Talk:Sajan (Kikinda)

Theories

Wikipedia is a collection of unproved theories? I put the following text here, since it apperas to me as being pure fiction. --Vedran.b 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"One theory claim that name of the village came from Turan peoples who migrated from Central Asia after the fall of the Roman Empire and settled in this area. Their primary settlement has been in the Sayan Mountains, hence the name of the Sajan village. Another theory claim that name is of Slavic (notably Slovak) origin, since the Slavic village with similar name Zajan was recorded in Vesprimiensis county in 1398. It is assumed that name came from the Slovak name Svojan, since in the Middle Ages, the southern border of ethnic Slovak settlements was in the northern Banat."

Vedran, what is a point to remove two theories simply to replace it with the third one? If village was first mentioned under that name, that do not mean that this name was original one. And regarding the text that "apperas to you as being pure fiction", I quoted my source for that text, while I did not saw that you quoted source for "your text". PANONIAN (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

When something is published, it does not also mean necessary that it was more than pure fiction. The text itself I desputed says that what is "claimed" there is "theory".

Should theories about "the southern borders of the ethnic Slovak settlements in Middle Ages" really stay here, in this article on Sajan?

The play with linguistic similarities are sience fiction, and many things can be "claimed" so. Is Wikipedia the right place for these?

That Sayan was mentioned in 1225 is documented. I am writing this from London, so, unfortunately, I cannot take the book from the shelves and show you this right now. But, if you wouldn't mind using older historic books, which were printed possibly before 1920 in your region, you might find some more interesting data.

And a last thing: Are we going back to Latin now? Vespremiensis? Csanadiensis? Will you use here the old Slavic, Greek, or whatsoever terms also when you are going to write about the History of particular Serbian settlements? Your hate of everything that smells like Hungarian must be thoroughly unsurpassable. --Vedran.b 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "theories" mentioned here are about origin of the name of the village, not about linguistic border between southern and northern Slavs, which is not theory but proven fact. Also, if my source mention this theory, why we cannot mention it? You already mentioned theory about Cuman origin and that is also not more than a fiction. Besides, name Sajan exist, so we should explain where it came from (that has nothing with another name that you mentioned here). I really do not understand what year 1920 has to do with the sources. Regarding names, in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary Latin was official language, thus those are official names of the counties from that time. So, please refrain from personal insults and ridiculous accusations and tell me why we should use Hungarian names if those names were not official then but Latin ones? PANONIAN (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nego Vedrane, zanima me zašto bi jedan pomađareni-pohrvaćeni Bunjevac bio veći mađarski nacionalista od samih Mađara. Jel to ona priča o poturici i Turčinu ili šta već? (čisto hipotetički pitam :)). PANONIAN (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The first mentioned name is not always the original name, it might be true, but other original name you cannot prove, can you! If it is not mentioned it is just theorie, is it not? History beginns when there is historical documentation.

Sajan was mentioned as a settlement in this region in 1225, and it was also the neme of a Cuman prince here. When I mentioned 1920, I referred to the history that pre-dates all that is usually mentioned about this region in historical manuals in Serb language. There you can hardly read about Hungarian related history of this reagion. What is more, Serb historians often tend to speak about Ugarska, as if it had nothing to do with Hungary. Probably, this is why you too prefer the Latin names of the placec of the Kingdom of Hungary, enstad of the Magyar ones. But Latin was the official language everywhere in Europe in Middle Ages, was it not? All right, perhaps, in Serbia not. Speaking about geografical regions, however, do English, Germans, French, or any other nations' language rigorously use the Latin terms? Just check it on Wikipedia, please. In this regard, I find unfaire your approach to the history of this region. What is this, if not Magyarfobia?

