Talk:Magyarization/Archive 1

NPOV
This article is biased. It presents the magyarisation like a blessing when instead it was most of the time a crime against the cultural identity of the oppressed populations (Romanians, Serbians, Slovakians and others). My grandparents live in Transylvania and I know about this. The only chance of Romanians was to baptize their sons and daughters only with names that ar impossible to convert to hungarian. Why? Because names like Ion or Stephan would have been forcefully converted by the Hungarian administration to Ianos or Istvan. So in that period a lot of Romanians in Trasnylvania (including my mother and uncles) have benn given latin names (Ovidiu, Coriolan, Trajan) or even Dacic or Slavic who were impossible to convert (Decebal, Doina, Mircea).
 * By the way, how old are you? You must be pretty old if your grandparents lived before 1920 as adults capable of fair judgement ... so don't just state that you know things you only heard as word of mouth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.231.19.6 (talk • contribs) 27 April 2006.
 * I'm not the person who wrote the remark, but it doesn't take being all that old. I'm 51. One of my grandfathers was in the U.S military during World War I; the other was too nearsighted to serve, and was in college at the time. - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't detect any indication from the article that it was a "blessing", but it could certainly use more information about what Magyarization was like for the affected ethnicities. Olessi 13:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well for a start, defining Magyarization: "was the official effort of the Hungarian government and institutions to linguistically and nationally unify the Kingdom". Is this a bad jocke? Is this mockering? What about "whas an official repressive policy of assimilation"? What about "ethnocide"? The article mentions "strengthened requirements of the use of Magyar" instead of "forcefully imposed Magyar". Even not mentioning about the forced change of names... This is disgusting. I would correct myself but I begin questioning wether wikipedia deserves my time. After finding a dozen of hungarian irredentist websites, I begin thinking that it would be useless. -Paul- 14:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, Paul, but they do not understand you. Whatever you say, they think "Magyarisation" was just another -isation like elsewhere in the world, but it was not. Romanians where executed on ethnic grounds, thousands of non-Magyar elementary schools were just shut down (high schools were prohibited completely), people (not to mention towns etc.) had to change their names into Magyar names (a pupil called Ján Černoch became Janos Czernoch etc.), several official state organizations were founded to "magyarize" the Slovaks, trials were organized against people who did not agree with this policy, books were written by Hungarians about how the whole process could be enforced more quickly, pure communication in non-Magyar languages between students in schools was prohibited, Hungarians were "indignant" they they hear people communicating in Slovak in a train (!), a prominent Hungarian noble said "we will not rest until we eradicate them" (the non-Magyars) etc. etc. Unfortunately, the current version is the only one that is accepted here. Juro 16:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think statements like "but they do not understand you. Whatever you say, they think "Magyarisation" was just another -isation like elsewhere in the world, but it was not" are fair. The little copyediting I did a few months back was in good faith, and I did not revert after you corrected me. Why do you think the article cannot be improved upon its current version? Aside from this change, I don't see any disputes in the article's history, and the article has been contributed to largely by reasonable posters I respect. Details about what Magyarization entailed should obviously be included in the article if it was as you describe. Olessi 20:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (1) I did not mean exactly you. Still, your reaction above shows that you - like many people in the world - are not aware of what was really happening in the kingdom around 1900. (2) The article cannot be expanded, because the expansion will be immediately deleted by most of our Hungarian users here, who, by the way, have even problems with the current version, as their repeated comments here and elsewhere show. Juro 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Olessi, maybe when I will have more time I will try to "bring some light" here. By the way, did you compare this article with the Romanianization one? The problem is that when i see hungarian propaganda machine at work i become so disgusted that I just lose any motivation watsoever to write in the wikipedia. They even invented the concept of "slovakization" (http://www.hungarian-history(dot)hu/lib/jani/jani18.htm). I've read a good point of another wiki user who wrote that wikipedia has a systemic (not systematic) bias. That applies especially to history. Let's suppose the wiki has more Hungarian users than Romanian or Slovak; then of course the articles regarding relevant historical information will tend to be Hungarian POV. So the truth and the NPOV might be a lost cause from birth. :( -Paul- 14:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC), Romania


