also a Nazi-puppet state during the war, as well as Hungary. I refer to all political regimes in all Axis states as Nazis. PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"every state which was involved in World War II as a part of Axis Powers was a Nazi State"? I strongly disagree. Italy, pre-Republic of Salò, was not a Nazi state. In Romania, only in the brief Iron Guard era was the country anything like a Nazi state: Antonescu may have been several despicable things, but he was not a Nazi. Similarly, Horthy was no Nazi, which is exactly why the Nazi-sponsored Arrow Cross overthrew him. There is no reason to use the loaded word "Nazi" for non-German forces, when "Axis" will do just as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, we will use word "Axis" then. PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to say that in Serbian language we use word "fascists" for all Axis armies, which were located in the territory of Yugoslavia (including foreign troops and Croatian Ustaše), so my thought was that it could be translated in English as "Nazis", but no problem to use word "Axis" instead. PANONIAN (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I already said, I have no sources at hand to prove my point that many of the killings were ethnically motivated. As far as I know, the following happened: some people were executed because of their alleged collaboration with the occupying forces, AND there were some atrocities as well when things went out of control. I do not say it was an official policy or anything of partisans to kill Hungarians and Germans, what I say that there were instances when things went out of control, when some people wanted to have revenge, settle old scores etc. These actions were of course not authorised by the official leadership of the partisan movement. Still, they did happen, so we should mention them. I'll try to find some sources on this and then come back to this topic.--Tamas 12:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried to improve this history section in the article. Opinions? PANONIAN (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me and thanks for your flexible approach. We might refine it later on if and when some "hard evidence" emerges, but until then, it's a very reasonable way to put it.--Tamas 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too much etymology

Can anyone explain to me what the following paragraph is supposed to add to the article?

The word "Sabbath" ultimately derives from the proto-Semitic language, grandparent of Modern Hebrew and Arabic where-by the S+B+T templates relate to 'being at rest' (hence Sabbath from Hebrew Shabat). Traditionally an eastern language, Hungarian could also to derive its name for the city from the pre-settled Slavs of Indo-European descent.

What on earth does the derivation of Sabbath from proto-Semitic have to do with the city? If anyone wants to know about that, they'll look up Sabbath. By the time it became relevant to the name of the city, proto-Semitic had nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Unless someone has an awfully good explanation, I'm inclined to remove this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, ask the user who post that why it is relevant. I also thought to delete this, but part of the paragraph speak that Hungarian name for the city might also to derive from the word Sabbath. I think that might be relevant. First part of the paragraph about the origin of the word Sabbath is redundant, I agree. PANONIAN (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, then let's get rid of the first part. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)



I think it goes to far to say that the Hungarian name of Subotica "might" also derive from the proto-Semitic roots of the city's name in Slavic languages. Shouldn't be an encyclopedia about facts? Why it is not enough to take the ethimology of the actual and perhaps historical names of the city? Ultimatley, everything "could be", and I do not think that it is a good idea to compete the various theories here. What is more, we do not know anything about the city before 1391, consequently, it appears to be inconsistent to speak about the "possible" Semitic origins of the town's Hungarian name, which would go beyond 1391. What we know is that the city was mentioned first "Zabadka". If someone knows how to pronounce this word can hear that it is pritty far from the pronunciation of the city's Slavic name, i.e. "Subotica". Subotica is not the only city which would have different names from different origin. Furthermore, it is a nonsense to call Hungarian language being an "oriental language" in the same terms as the Semitic languages are "oriental". The one who produces utterances like this must have very vague knowledge about Hungarians and I wonder why does he make such theories? -- User:Veermer

Vague knowledge indeed. Oriental, Vermer, means 'pertaining to the east'. It doesn't mean the South China Sea or Japan. Hungarian is Finno-Ugric. Their ancestors arrived in Europe from the far east and their nearest living languages are spoken from pockets of Russia eastwards. There's no debate here.
As for the origins of Subotica, just as well forget it. I received some private e-mails from Wiki users thanking me for the information. Some people like to know these things. I can't help noticing that the further north you head in Serbia and Montenegro, the more people are proud of themselves and choke on self-congratulation thinking that outsiders really care much about them. I am a rare case here. Celtmist 24-11-05

[edit] Map

Why is the map in German? Phil 14:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because we do not have better one. :) PANONIAN (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The earliest known name of Subotica

You have it listed here as Zabadka. As far as i know it was Zabitka.

216.221.43.211 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] municipality maps

I've noticed the dispute, but I am not fully understanding the entire conversation. I know both of the editors who are involved in the dispute just want to continue to improve the article the best possible way, and I think if you both take a step back you will see that.