According to you, it was name "Zeyhan", not "Sajan" that was mentioned in 1225, thus we also should explain from where name "Sajan" came. Regarding history of this region before 1920, that are not "Serbian sources", but Hungarian data that mention Serbs and other Slavs that lived in this area in the past. Many of "Serbian sources" that I read said that they present data from Hungarian sources. Regarding term "Ugarska", this term derived from Latin and refer to multi-ethnic country of several peoples where Latin was official language. Mađarska is another term that refer to modern national state of Hungarians. By the way, term Ugarska is not a new term but was used in Serbian language in the 19th century too. And what I prefer with these names is accuracy. If official names were Latin, why we would writte them in any other language? I do not object that we use Hungarian names for counties after 1867 since Hungarian was official after that year, but why before it? So, please tell me, why for the counties of multi-ethnic country with Latin as official language we should use any other names than Latin? Hungarian names for these counties are only the names used in modern Hungarian literature and therefore they are anachronistic in the historical content. PANONIAN (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A da ti odgovorim i na tvoje pitanje o mojem nacionalizmu: Ne bi reko da sam veći nacionalista od samih Mađara, ne bi rekao da sam uopće nacionalista. Kako bi mogao?! Ali dosta dobro vidim o čemu se radi, kada je rič o Bunjevcima u Srpskom kontekstu. Skoro svi smo vec zaboravili "lipo divanit", i to zbog toga, što smo morali govorit na Srpski. Kada se nije uspilo da se "poturčimo", onda sad nam je nuđena ova Bunjevština, s onim kao sto i onaj zaista poturčin "gospodin" Bajić u Subotici. Ma daj, ostavite nas na miru! --Vedran.b 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. Ko te dira? Ti sam sebe možda, ali jebi ga, to je tvoj krst koji moraš nositi. Very sad indeed... PANONIAN (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

pa to je baš smešno, jel? Al da si i još pobožan, jebi ga i krst!, hej bre, pa to je nešto baš originalno!--Vedran.b 04:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Slavic ethnic border was in fact there, but not the Slovakian. As you probably know (you even wrote it somewhere), the Slavs from the Great Panonian Plain were different from the Moravian-Slovakian slavs in the North of the KoH. As you already said, the Slavs in the southern KoH were South Slavs (your Sokácok and of course your own nation). Or are you a descendant of a Slovakian, ano? :D --Öcsi 10:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: There was no west-south slavic border in the Banat. The Southest Slovakian settlemnt in the GPP was somewhere around today's Budapest. :]

I really do not understand what was a point of your post. Do you want to say that Slavs who lived in the Pannonian plain were some specific Slavs that did not belonged to any of 3 Slavic subgroups (east, west and south)? Well, such Slavs certainly did not existed because all Slavs in the entire history belonged to one of these 3 subgroups, so the linguistic border between South Slavs and West Slavs must be somewhere, right? So, tell me where was that border according to you? Besides this, those west Slavs maybe did not called themselves Slovaks but they certainly were same as ancestors of Slovaks. PANONIAN (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The southest Slovakian settlement in the GreatPannonianPlain was somewhere around today's Budapest (do you understand?) To remind you, between them there only lived some Awars, Jazyges, a few Vlachs (Dákok) - but about 90% of GPP was uninhabited (waste land, prarie (a Sztyepp))--> no ethnic border between Slovakians (this name is also false) and other Slavs. --Öcsi 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. Is that what Hungarian history claim? No Slavs at all between Budapest and Banat, right? This is an encyclopaedia, not science fiction, mister Öcsi. Avars were mostly Slavicized before Hungarians came, Jazyges vanished long before that and Vlachs lived scatered among Slavs, and "uninhabited theory" is not even worthy of commenting. Sell that science fiction story somewhere else and please do not remove sourced facts from this article, thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong Mister Hahaha, Avars were not Slavicized --> this is a sience-fiction story told by nationalist and radical serb historians (in fact no one on this world believes them, maybe some other nationalists in other slavic states, but they don't count), who you are citing all the time. You should open your horizon and get out of your radicalized viewpoints and also read other authors. I did read some historic books written by liberal and tolerant serbian historians, and guess what, they don't share your old-fasioned panslaw view.

Jugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, as the KoH doesn't exist, we (Serbs and Hungarians, both, not only one of them) have done something very false, because we destroyed the peace between the nations living in the Carpathian Basin.