 * Maybe the problem is that it's the first time you have to face Hungarian POV. I remember the same when I came to wiki, and since then I learned a lot about Slovak and Romanian POV, and it was useful and interesting. It's strange that you question "Slovakization" (and I guess, Romanianization as well), at the same time it has the same effects: kids named to Hungarian names that cannot be translated (Emese, Attila, etc - this is very common in Transylvania as well.) Further, I think Wiki has much more Romanian users than Hungarian, plus Romanian/Slovak/Serbian POVs seem to harmonize, while Hungarians are alone (well, that's what they are used to anyway). Maybe you should assume good faith of Hungarian contributors as well. Vay 14:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have explained to you, dear nationalist, what the word (re)slovakization means. And it is interesting that as a member of a country having successfully conducted ethnic cleansinsing in the 19th and 20th centuries you dare to invent a "slovakization" given the fact that the number of Hungarians in Slovakia was constantly increasing before 1991 (while it decreased even in Hungary itself), that there have always been Hungarians in the Slovak government, that every single Hungarian in southern Slovakia has had the opportunity to visit a fully Hungarian school (while Slovaks and Germans in Hungary learned their language as a foreign language) etc. etc. Juro 03:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For those who are reading this talk page and have no idea what reslovakization meant, just an example: deportation, dispossession, disenfranchisement based on ethnicity (the incentive for Magyars declaring themselves as Slovaks was that they could keep their property and they avoided deportation to labor camps in the Sudetenland), speaking Hungarian in public or using the original Hungarian names of towns and villages (like Pozsony or Kassa) were punishable by law. For those with illusions about the treatment of Magyar minority in Czechoslovakia both before and after WWII, the works of Popély Gyula, Janics Kálmán and not the least, Duray Miklós will be important eye-openers. Regarding schools: in 1918, there were 3298 Magyar elementary schools in the former Felvidék, by 1921-22, their number was reduced to around 700, there were sixty Hungarian high schools in 1918, under Czechoslovak administration, their number was reduced to seven (!!). Enigma1 22:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can repeat it: reslovakisation was the OFFICIAL name given to the possibility given to the Magyars AFTER WORLD WAR TWO (ie. afte Hungary had occupied 1/3 of Slovakia, attacked it with air raids etc., tried to occupy it completly and expelled 100 000 Czechs and Slovaks from southern Slovakia) to change their nationality in documents into Slovak IF they can prove that they have immediate Slovak ancestors, i.e. are Magyarized Slovaks (which some 1/3 of them were able to do). THIS WAS CANCELLED AND REVERSED IN 1948, i.e 3 (in words three) YEARS later (as you can see, the Magyars are still in Slovakia, unlike Slovaks in Hungary). The alternative would have been a complete expulsion of Magyars from Slovakia (analogously to what was done to Germans in Czechia), but this was not done, otherwise I would not have to write this today. And any "injustice" if any relates to the population exchange between CS and H, but that is another problem. And regarding the schools, this is incredible, that you dare to say this: before 1918 ALL SCHOOLS WERE MAGYAR SCHOOLs, you medieval primitive, that's what this article is about. And Duray is a mentally ill person (literally) and an extremist fascist. And not only had each nationality in Czechoslovakia exactly the number of schools it needed according to its percentage, the minority rights were (and are) among the best in the world. And I can repeat for the 100th time: you are living in a country that constantly performs ethnic cleansing, and nevertheless you dare to critisise the others here??? There were 500 000 Slovaks in Hungary in 1919, no there are 17 000 - where are they??! The difference for the Germans is even worse (even taking into account the post-war migrations) - where are they???! The Magyars in Czechoslovakia and Slovakia (and Serbia etc.) have purely Magyar classes in which Slovak is taught as a foreign language, the Slovaks in Hungary have absolutely nothing or they had schools in which Slovak (not Magyar!) is also taught as a foreign language. The same holded for the Germans and for the others. And you dare to critise?? In 1988 (the same holds for the whole post-WWII period), the Magyars in Czechoslovakia (number 559 000) had 386 kindergardens, 131 elementary schools, 97 secondary schools, 2 theatres, 1 special government financed publishing house, 6 Slovak publishing houses also publishing Magyar literature, 24 state financed newspapers and journals,. In the same year, the Slovaks in Hungary (number 110 000 ) had 0 kidnergardens, 0 elementary schools, 0 secondary schools, 0 theatres, 0 publishing houses, 0 newspapers or journals, O special publishing houses, 1 Magyar publishing houses also publishing in Slovak and 1 newspaper. Are you able to interprete the meaning of the number 0 (in words 0)??? And you dare to critisize???!! A quote from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung by a Hungarian German from the early 90s: ... Slovakia, so critised by Hungary, enables to Magyar youth to learn in Hungarian language from the first class up to the matura  [my addition: and now the Slovaks finance even a purely Magyar university] Slovak is taught only 4-6 hours a week in those schools...Also, in Romania the Magyar minority has 33 secondary schools with Magyar language of instruction...But the Germans[my addition:analogoulsy all the other nationalities] in Hungary have all subjects from the first class up to the mature in the Hungarian language and German is taught 2 (!!) hours a week as a foreign language. And this was late 20th century. In other words, just shut up, so that I and others are not forced to name the physical atrocities that happened in Hungary in the 19th and 20th century. Juro 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * [removed fascist lies by a permanent vandal editor constantly changing his name Enigma] I have told you repeatedly to present your lies (in addition unrelated to this article) on another website. This is not a place for fascist lies. The discussion is over. Juro 21:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Who are you to delete other people's contributions? BTW you are the one who is closest to being a fascist here, noone else. I would be really careful not to face an RFC in the near future. 195.56.30.229


 * [as per wikipedia policy, repeated propagation of fascisism, lies, insults etc., unrelated to this article, made by a vandal permanently changing his name and trying to place here his propaganda to increase the number of google hits is to be removed] Juro 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia policy, "Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism." And you won't get away with it this time. 195.56.248.241 00:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the rest of the policies. If you have nothing to say about improvements or the text of THIS ARTICLE and under your true name and without lies and without insults (and not 10 IPs and names during one single day), this conversation on this website is over. Juro 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything what I have presented consists of hard-core facts like accurate census data, unfortunately, there are some people who don't like the truth but from now on, the gloves will come off, the de-Slovakization of Wikipedia shall begin, Slovakia and Slovak culture will be reduced to their face value, starting from somewhere in the 19 or 20. century.


 * Everything you have presented are pure fascist lies and infantile insults, which in addition have been discussed extensively already and are unrelated to this article. You will not provoke others to start to cite THEIR nationalist and fascist texts, which can be found in most countries. This is NOT a discussion forum for fascists, extremists, and not a place where you can place whatever you say to increase the number of google hits. Juro 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul-, I was thinking about writing something very similar to this. I find Wikipedia a great place because people with different backgrounds can meet here. Children in Romanian schools learn something different about our common history than Hungarian children. This is strange but true. Both sides have to try to understand the reasons behind these differences. If you find something completely contrary to what you have learnt to be true, there are three options: 1. You have the right version 2. Hungarians have the right version 3. The truth is somewhere between - this last option is usually the case.--KIDB 14:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * KIDB, I think you might be right regarding the truth being most of the times somewhere between. But right now the article is not in that "between" position. I think right now it has some important omissions and it should be "tuned" a litle bit towards the NPOV. -Paul- 07:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish you good luck. I think it is beneficial for everybody if a true story of magyarisation, supported by resources and evidences is recorded in Wikipedia. Most Hungarians are not avare of this happened at all. If you check the history of this page, you will see, I have never edited or deleted anything. I hope you will also support the true and balanced completion of other articles, less favourable to Romanians. --KIDB 08:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not worth the effort, Paul, because the wikipedia has been recently invaded by Hungarian nationalists and fashists (HunTomy, Vay etc.). Accept my advise and write it elsewhere on the web, I know why I am saying this.Juro 03:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There might be some nationalist Hungarians around here (and there may also be some nationalist Romanians, Poles, Serbs, Americans, etc.) and they may make it harder to write decent articles about sensitive subjects like this. But I can't believe that if you write a good quality NPOV article (verifiable, supported by reliable sources, etc.), you are not able to get some help from "outsiders" to defend it. Many WP methods and institutions (3RR, RFC, RFAr) were designed solely for this purpose: to help reasonable contributors defend good articles from agressive "minorities". --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it seems while I was only complaining about the lack of neutrality of the article I was too laisy to write something and others did the work. Now the article looks samehow more balanced. So I'm removing the NPOV warning. It seems that Wikipedia actually can be trusted :). -Paul- 15:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that this is not the final version of this article, and above all, note that the current article does not contain much, only general statements and definitions. Juro 16:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Odd addition, cut
The following was recently, anonymously placed in the "See also" section. I've cut it to here. It certainly does not belong in the "See also" section. It probably does not belong in the article, at least not without a lot more context and a citation.


 * [Begin cut material]
 * A constitution law, passed by the Provisional National Assembly on April 11, 1946, declared the following:


 * Only Czechoslovak citizens of Czech, Slovak or other Slav race possess the suffrage. (Clause 3)


 * Only Czechoslovak citizens of Czech, Slovak or other Slav race may be elected. (Clause 4)
 * [End cut material]

Obviously, this refers to Czechoslovakia, though it does not say so explicitly. But, more importantly, what is it doing in this article? This is an article about Magyarization, not about Slavicization. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Magyarization? Please...
Hungarians and Slovaks lived together for over a thousand years without ethnic war or "cleansing." Jews, Slovaks, Germans, Hungarians, and others flourished in what was then "Upper Hungary." Slovak publications, language, schools, churches, were hardly oppressed, especially seen in a pre-20th century light. Slovak nobles had both Hungarian and Slovak serfs as did Hungarian Nobles.