What is the issue right now with the updated (clickable) map? My understanding is that it is felt the image map is a more accurate representation of the exact location then the clickable map, is this the problem? // Laughing Man 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not against idea that we use this new map in the articles, but I only suggest that we first discuss how it should look and then after we find agreement, we can post it into articles. I object to 4 things in this new map: 1. It should show the municipal border, 2. It should show dots where settlements are (User:Bože pravde say that dots are there, but I do not see them, I do not know for others), 3. It should not be larger than half of the width of the article pages or not larger than 250px to be in the same size as pictures posted into village articles, and 4. It should have template outline like most other templates that we use here. PANONIAN (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I see, thanks for translating PANONIAN. I need to purchase a srpsko-engleski rečnik, I will ask for a recommendation soon :)
1. I'm sure this can be done, as there is an underlying image 2. This is what I see (screenshot) and the dots are clear. I checked in Firefox, IE and Opera and looks the same. Just curious which browser you are using? 3. The width (especially in the village articles) does seem a little too much, as the map overwhelms the content of the article, but I do think it looks much better in this article, although the map links will probably used for navigation for those who already familiar with the region. 4. seems this has been addressed, but border is maybe a little too much now? // Laughing Man 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the problem is that I see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mapasub.png I see this in all 3 browsers (Opera, IE and Firefox), and I did not know that others do not see same thing. But why I see this? Can that be repaired? PANONIAN (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As I've said on your talk page, I had the same problem with the Europe template, but everything was OK in a few days. So.. the only advice I can give you is to wait and see. Untill then, please return my map to all the articles and lets forget about this misunderstanding, how about it? --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's possible somehow you have the wrong image version cached? You can force your browser to reload and ignore the cache (hold Shift and click reload in FF, Ctrl and click reload in IE -- more details here: Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. What happens when you go directly to the underlying image? Image:SuboticaMunicip.PNG // Laughing Man 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like an issue with the image itself, not with the template. I had a similar issue due to my ad blocker (note that it's in a "/ad/" folder in the Wikimedia upload server; whitelist http://upload.wikimedia.org if you're using such a program), though image cache could also be the problem. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
So.. could someone please re-install my template in the articles that PANONIAN reverted? --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How did everything go? Are you able to see the template properly PANONIAN? What did you think now? // Laughing Man 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is ok now. PANONIAN (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

In the begging of the article, you should put in () only names in official languages (sr, hr, hu) of municipality, and other names in Name subtitle. Now, to me, it looks full. --Göran Smith 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on some points, Göran, we should use a similar principle like in the Vojvodina article... However, if we use sr, hr and hu name of the city, the rest would feel quite discriminated, don't you think? I think we should only put the Serbian name (since Serbian is the official language in Serbia), and the rest in the "Name" part of the article. Makes sense, no? --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No, official languages of Subotica municipality is sr, hr and hu; and not just Serbian! German, Latin, Slovak, Romanian,... these languages are not official it this municipality and not used, so I think they are not for the first sentence in this article. --Göran Smith 13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relative majority?

"Places with Hungarian absolute or relative ethnic majority are…" What on earth is a "relative majority"? Does this perhaps mean "Places with Hungarian ethnic majority or plurality are…"? Or is it utter nonsense? Or what? - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Relative majority" is same as "plurality", i.e. the largest group that comprise less than 50% of population. My knowledge of English is not perfect, but we do use in Serbian words "absolute" (apsolutno) and "relative" (relativno) to designate these terms. You want to say that term "relative majority" is not used in English? PANONIAN (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Better see this article: Plurality. Quote: "A plurality, or "relative/simple majority" as it is also referred to outside the United States (especially in non-English speaking countries". Everything is there. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Plurality is correct in all English; as the article remarks, "relative majority" is only non-U.S. English. I'm actually surprised I didn't know the term (because I've spent almost two years of my life in the UK) but I didn't. Anyway, though, "plurality" is a better choice, because we generally try to avoid those English words that differ from place to place when one is available that doesn't. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For Vedran