Again: you can't claim something that is not true: The GPP was a nearly uninhabited land and many of your slavs were in fact Bulgarians. Sell that science fiction story somewhere else and please do not remove sourced facts from this article, thank you. --Öcsi 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The story that Avars still existed in the time of Hungarian conquest was invented by nationalist Hungarians who were not satisfied with the truth about their history that Hungarians were "aliens" in Central Europe who subdued native population. So, what they needed was a continuity. They thus invented a story about Avars, so that they can claim "continuity" between Avar and Hungarian state and that they can claim that they have "right" to rule over entire Central Europe. But why this story is so ridiculous? Because Hungarians simply have no any connection with Avars, thus the claim that Hungarians are "successors" of Avars is indeed an science fiction story. If some Avars really survived until the time of Hungarians, those Avars were nothing but "islands in the Slavic sea". And by the way, entire present-day Hungary, entire present-day Romania, most of present-day Austria and much of present-day Germany had majority Slavic populations in the Middle Ages. Even today, Slavs are the largest ethno-linguistic group in Europe. Regarding Serbian historians that you read, can you say their names and names of their books? And no, it were not Serbs that destroyed peace in the Carpathian Basin. All wars (1703-1711, 1848-1849, 1914-1918, 1941-1944) were started by Hungarians. It is undisputed historical fact. And finally, "nearly uninhabited land" is not same as "uninhabited land". Also, Slavs in the Pannonian plain were not Bulgarians, In fact, during Bulgarian rule, there was Slavic rebellion in Banat against Bulgarian rule (I have nice literature about this too). PANONIAN (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what 90% is? Not 100%. Please go to school again and learn maths. Öcsi

You are claiming that Avars did not exist when Hungarians came: are you crazy? I don't know what your qualification is, but it must be at a very low level. But why am I discusting with you, who says that the whole world is slavic - thank for god, you are not right, it would be sad, if everyone was like you, you "perfect" slav. Öcsi

If hungarians had no connections with avars, why would the majority of them have turkic (hun) genes? And why are there still Avar place names in Hungary, and even some family names have possibly Avar origin? Yes, because there is a continuity between Hungarians and Avars. If you claim an other thing, it is simply ridiculous. Öcsi

Well, mister Öcsi, thank you for answering - you just confirmed what I said that Hungarian nationalists want to establish connection with Avars that they can claim "continuity of their state" and all with the purpose to justify their present-day territorial claims towards their neighbours. And to answer you why some Hungarians have Turkic genes: because other Turkic peoples like Cumans settled in Hungary and even Hungarians who came to the Pannonian Plain were mix between Finno-Ugric and Turkic peoples. It has nothing to do with Avars. Regarding family names, it are obviously just unproved assumptions of some Hungarian scientists that origin of these names is Avar. By the way, try to discuss like civilized person and try not to say that somebody is crazy or that somebody should go to school again. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The small group of ~50 000 Cumans had almost no genetic influence on Hungarians. You also claim that whole Hungary was slavic in the Middle Ages. Is this a joke? If this was true, why would there be so many aristocrats and other persons with a hungarian names in the Middle Ages, why are there several hungarian words and hadrly no slavic ones in chronicals and scripts of the Middle Ages - because hungarians neither spoke slavic nor they were slavs. And it is not an unproved assumption that the names are avar ones - as you can read in the text I have given to you as a source. --Öcsi 09:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Let finish this discussion about genetic origin of Hungarians once and for all with this map from neutral non-Hungarian non-Slavic source: http://www.le.ac.uk/genetics/maj4/EuropeMap+Tree.jpg See this map carefully and tell me what is there a difference between Hungarians on one side and Slavic Poles and Ukrainians on another? PANONIAN (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

HA, HA, HA! And is there a difference between Norwegians (!!!) and Poles, Czechs, Makedonians and Ukraines? This map is simply ridiculous.

And if you write me now that Norwegians are Slavs too, then I will fall off my chair from laughing. --Öcsi 11:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What is strange there? Slavic, Baltic and Germanic languages are closely related and there is also linguistic theory about Balto-Slavo-Germanic proto-language. This genetic reasearch only prove that this theory might be correct. And you really surprising me, mister Öcsi. Serious man on your place would now admit that he is in fact Slav. Maybe he would start learning some some Slavic language or change his name. But not you of course... Even if you see ultimate proof that your fable is wrong, you still continue to believe in it. How sad... Even if all genetic proofs show that you are true European, you would rather be an Asian (i.e. an alien) instead to be what you are. PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should I admit that I am a slav? Because you are saying it? No. I am not a slav, I have no slav ancestors in my family up to the 6 generation and I don't look like a slav. Neither the Russian East slavic typus nor your Illyrian South Slavic typus. But why am I discusting with you, you wouldn't believe me, even if I would make a genetic test, you have learned in school: Hungarians=Slavs (or better: Serbs) and you will never believe the opposite -in my opinion, this is much more sad, than not to believe that one's a full European (and in fact, phenotipically I am not). And to the pictures: Fz has shown some of Hungarians, who don't look like Europeans. ;] --Öcsi 15:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I was only joking when I said that you should admit that you are Slav. You do not have to do it of course, but you could at least stop trying to prove that entire Central Europe is Hungarian. Regarding the pictures that fz showed, I remember that he did showed them, and I think that those people from pictures did not looked Asian at all. However, I forgot where he posted these pictures, so can you remind me where they are that we can see them again? PANONIAN (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to prove that whole Central Europe is Hungarian - I even do not believe that Hugarians made up 80% of the KoH's population in the Middle Ages. I only want you to understand that Hungarians are no Slavs; have I ever denied that they have Slavic ancestors: NO. If I would go back in time, to the 10th century, then there is a big chance that one of my ancestors is slavic. Nevertheless this was 1000 years ago, and Hungarians developed to Hungarians, as mixture of everyone living in the Carpathian Basin: A mixture of Finno-Ugric,