A tiny Hungary only led to an easier Nazi and Soviet takeover (as was predicted in 1920). The official language of Hungary was LATIN in respect of the various nationalities. This egalitarian, yet "elitist," language stunted national growth; Hungary initiated a plan for a common language. Some saw this as "Magyarization" despite the fact that no laws were passed prohibiting the use of any mother tongue until the Slovaks passed their "language purity law" in the 1990's. Pretty sad. Now that English is becoming the common language and the EU will weaken what some see as artifical borders, will these nationalists call it English-ization? It never ends. Upper Hungary once had equal Slovaks and Hungarians until the Benes decrees forced people off their lands. This was a dark period in European and human history, but perhaps so dark, it remains unseen.

No part of the above is true as far as the Magyarisation period is concerned. Actually the opposite is true.Juro 16:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, saying that the system in medieval Hungary was "elitist but non-discriminating" is false in what Romanians are concerned. As early as 1438 they were denied political rights through Unio Trium Nationum. Coming back to recent times, it's pretty sad to think what could have been accomplished, given that many Romanians, supported a federal "Great Austria". The European Union may be today able to achieve what the Habsburg empire could not because of the pressure of Hungarian nationalists. :) However, take my support to "Great Austria" at a second degree. I believe noone at the time was ready for such generous forms of government (just take a look at the transcripts of the Vienna parliament before WW1). Even today, and even in the most developped countries, ethnic conflicts exist. This may mean that nations/ethnies are still important, and that the relations and conflicts between nations will shape our future for a long time. Dpotop 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I basically concur with Dpotop, with only the additional remark that the exclusion from the Unio Trium Nationum was on the basis of religion, not ethnicity. - Jmabel | Talk 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Jews in Hungary
"The word 'Israelite' denoted only religious affiliation and was free from the ethnic or national conotation attached to the word 'Jew', which they therefore regarded almost as a derogatory term." (Philip Roth) Even today, "official" organizations of Hungarian Jews (eg Mazsihisz) regard Jews as a group of Magyars with a particular religion - that's why Jewish minority is not recognized as a national minority under the relevant act. There is a new movement, however, whose objective is the amendment of that act to recognize Jews as national minority (www.zsidokisebbseg.com). 195.56.21.218 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Correction
I've corrected some grave exaggerations and mistakes. (1) Petőfi was of Slovakian origin: he was a Lutheran. Maybe he had some Serbian ancestry way back in history, but please show me another Serbian Lutheran in 19th Hungary. (2) The use of minority languages in the press and education was not prohibited. If someone had the money, they could have as many newspapers and private schools in whatever language as they wanted. Which was of course unfair as Hungarian-speaking newspapers and schools were financed by the state. (3) There were no mass murders in North Transylvania in 1940-1944. There were atrocities in the course of which dozens of Romanian civilians were murdered during the first few days when Hungarian troops reoccupied North Transylvania after the Vienna Award. These were outrageous events, but they did not constitute mass murder. (4) Apponyi did not abolish confessional schools: the whole education system would have collapsed, and the powerful Catholic church in Hungary would have been quite upset:) --Tamas 18:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Petőfi was actually both of Serbian and Slovak origin, his father's name was Petrovics István (a butcher and tavern-owner of Serbian ancestry), his mother was Hrúz Mária (a domestic servant of Slovak ancestry), just to be exact. Enigma1 23:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Petrovics is only a name of Serbian origin, but in reality as far as I know the father was either Magyar (Hungarian sources) or Slovak (Slovak sources). Juro 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Serb sources claim that he was a Serb. :) PANONIAN   (talk)  23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian sources (official Hungarian literature books) claim the same: Serb father, Slovak mother.--165.72.200.11 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that it is possible to argue that, in a sense, there were no mass murders in Northern Transylvania in 1940-1944, but the destruction of the Jews in that region was among the most total in Europe. Perhaps they were deported elsewhere and killed rather than killed in Northern Transylvania—I really don't know offhand, and I can't think of any death camps that were on Transylvanian soil—but the murderous effect was the same. - Jmabel | Talk 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Tables on Romanian schools and newspapers
Hi Erdelyiek! I find the tables you inserted are relevant and fully cited, so they definitely have a place in the article. Nonetheless, they are a bit long. Maybe we should summarize what is in these tables in a few sentences and then provide the tables in the notes section?--Tamas 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is said that you are what you read. Who is this author Raffay Ernő? --Vasile 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He is a Hungarian historian. He had a brief stint in politics too, but his historical works are considered reliable, and he would surely not falsify data.--Tamas 20:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, we don't need the table in the article. What these tables prove is that there were several Romanian newspapers, so we can simply cut this sentence from the article: "Although there were few notable exceptions, virtually all newspapers were published in Hungarian", and leave the table on the talk page as a proof that that statement is false.--Tamas 20:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that these tables don't belong in this article, but they would be appropriate somewhere else, maybe an article on Romanian culture in Transylvania. Any suggestions? - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The tables: Table: Number of Romanian schools in Transylvania from 1869 to 1890, compared to the same in the Romanian Kingdom ("Regat") (Source: Raffay Ernő: A vajdaságoktól a birodalomig-Az újkori Románia története = From voivodates to the empire-History of modern Romania, JATE Kiadó, Szeged, 1989)

Table: Main Romanian newspapers and magazines in Hungary (including Transylvania) in 1906 (Source: Raffay Ernő: A vajdaságoktól a birodalomig-Az újkori Románia története = From voivodates to the empire-History of modern Romania, JATE Kiadó, Szeged, 1989)

Raffay Erno is a historian who endorsed the controversial documentary "Trianon": banned from viewing in Hungary, it circulated in Transylvania, which caused TV journalist Marius Tuca from Antena1 to invite the director and Raffay into his talkshow. The two Magyar guests defended the triumphalist perspective of the film, which presents Miklos Horthy as a national hero. (Romanians, Serbs and Slovaks have good reasons not to share this point of view) In the light of his public position, Raffay's credibility and academic honesty are at best questionable. --