Regarding your question in edit summary: Novi Sad is different case because Serbs are majority there. In Subotica, those names are here because this city has large minority populations. In fact, we can arrange those names in the Subotica article in the same way as they are arranged in Novi Sad article, but I do not think that this is good solution. I think that names in minority languages should be in the Subotica article, but there is a problem then which names should be written there and which should not. First, I can ask you this question: in 2002 census, municipality of Subotica had 272 Germans and 168 Slovaks, so I do not see your logic why you deleted Slovak name and did not deleted German name (there is no large difference between number 272 and number 168). In another words, if German name is there, Slovak name should be too. In fact, following you logic that only names of "large" minorities should be written, we can ask a question how large one minority should be to be defined as "large" and who will decide which number is a border between "large" and "small" minorities? PANONIAN (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I left the German name of the city there because there were centuries when the city was called officially under that peculiar name. I have never claimed that it has to stay there. Slovaks, Rusyns, Rumanians were never in graet numbers in Subotica and they have never played a terribly important role in the public life of the city. Where is the border between "large" and "small" numbers? Please, PANONIAN, don't be silly! Try to figure out the percentage of 57 Romanians out of almost 100.000 people, then you might have an idea. Anyway, I don't say we shall not mention Slovaks, Rusyns or whatsoever nation that might happen to be represented in Subotica. My objection is: Why shall that long list of the names stay right in the FIRST sentence of the wiki-article. By the way, I just realized that I am not the first one here, on this discussion page, who has been wondering about that complicated introduction sentence. No other cities of Vojvodina have such a thing, why just Subotica? I don't accept you excuse on the case of Novi Sad. Not only Novi Sad, but also Sombor, Zrenjanin, Kikinda, etc. have not only a few hundreds, but thousends of people who belong to different ethnic minorities. What is more, Kikinda is the centre of a region, in which the major ethnic groups are not the Serbs, but Hungarians. And not a sign of them in the introduction! That is why I just don't like your argument about logic. It is just absurd that you insist to have the Romanian name of the city right in the first sentece of the article, becaue there are 57 Romanians out of 100,000 in Subotica.--Vedran.b 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You really seem to be crazy about the numbers of the ethnic minorities inhabiting your reagion, why don't you write a main article about Subotica's demographic history? Many other city's wiki-pages have such a thing, and Subotica seems to have quite a rich history in this regard. The present page on Subotica is just too complicated because of those numbers and percentages. I really don't see these many details should stay on a general presentation of the city.--Vedran.b 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You "left the German name of the city there because there were centuries when the city was called officially under that peculiar name"? Well, for start, this is geographical article, not historical, so we use those names as they are used in 2007, not in 1907 or in 1807, so in 2007, we treat German in the same way as we treat Slovak or Rusyn. Regarding question why article about Subotica should have all those names in the first sentence, one reason might be because it had large percent of ethnic minorities, but of course, if you want to move those names from the first sentence I can live with that, but in this case we should follow certain principles: either to remove ALL minority names either none of them - you still did not answered what number is a difference between "large" and "small" groups. Regarding demographic history of Subotica, perhaps I will writte separate article about that if I find time. PANONIAN (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
PANONIAN, if you really think to remove the different names of the city from the introductory sentecne of the article, names, that are in languages of minorities living in comparatively large numbers in Suborica, it won't go so easy, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not your personal property, you know. By the way, I am not surprised at this idea of yours, but I wouldn't call it 'logic', rather plain Serbian nationalism. As to your question about what is small and what is large, I see you agree that 57 out of almost 100,000 not a big deal. Thanks for your understanding. Those names that are in the introductory sentence of the article now, are official languagies in Subotica, and I think it is correct to have them there. I am not sure about the official status of Bunjevac languge, but what I know that you can hardly hear what is, in Serbia, nostalgically called 'Bunjevac language' nowadays. Believe me, I would be quite happy hearing something of that my Dida used to speak. That dialect, however, has been extinguished systematically, by the way, by the Serbian administration. But please, don't start an argument here about this topic again. As for the German name of Subotica in the first sentence, I just don't understand you indignation; I deleted it from the introductory sentence, you can check it in the history of the page. It was, by the way, a repetition, since under the passage NAME it is mentioned, I think, in a sufficiently detailed way. If it wouldn't be enough, there is still the possibility of the German wiki-page. Finally, I don't agree that the article on Subotica should be understood as a geographical article as you claim it to be. It seems to me that the purpose of wiki-article's on various settlements, regions, countries, etc., is rather to provide some general information about the places, including information about the people who live there, their history, their culture, the economy, transport, everything that might be usefull, for instance, for the visitors who would visit the a particular country, reagon, city, etc. That's why I thought those your numbers on Demographics on the main article of Subotica are just far too much. I appreciate your job on the seperate article on the Demographic History of Subotica, I really do. --Vedran.b 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What you talk about? If you read one of my previous posts, you can see that I wrote that "I think that names in minority languages should be in the first sentence of the Subotica article" - it is you who started with removal of the names and my concern was about (non-)existence of logic in this. However, usage of names of minorities that are for example larger than 1% of population could be also logical in which case German name should not be used in the first sentence. Also, since I believe that we solved our disputes now, I have no time for further duscussion just because of the discussion itself - I planed some other things to do. PANONIAN (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the inclusion of any relevant minority language names in the lead, but I would say that any names used as primary placenames since about 1800 are particularly important to get into the lead, because there is a fair chance that someone dealing with old sources may know that name rather than the current official one. - Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/b/Talk%7ESubotica_8bb6.html"