Turkic, Latin, Slav, Alan (the Jazyges) and German people. --Öcsi 19:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Of course Hungarian do not exactly look like Khanty and Mansy. You maybe know a script of Constantin VII from the 10th, where the ancient Hungarians are described:

According to it, there are two types of Hungarian people: A taller typus with brown hairs, green-grey eyes, a fairer brown (or blond) mustache, a bit slitted eyes, and a smaller typus with dark hair (black or dark brown), brown eyes, which are more slitted like ones of the typus before. --Öcsi 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This genetic map is definitely false (they maybe did the research in Budapest). The rural population is according to my source on the Talk: Demographic History of Vojvodina, which is from 2006 and they examined genes of ca. 10.000 people, 50-60% turkic and 10-15% finno-ugric. The majority of my relatives come from the rural Hungary too - and I don't look like a Slav nor like a German (although I have danube Svabian ancestors) nor like a Romanian, etc. why is this so? I know that genotypes difere from phenotypes, but where does the other look come from? I think from my Magyar ancestors.

You have no single proof that this map is false, and your "opinion" is really not interesting here. I in fact could say that "your" source is false, especially if it is published in Hungary. Before 1918, the purpose of Magyarization policy was to Magyarize non-Hungarians, but today, the purpose of this policy is that Magyarized people do not know who they ancestors were. And I really do not believe that you or any of your relatives do not look like Europeans. If you have some pictures of non-European looking Hungarians, then we can discuss them. PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: As I already said, in Budapest the majority of the population has a big part of (South) Slavic genes (there are still many family names with -ics, like Vitkovics, Juricsics, etc.). Budapest has ever been a big melting pot. You should know this. --Öcsi 11:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The map that I showed to you do not say that those are "genes of Hungarians from Budapest", but "genes of Hungarians". PANONIAN (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And what's about the place names? As I have already said, it is very sad, that you are claiming well-sourced hungarian researches being nationalist. It only shows what you are really thinking. You probably want to create a Greater Serbia, which extends all over the world, of course with the justification that the whole world is or should be slavic. Your sayings are reminding me of a small, but very loud guy with a little mustache under his nose. ;] --Öcsi 15:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Source1: Olajos Teréz: Az avar továbbélés kérdéséről

No, Öcsi, that is not funny at all. Besides this, if I would want to create Greater Serbia, why would I want that it extends only over the world? There are other worlds as well. :))) And now seriuos things: it is well known that theory about Avar-Hungarian continuity was developed with the purpose to justify modern Hungarian territorial claims towards neighbouring countries. South Slavs have much more connection with Avars than Hungarians do (if Hungarians do have it at all), by the way. And I do not know who are those "well-sourced hungarian researches" about whom you speak, but even if one have good sources, he can twist them and can see in them only what he want to see. That is a point. Those Hungarian researchers simply want that this is truth, so they write only this what they like. But there are other Hungarian authors whose goal was not to "work for national sake" but to work for the sake of the truth, so those (Hungarian) authors did wrote how many Slavs lived in Hungary in the past. Try to read these Hungarian authors as well, not only those that Fidesz and 64 County Movement censorship allow you to read. PANONIAN (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You simply can't answer my question. And why? Because you have no idea of the whole topic, that's the point. --Öcsi 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What question? Place names? The answer is simple: since Hungarians were ruling nation in the Kingdom of Hungary, their language spread to non-Hungarian population. The place names that have Hungarian origin do not mean that "it was pure Magyar land". I will give you some examples: in Mexico, most of the population speak Spanish, but that does not mean that they have Spanish origin. In fact, most of the Mexican population is Mestizo, i.e, native Americans mixed with Spanish. Amother example is India where most of the population speak Indo-European languages. These languages were originally spoken by native Europeans with light skin, but now most of the speakers of these languages have dark skin. That is how one language spread. The fact that somebody speak Hungarian is not a proof that he is of Hungarian origin. PANONIAN (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. There are AVAR place names in Hungary!