How about using the same wording as in Romanianization?
Maybe this would be NPOV. Just switch the names, and we'll see if Erdelyiek likes how it sounds.Dpotop 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ) It would be an interesting experiment. But of course, the two processes may have been different in many ways, so simply changing the names may give us a result that is misleading. And hey, what about the Ukrainians?--Tamas 10:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * :) Right. As for the Ukrainians, we can easily replace them with a "German minority" section. BTW, don't you feel sometimes like shaking someone's hand instead of writing text in a navigator window? Dpotop 13:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I do:)--Tamas 18:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Juro was right. It is pointless. Because those who consider themselves prejudiced are usually more active and eager to change the status quo, the public opinion etc. That's why the hungarian irredentits are so active and virulent, that's why they keep re-inventing history, that's why "Corvinus Library" exists. Too bad for the money spent on that library :p -Paul- 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess this goes for all kinds of zealots, not only Hungarian ones. What is this Corvinus library, by the way?--Tamas 18:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Corvinus Library is at, and has many English-language materials on the history of Hungary and neigboring countries. I don't think that we have to always look for "balanced" statements, or NPOV after all. Science is not about balanced statements, but first of all TRUTH. An encyclopedia is not a commercial agreement, where people should seek compromises or mutual benefit. I know, that I am speaking against Wiki principles, but maybe the truth is more important than some editing principles. Erdelyiek 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's pointless to argue on these lines. Hence, the :) marks.
 * On the other hand, I presume the Corvinus library is not something any romanian would like. I browsed some sections at several occasions, and I would presume every hungarian irredentist idea is presented there, mostly on the line of what I called earlier "nationalistic history" (pseudo-history, that is). There are also bibliography listings. Be prepared when you enter the sections concerning Romania and the Romanians. What can I say, maybe Romania should create such a thing, just for the balance.Dpotop 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, history is not a science. At least not in the sense physics or mathematics are sciences. Many historical statements cannot be objectively verified (apart from banal ones like "X was born in 19WZ, and died in 19YQ"). Just for the sake of the argument, suppose someone made this statement: "On the whole, before 1999, Albanians living in Kosovo under Serbian rule had a better life than Albanians living in the independent Albania." Now is this statement true or not? Of course it isn't: Albanians were heavily discriminated against in Serbia, they were second class citizens, deprived of basic civil rights etc. So is this statement false? Well, not entirely: Kosovar Albanians enjoyed and still enjoy a far higher standard of living then their ethnic brethren in Albania. In the same way, you can argue that Romanians in Transylvania under Hungarian rule "lived better" than Romanians in say, Wallachia, in terms of material wealth, and at the same time, that they "had a worse life" in terms of political rights, language use etc. (You could run the same story with Hungarians living in Burgenland, or Russians in Estonia.) History actually is all about presenting all the sides of the same coin (sorry for this image), weighing pros and cons etc. It definitely isn't a science, sorry. But then, many of the most interesting things in life are not science: love, faith, art, to name but a few:)--Tamas 23:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The history is about two things: facts ("Romanians fought Hungarians in Targu Mures in 1990", "Romanians had no political rights in medieval Hungary", etc.) and interpretation, both causal ("Romanians were discriminated in Hungary, so they chose to separate in 1918"), and moral ("Romanians had no rights in Hungary, and this is bad"). Even facts are a problem -- there's so many facts, that one has to choose its set of "relevant" facts when reporting them. This implies discarding other facts. :) When going into interpretation, we're completely lost, for the scale of values of one individual completely determines the way causal and moral interpretations are done. For instance, in an area and time where national symbols are important (Transylvania in 1990), the fact that Hungarians might have destroyed the statue of Balcescu from Sovata can be seen as a trigger for the ethnic clashes of Targu Mures. Of course, Someone else micht say that it's the discrimination against Hungarians that is the "main" cause. :)
 * Maybe it would be a good idea to develop a pattern for presenting the facts, the pros and the cons in such article. I proposed such an adversarial scheme for the Ethnic clashes, but I've been criticised for it. Maybe now it could be done.Dpotop 09:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Concentrating on facts would really be helpful, but the example you wrote (Romanians had no political rights in medieval Hungary) is no fact at all, it is just your opinion. Facts are like: The serfs were ethnic Hungarians and Romanians (called Vlachs in medieval times). These serfs were employed on Hungarian and Saxon estates. Serfs were discriminated against, they had less rights than the privileges classes.
 * The problem is if Romanian teachers tell their pupils things like your sentence above, and the children grow up believing this. Then, when they see a Hungarian crowd on the streets of eg. Targu Mures, practicing their democratic rights and protesting against their centuries-old secondary school being turned into a Romanian school, the Romanians will not understand the whole thing, they forget that we are in the 21st century and they will be afraid that these Hungarians want to become cruel landlords again... --KIDB 13:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, discrimination was religious. I'm certainly not concerned with serfdom, for it was normal at the time. The problem is that orthodox people (i.e. Romanians) could not be anything else but serfs. To become or to remain noble you had to convert to catholicism. This is the only discrimination criterion that counts. Of course, if Magyars had managed to magyarize everybody, the situation would be different. The problem is that Romanians resisted and the memory remained (because some discrimination continued during the modern ages).
 * And, BTW, my example was ill-phrased (it was intended to sound like an example from a logic book). Dpotop 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputes
I see that this article is tagged as both factually disputed and POV disputed. Can we start with the factual matters first? Precisely what in the article is factually disputed? - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything obvious as far as factual accuracy is concerned. Dmaftei 20:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since no one has mentioned anything in a week, I am downgrading to an NPOV dispute. Now, can someone indicate what they see as POV issues in the acticle? - Jmabel | Talk 21:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant info
I removed the following:

''However, we must not forget that Transylvanian Romanians had more schools under Hungarian rule, than in the Romanian Kingdom itself. Thus, for example, in 1880, in Hungary there were 2756 schools with exclusively Romanian language, while in Romania there only were 2505.''

The reasons being that comparison between the number of schools in Hungary and Romania is irrelevant to this article (although it might be relevant in other places). If you disagree, please comment. Dmaftei 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dmaftei, I think the comparison is relevant (though the phrase "we must not forget" is utterly inappropriate). Assuming that the schools in question are comparable in size - a comparison of number of students would be more useful - This suggests, in effect, that in 1880 more people were being educated in the Romanian language in Hungarian Transylvania than in the Kingdom of Romania. That would put sort of an "upper bound" on the degree to which Magyarization was being pursued as a policy. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree.
 * 1) Suppose for the sake of argument that Romania was five times biger at the time, presumably having some 12500 schools.  Would that mean that the policy was pursued to a lesser degree?  Or suppose (for the sake of argument) the opposite case: Romania was five times smaller, having some 500 schools.  Does this mean the policy was pursued to a greater degree?  The point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how the ratio of Romanian schools in Hungary to Romanian schools outside of Hungary has any relevance to the article.
 * 2) If this kind of info were relevant (which I think it isn't), why not also compare the number of Serbian schools in Hungary with the number of schools in Serbia?  After all, at the time Serbia was independent too.
 * 3) I believe this piece of info is also POV.  When I first read it, I thought "hmm, so Romanians should not complain after all, yeah, there was some Magyarization, but it wasn't that bad, here, they were better of in Hungary than in their own country..."  Now, I'm Romanian, so I'm probably biased...

So, to wrap it up, I think a useful statistic would be something like in 1880 Hungary had X% Hungarians, Y% Romanians, Z% Serbs, etc., and x% Hungarian schools, y% Romanian schools, z% Serbian schools, etc. The same statistic for multiple years would be even better. I think this would help better understand the Magyarization. But the comparison, I find it irrelevant. Dmaftei 22:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

An excellent point. Actually, I do not intend to edit this article, but maybe I will add exactly that statistics, when I have the time. Juro 23:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, it would be important to note that Magyarization was one way for the poor, uneducated Romanian and Slovak masses (the latter did not even have a literary language until the 19th century) to obtain an education and leave the peasant class. In this regard, Magyarization was a beneficial and often times natural process. When you just read novels (like for example Mikszáth) of that time and imagine that situation, you can see that the culture of the former Felvidék in the last century was mainly Hungarian (there were newspapers like Szepesi Lapok, Vágvölgyi Lapok, Trencséni Lapok) from places like Spis, Trencin today and by now, most of the original Hungarian culture has been exterminated by extensive Slovakization.

As far as Hungarian and Romanian schools are concerned, it is important to quote that Romania since its inception (late 19th century) has always been a poor, backward country in comparison with Hungary, so it is quite natural that while Transylvania belonged to Hungary, it was a center of Romanian culture due to liberal Hungarian policies. After Trianon, of course, these things have changed and Transylvania has entered a more backward, Balkanic culture.


 * Incidentally, based on the prevailing statement of Hungarians in this wikipedia, I really start to doubt that there are some "normal" Hungarians left in Hungary. The exact opposite is (of course) the case. Non-Magyars were unable to follow and to finish even the elementary school becasue Hungarian is a horribly difficult language for an Indo-European (as anyone having learned that language can confirm) and they were unable to follow what they have been thaught in the school. And the "masses" became "uneducated" just because their schools were shut down. Since we have no normal article here, you obviously do not know that the number of non-Hungarian elementary schools was decreased by literally thousands at the end of the 19th century (while the number of Hungarian schools was incresed correspondingly), that the number of Slovak high schools was exactly 0.00 (after the government shut down the only three ones the Slovaks managed to open from their funds) etc. etc. And the statement about your "novels" is a pure joke. If you read Slovak "novels" (and look at the then statistics) you will find out that there were above 100 000 Slovaks in Budapest alone (and I could name a list of Slovak newspapers appearing there in late 19th century - of course none of them financed by the state). Also the fact that there were Hungarians in Slovakia (in the towns) at all is a RESULT of the Magyarisation period (as the then Hungarian data clearly show, we do not have to add anything to them). So please stop these primitive statements, even by the then European standards the situation was hidden ethnic cleansing. And I have not mentioned organised transports of Slovak children out of Slovakia to present-day Hungary, the foundation of governemnt-financed Magarisation "associations", political trials against Slovaks and Romanians on ethnic grounds, executions in Romania, official declarations of prominent Hungarians that the non-Hungarians have to be eradicated as quickly as possible, shutting down of shops owned by Slovaks on ethnic grounds (due to alleged "Panslavism" - note that we are talking abot simple shops) etc. etc. The list goes on forever. Juro 06:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As for Hungarian being a difficult language (which I consider a highly primitive argument) since the Hungarian nation has assimilated countless other ethnics during its history, I have to turn the table on you again, even some of the basic words of the Czech and Slovak languages are atrociously difficult for Hungarians (and most Europeans) to pronounce, words that have the (rzh) consonant, like tri or ctyri, or krk, prst, zmrzlina, or should I point out that the (predominantly Hungarian) residents of Dunaszerdahely could find it extremely difficult to pronounce the Slovak name of their town (Dunajska Streda - phonetically, Strzheda).Enigma1 23:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is symptomatic that Tamas got the point, but you are unable to understand even such a rudimentary argument. Of course the difficulty works the other way round, so what???? We are talking about children having to learn in Hungarian and not the other way round. I see now that you are really a child, so please just stop this discussion. Juro 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Juro! These "contributions" based on novels and other "reliable" sources are indeed ridiculous. That said, you shouldn't forget that it is not Hungarian Wikipedians who add them, but some unregistered hotheads of whom there is a plenty of any nationality. So I don't really appreciate you comment on whether any normal Hungarians are left in Hungary. (Although I do appreciate that you admit the possibility of there being some normal Hungarians in other countries:)) ) Also, the fact that the number of non-Hungarian language schools declined rapidly is actually in the article, I know coz I added it:) I also dispute that what was going on was unique by European standards: e.g. France treated its own minorities (Bretons, Basques, the Flemish etc.) much worse: the number of Breton, Basque and Flemish-speaking primary schools was zero.--Tamas 23:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you did not pay any attention to read Mikszáth novels back in school, they give a pretty accurate picture of the historical Felvidék.81.183.183.205 20:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just some notes (I will ignore what follows belows): After months spent in the wikipedia, I have noticed that it is indeed necessary to answer to people in a way corresponding to the level of their own statements (i.e. to descend to their level). So, the above is just this type of rection to someone's (wrong) statements. I did not comment directly the article (which by the way is so weak in many respects that I do not even bother to read it carefully, and it is "beyond repair", because this type of article will be always permanently vandalized). Secondly, this is a misunderstanding: note that I said "based on the prevailing statement of Hungarians in this wikipedia", which is the same statement that you made above. Thirdly, as for comparisons with France (the favorite example periodically used by all Hungarians): the BIG difference between Hungary and other countries in the 19th (i.e. (post-)enlightment) century is that in other countries there were not as less as 30% Magyars (i.e. the equivalents in the respective countries) in the late 18th century (i.e. before Magyarisation started). It is rather the opposite, the percentage of the "minorities" in those countries corresponded to the percentage of Magyars in Hungary. And, Magyarisation is not only about schools, the schools were just the matter at handJuro 08:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get this 30% from, it was less then 50% to be sure, but I never read 30% anywhere. Of course you can never be sure for the period before censuses started. As far as France is concerned, you make a valid point, but don't forget that there were huge regions of France where the vast majority of people spoke some other language (e.g. Bretagne). For them, French was as foreign and as difficult as Hungarian was to Slovaks. And it did not help them a wee bit that they happened to be in a country where the majority spoke French if most of them never left their ancestral region at all.--Tamas 16:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are the results of the Josephin census (29%). I even have the exact absolute numbers, but anyway you will find the statement that it was "less then 1/3" even in Lendvai's books on Hungary (try google.book.search, maybe they are there). But this has been discussed already somewhere. As for the Bretons, firstly, I have no time to examine their situation in the 18th/19th century, maybe it was bad, maybe not, but I have explained the difference above (their percentage in France's population was certainly negligible). And I assume that their situation was "bad" since the middle ages, but what Magyarisation describes is a CHANGE (note that the situation in Hungary was completely acceptable before the late 18th century! (Latin as lingua franca etc.), nobody is criticising the national circumstances in the Kingdom of Hungary before the 1790s).  Most importantly, however, one could cite many other "good" examples in Europe, especially countries like Austria (incl. Czechia etc.) ie. the other part of Austria-Hungary, which is certainly the only correct comparison object. Also, justifying something "bad" by saying that selected others are also "bad" is quite weird and does not change the thing itself.  Juro 05:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Re 30%: it seems you are right, sorry. Re Bretons: until the revolution in 1789, there was no unitary French state, so regions enjoyed considerable cultural autonomy. It was with the revolution that the idea came that all kids in the République Francaise should be "enlightened" in French, and all those "backwards" languages like Breton should be eliminated. Another reason was that minorities threatened the unity of the glorious French state. And this is where the comparison makes sense: many Hungarians followed the same logic: they quite arrogantly and ignorantly thought that Slovaks should be "enlightened" in Hungarian, and yes, they also thought that minorities threatened the unity of the glorious Hungarian state. That's the way "liberal nationalism" worked. It is of course a significant difference that Slovaks made up a larger percentage in Hungary, but aggressive assimilation of an otherwise viable culture (be it Slovak or Breton) is a crime under any circumstances. I don't want to justify it, I just would like to put it into context, which is something very different. Which of course means that good examples should be also highlighted: we should definitely refer to the different and more tolerant approach of Austria, to be sure.--Tamas 17:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Because other countries did not fought the Turks to save the Christian civilization of Europe, and the mountain shepherds up on the North.