Well, the answer would be same as to previous question. Avars were ruling nation in their state, hence these names. These names prove that they lived there, but do not prove that they were majority. PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Angels with dirty faces

Your source (Jovan Pejin) is well known for his righteousness. His invectives against minorities are well documented (English [1], [2], French [3], Hungarian [4] and Serbian [5][6]).

If we compare Pejin's ideas with your claims, the similarity is noticeable. So, may I call you extreme right wing nationalist?

Your library is full with nationalistic books of nationalist authors, and you call me "one of the greatest nationalists on Wikipedia and your hate towards Serbs is just amazing: for you all Serbs are "murders, fascists, etc", but if you compare how many murders and fascist you can find in your own nation, you will see that Serbs are angels." Are they really? Bendeguz 22:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

According to link you provided, Pejin said "that Slovaks, Romanians and, above all, Hungarians, were colonists and that there are no Croats in Vojvodina, but only Bunjevci". How this can be described as "insult for minorities"? In the first half of the 18th century almost 100% of population of Vojvodina were Serbs, Bunjevci, and Šokci and all others were indeed colonists. Why would be insult for you to mention from where and when your ancestors came here? Sorry, but I really do not understand this... PANONIAN (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Who talk about 18th century? Pejin also talks about 20th and 21th century. Please harmonize with him, he is your mentor. Bendeguz 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The link you provided do not say that Pejin talk about 20th and 21th century... PANONIAN (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The link says nothing." da su Slovaci, Rumuni i pre svega Mađari u Vojvodini kolonisti"(present) Bendeguz 23:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not present. :) Perhaps you should learn Serbian better. :))) To somebody with not good knowledge of Serbian it might look like present, but it can be both, present and a past. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And the best thing in your sources is that the person that described Pejin as nationalist is named Laslo Vegel. Coincidence or not, mister Bendeguz? PANONIAN (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Végel László is the conscience of Central Europe and Serbia too. Are you dyslexic? Did you learn in first class that you must read every word. Read every word and don't pull the words from context. Bendeguz 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is he really a conscience or he just received personally what Pejin said? PANONIAN (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Pejin is just a mouthpiece of extremists in Serbia. Végel whips Hungarian and Serb POVs also. Bendeguz 23:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why Pejin is an "extremist"? He only spoke about history. I do not see that he said there that Serbs should do something bad to minorities or anything similar. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And finally, I did not said that "Serbs are angels" but that "Serbs are angels compared with some members of your own nation". Try to notice a difference, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you compare apples with bananas? If you wrote that "Serb devils are angels compared with Hungarian devils' in this case it is comparable and nothing else. Our little Erwin. Bendeguz 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not spoke about devils but about other things as well, for example Serbs in the former Kingdom of Hungary did not had 10% of rights that Hungarians today have in Serbia and that is real comparison about angels and devils, mister Bendeguz. PANONIAN (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your equivocation is hopeless. Primarily you talked us about murders and fascists and now about rights. What is next? Bendeguz 23:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What ever come to my mind, mister Bendeguz. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

For Öcsi and Bendeguz

Whom you two want to trick accusing me for nationalism? The same dispute that you have with me, you also have with Slovaks and Romanians. Is Serbian nationalism guilty for that too? Are Serbs guilty because people like you want to create Greater Hungary and therefore have disputes with half of their neighbours? I do not think so... PANONIAN (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, dear panonian, Serbs are guilty. Everyone is guilty. Everyone, who cannot accept that we are living in a same region, like neighbours. Noone wants to create Greater Hungary here, or do you want to create a Greater Serbia? We just want to dispute with you, because we want to reach a compromiss. There is not only one truth, there isn't only a hungarian, serbian, etc. truth; the truth is somewhere between, or nowhere. But as you write things about demographical developments, you have to tolerate, that there are other opinions too, and if you were a clever guy, you would also read some hungarian (maybe translated) sources. But you say immediately : These sources are irredentist, nationalist, false, etc., do you think this behaviour is right? --Öcsi 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that right? Well, you may notice that I did not touched at all part of the article that present "your" Cuman (or what ever) theory. It is you, mister Öcsi, who do not allow that another theory is presented here. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)