 * Your reaction is off-topic, but: And who do you think was fighting and died on the Austrian side of the Austrian-Ottoman border? Thousands of Slovaks, Rusyns and Austrians (and maybe "10" Hungarian nobles, who fled to the north that's all). Hungarians were direct subordinates (citizens) of the Ottoman Empire, the empire did neither loot, nor kill, nor destroy its own tax payers. And as for the shepherds: (1) This is fascist and racist terminology, (2) the first "shepherds" were only arriving at that time to Slovakia from Ukraine, (3) not even in the 19th century, there was a significant percentage of "shepherds" in Slovakia, (4) At that time, Slovakia was the most advanced part of the whole kingdom in any thinkable respect, so, you can spread your ridiculous 19th century collection of lies and ignorance in the next kindergarden, but not here. Juro 13:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Juro, I don't think you should bother to answer these guys at all. What they are writing is so blatantly ridiculous and primitive in style that no one would take it seriously anyway. You just waste your time on them. As long as they don't touch the article, don't care about them. These debates are endless and the only result will be that you will, as you put it, descend to their level. The other thing is that once you answer them, they will answer to you, and then this talkpage will be full on nationalistic bullshit all over.--Tamas 17:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I used to ignore such things, but I recently found out that people read the wikipedia talk pages (even very frequently), and if I was an American or anyone else, I would believe what they say (for lack of other sources). So I am at least trying to remind possible readers that this is really complete non-sense. Germans use to say I cannot let it "stand" like this (I do not know what the corresponding English phrase is). Juro 05:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the phrase works in English as well (du kannst es nicht so stehen lassen, oder? :) ) Anyway, it's quite weird people read talkpages for information. Anyway, I guess the style of these "contributions" would put off sensible people, but I understand you concern.--Tamas 17:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Verrrry interesting. And this "alleged" panslavism led to the creation of the crocodile-shaped artificial Czechoslovakia and the ill-fated Yugoslavia? I mean it was not alleged at all: these movements were against the unity of the state. And if Hungarian policies were not in essence liberal (your lies do not count much here, because there are legal texts, see the Act on National Minorities passed after 1867), and would follow a French model of creating a nation state, there would be no Slovakia now. 195.56.27.192 20:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your doubt that there are some "normal" Hungarians left in Hungary, there are. I asked User:Tamas to join this discussion. From what I can see, he is the kind of guy who can admit that "shit happened", and still can talk about it without letting irrational nationalistic passion take over.  Dmaftei 14:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Enigma1 please sign your comments if you expect answers: type in three tildes for just the name, or four tildes ( ~ ) for name and timestamp. Dmaftei 03:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

See, this is exactly what is so irritating about Slovak nationalists. They keep referring to a political unity called Slovakia back in the 19th century when it was non-existent (only Felvidék was known). There may have been many Slovaks living in Budapest around the time but the difference is that they were mainly poor working class or domestic servants (the "tót cseléd" or the "drótos tót" are classical examples), but the Hungarian and German population was essentially the cultural elite in the former Felvidék (of course, after intensive Slovakization and re-Slovakization, many Hungarian educational institutions like the university in Pozsony or the mining academy in Selmecbánya where closed (the latter moved to Sopron after Trianon). The Slovak masses were uneducated at that time because they were mostly poor peasants and mountain shepherds. As far as our novels go, Mikszáth Kálmán was one of the greatest figures of the Hungarian literary pantheon and his novels like "Fekete város" (Black city) about Lőcse or "Beszterce ostroma" (Siege of Beszterce) are evergreen classics. As for Slovak literature, the greatest poet, Hviesdoslav was actually a Hungarian named Országh Pál (from Árva county) who could not make a career as a Hungarian literary figure besides Ady and the likes and that's why he became a Slovak poet.81.182.209.227 08:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right, but they will never admit that, exactly because of their inferiority complexes. They create a fairy tale history, and stick to that. 195.56.27.192 20:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a short note to readers of this discussion: Not a single word in the above is text is true. Not a single one. This is really an extreme case of primitivism, both in terms of missing logic, and in terms of missing knowledge of basic facts. It is impossible and useless to react to such an incredible collection of bullshit.Juro 08:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jeez, what a lucid, intelligent argument. You could have at least presented some rebuttals but you are really cornered, my friend. At least you could have refuted that Országh Pál started out as a Hungarian poet (you know it's true). 81.182.208.43 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jeez. Orzságh is a NAME of Hungarian origin, but his family was purely Slovak for decades if not for centuries. (Do you think Kovács is a Hungarian name?) Deriving someone's nationality based on the form of his name is the supreme form of primitivism. Next, he started to write in German, then he started to write in Hungarian (because this was the period of Magyarisation, you know, and Hungarian was considered the only "correct" language and he attended a Hungarian high school etc.). Even if he wrote everything in his life in Hungarian, so what??? Do you want me to point out the (true) ethnic origins of Magyar personalities, so that you can see that most of them are Slovaks, Serbs, Germans and "Hungarians" only in the sense that they lived in a country called "Hungary"? ...As you can see, only the reation to one of your primitivisms took one whole section of text. You should really reattend an elementary school or something like that to learn basic principles of thinking. Juro 20:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so here is the exact info on Országh, the family was one of the oldest Hungarian (Magyar) noble families, the father of Országh married a Slovak woman therefore he could claim double ethnicity. As for his poetry, as I know from a famous literary historian, after he sent a collection of his poems to Budapest, he received a reply like "from Árva county we want cheese and not poems". This "frustration" made him in the end the greatest Slovak poet but he still kept his relationship with the Hungarian literature, translating many ballads of Arany and the "Tragedy of Man" by Madách. Btw, if "deriving someone's nationality from the form of his name is a supreme form of primitivism", the slovakization of Hungarian personalities with a little Slavic resemblance in their names (like Benyovszky, Mikovinyi, Mednyánszky, Jedlik Ányos) should also be stopped.Enigma1 23:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's all just wrong, like always...Not worth a reaction anymore.Juro 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, Mr and Mrs IP_Address, we all got your point: how backwards and uneducated the Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Ukrainians, etc. were, and how grateful the poor bastards should've been for beeing ruled by the Hungarian elite. However, your bashing of the minorities in the Hungarian Kingdom has nothing to do with this article (in case you haven't noticed some of us are trying to improve the article.) So, unless you decide to contribute something to this article, please look for another audience. Dmaftei 22:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As of today, your mere "contribution" was deleting the fact that during the fictional "Magyarization" there were more Romanian schools in Hungary than in Romania. We could cite other interesting facts, even from Wikipedia: Iuliu Maniu, as member of the Budapest parliament during the age of massive Magyarization...? Strange. This article should be deleted, or added to the "legends, myths and conspiracy theories of young nations" category. 195.56.27.192 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, Magyarization is a legend. At least you have a sense of humor... :-) Dmaftei 01:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of Stephen Borsody, 195.56.27.192? Hungarian scholar and former Hungarian diplomat, awarded, in 1998, a lifetime achievement medal by the president of Hungary?  Author of The Hungarians: A Divided Nation?  Here's a quote:
 * The forcible Magyarization was launched under Kalman Tisza's premiership. He introduced the 1879 Education Act which made the teaching of Magyar compulsory in state primary schools. Other measures to suppress the ethnic cultural and national aspirations of non-Magyars followed. A linguistically homogeneous Hungary was to be achieved through the system of education and administration.
 * Legend, heh? ;-) Dmaftei 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's indeed humorous to call making the teaching of Magyar compulsory "Magyarization". "In primary schools Romanian Language and Literature is taught according to curricula and textbooks specially conceived for the respective minority. In middle schools Romanian Language and Literature is taught according to identical curricula as for grades with tuition in Romanian, but from special textbooks. In secondary schools Romanian Language and Literature curricula and textbooks are identical as for grades with tuition in Romanian." - it is the Law on Education of Romania, from 1995. 195.56.226.138 12:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the joke's on Mr Borsody... Dmaftei 14:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You also have to add that the so-called "closing of Slovak high schools" was partly because of intensive pan-Slavic agitation (just as in the case of the Maticza) and partly because of lack of interest of potential students, but already in 1884, the so-called "Magyarországi Tót Közművelődési Egyesület" (Hungarian Slovak Cultural Association) was created which received much of the financial assets of the former Maticza.Enigma1 23:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We got your point, you just repeat all the lies of the 19th century, if there is no other reason then it is "pan-slavism" and the problem is "solved". Of course, all this bullshit you managed to collect over the past two weeks or so from hypernationalist texts (because you were not here 2 weeks) is complete non-sense and I am really fed up with reacting to this fascict primitivism. Please leave this project, we do not need you here, you make no constructive contributions and are wasting our time. I am sure there are enough fascist, xenophobic and chauvinist and children pages, where you can find your audience. I really mean it. Juro 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So in your eyes, Magyar bashing is all that counts as "constructive contribution". Someone has to counteract the Slovak nationalist bias in these articles. It seems that you don't really bother to engage in a factual discussion just keep shouting "lies". You should really get used to the fact that some other historical considerations exist, as well, different from what you may have learned from the Matica. 81.182.209.170 20:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, let me just tell you this: It would be really interesting to see your reaction, if you knew what complete non-sense you are saying. Every second word you say is a non-sense from several points of view. You do not even know what the Matica is (it is absolutely unimportant organisation today), what is does and did, you do not know what pan-slavism means, when it was and who and where was involved in it, you know absolutely nothing and are just repeating 19th century phrases used by all people that were extremists even by the then criteria. In other words: if you would be beaten for every non-sense you say, you would be 100 times death now. Juro 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no wonder that the first Bible translations into Romanian were also made in Transylvania during Hungarian rule and before the 20th century, Romanian intellectuals (just like Eminescu) came to Buda to study and print their works - note that Bucharest was an Ottoman city then with very little cultural significance. If Hungarians really wanted to annihilate Romanians, how come the let them come to study in Hungary, how come they let the poor peasants from Moldva immigrate into Transylvania (which caused the Romanians to attain majority in the population).
 * Enigma1, please sign your comments. Dmaftei 14:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! I think the article is by and large OK by now, at least in the sense that there are no egregious errors in it. That said, there are a few things I don't agree with. There's the sentence:


 * The term is also used for similar yet more far-reaching policies, which were applied by the Hungarian authorities in Northern Transylvania during the course of World War II, which in some cases led to egregious atrocities.


 * What this sentence refers to is probably the atrocities committed by Hungarian troops in the first days of the Hungarian reoccupation of Transylvania. These atrocities were indeed egregious, but they had nothing to do with a planned effort of Magyarization: they were the kind of cruelties and murder of civilians that for some reason every invading army seems to engage in. So I find this passage very misleading: it seems to suggest that Hungarians were involved in some sort of ethnic cleansing, which is patent nonsense.
 * As far as the Raffay quote is concerned, I agree with JMabel that it is relevant and should remain, perhaps together with an explanation that Hungary was more developed in general at that time than Romania, so this is the reason for the higher number of schools and not the "benevolance" of the Hungarian political class. It could also be added that Romanians were in a relatively better situation than other minorities, mainly because the Orthodox (and maybe Greek Catholic too) Church supported many primary schools. Compared to this, e.g. Slovakians fared much worse as they had little Church support. We could also elaborate on the fact that the higher you went the education ladder, the less likely you were to find education in minority languages: there were very few high schools that provided education in minority languages.
 * Another thing we could add to put all this into context is a few sentences about the practices of other contemporary states in Europe. E.g. if you take France, which was supposedly the leading liberal democracy of the age, the number of Breton, Basque, Occitan, Flemish etc. schools was zero (and it is pretty much zero today as well), the Poles of Germany were aggressively Germanized, the Csángó of Romania had to go to Romanian-language schools etc. This should bring home the point that while Magyarization was in many ways a vicious process, it was by no means unique in contemporary Europe.--Tamas 23:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Those atrocities by Hungarian troops were committed (in Transylvania and Bácska, as well) after regular Hungarian army units were fired upon first (in Szilágy county, Ip and Treznea by Iron Guardists, in the Bácska, by partisans and Chetniks). As a very important difference, we should also emphasize that those committing such atrocities were immediately court-martialed in Hungary, unlike those partisans for example, who committed the Titoist atrocities in the Bácska in 1944 or the Maniu Guards in Transylvania. Enigma1 23:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not correct. It is proven that the order for mass killings in Bačka in 1942 came from the Hungarian government. It was part of the policy of the Hungarian state in that time. There was even plan for expulsion of the entire ethnic Serb population from Bačka. PANONIAN  (talk)  15:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the reannexed Bácska (which was rightfully reannexed because it was an ancient Hungarian territory where Serbian refuges only appeared after Ottoman invasion), yes, there were some people expelled, the so-called dobrovoljáci, who had been previously moved in there as settlers by the Serbian government. As for the massacres in Bácska, the Titoist atrocities against Hungarians and Germans had about ten times as many victims (see Cseres Tibor, Titoist atrocities in Bácska).

A ancient Hungarian territory? Maybe in the parallel universe, but in our universe even Hungarian historians claim that when the Kingdom of Hungary conquered Bačka it was populated by Slavs (even name Bačka is Slavic). Also, claim that Bačka was "rightfully reannexed" by Hungary was a pretext for genocide commited against civilians in the region during WW2, thus seems that you are some kind of fascist or something like that since you use WW2 fascist rhetoric. Also many of the civilians killed in 1942 raid were native Vojvodinians, not colonists. I know that partisans also killed people after the war, but what you expected from them? Partisans were people who lost members of their families during the war. The killing chain in Vojvodina was started by Hungarian, Croatian and German fascists, while partisans were desperate ordinary people who became partisans to protect their own lives and what they done after the war was a revenge for the killed members of their families. However, I will not claim that something in this revenge was "rightfull", as you claimed for the WW2 occupation and genocide in Bačka. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said that the atrocities were rightful (please, read again what I wrote), but the retaking of Bácska was morally right because for most of history, it was Hungarian-populated (you probably don't learn this in school but before the Turkish invasion, even Belgrade was a Hungarian city), the massive Serb influx is owed to the population escaping from the Turks (even the Serb patricarch, Csernojevics Arzén sought refuge in Hungary). As for the killing chain in Bácska, it was started by irregular Chetnik and Titoist partisans who committed subversive acts against the peaceful Hungarian population and the Hungarian administration, which was followed by the pacification in 1942, this claimed several thousand lives. However, the returning Titoist partisans killed about 30-40000 Hungarians (and Germans), so rightful or "understandable" revenge is out of the question here.84.2.101.31 20:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is what Hungarian fascists from WW2 claimed that occupation of Bačka was "morally right" because in some parts of the history it was mostly populated by Hungarians. But it certainly was not populated with Hungarians, but with Slavs for most of its history. Here is a population history of Bačka:
 * between 6th and 13th century, it was mostly populated by Slavs.
 * between 13th and 16th century, mostly with Hungarians.
 * between 16th and the second half of the 19th century again mostly with Slavs.
 * between the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century was ethnically mixed, with largest ethnic group there being the Hungarians.
 * today, it again have Slavic majority.

So, how Hungarians can have "moral right" to land which they conquered from Slavs? I do not see logic in it. As for 1942 events, yes, there was a small group of partisans who rised against Hungarian Nazi regime, but they were military defeated by the Hungarian police and from the security point of view there was no further threat for the "Hungarian state" after they were defeated. But despite this, Hungarian police killed thousands of innocent civilians no matter that these civilians were not security threat, and these partisans who were previously defeated were used as a excuse for genocide against non-Hungarian civilians. Also, this "pacification" you speak about was also kind of genocide and many non-Hungarian civilians were killed during this so called "pacification". And by the way, partisans started their rebellion after this "pacification", so, it is clear that fascists started the killing chain. PANONIAN  (talk)  23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The answer is easy: if the killing of about 4000 Serbs (however regrettable) is enough for calling it genocide, the massacre of about 30000 Hungarian should deserve that term even more. As regards majority, the area occupied by the Hungarian army in 1941 had a Hungarian majority, even if the Yugoslav government had previously tried to eradicate this ethnic composition by a forced settlement policy (the so-called dobrovoljác).

Killing of about 4,000 Serbs???? Are you serious? The Hungarian, Croatian and German fascists killed about 50,000 people in Vojvodina during the occupation in all 3 occupation zones counted together, while more than 280,000 people were interned, arrested, violated or tortured under their administration. Also, after the war partisans killed about 20,000 Hungarians by the sources I have. So, if you want to play with numbers, play with the correct ones. And area occupied by the Hungarian army in 1941 did not had a Hungarian majority. I have here the correct data about population of that area (from the book written by Hungarian). The population of the area was about million people, of whom 301,000 Hungarians, 463,000 Serbs and Croats, 197,000 Germans, 80,000 Slovenians, 40,000 Slovaks, 15,000 Rusyns, and 15,000 Jews. It is clear that Serbo-Croat population was more numerous than the Hungarian one (which numbered about 30% of population). Besides this, only northern part of Bačka had Hungarian majority, while southern and western part was mostly populated by Serbs and Germans. So, please do not try again to speak about "moral right" to these Serb-German inhabited areas. Also word "dobrovoljac" in Serbian means "volunteer", while proper name for these settlers was "kolonisti" ("colonists"). And these colonists mostly settled in the ethnic Serb areas of Bačka, not in the Hungarian ones. And why you do not speak about another colonization before the First World War, when Hungarian authorities tried to change ethnic composition of Bačka with Hungarian colonists who were settled there. It is well known that by the 1715 Austrian census, 97.6% of the population of Bačka were Serbs and Bunjevci. Tell me please why the percent of Serbs and Bunjevci dropped so much between 1715 and 1910 censuses. It is very good proof for this Magyarization article. PANONIAN  (talk)  13:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Hungarian, Croatian and German fascists killed about 50,000 people in Vojvodina during the occupation in all 3 occupation zones counted together"

Mr. Pannonian be careful with the numbers. There was 593,000 killed in whole former Yugoslavia in WW2, (I watched Klopka on the BKTV cca. a month before) the victims of so called fascists, and not 1,700,000 people, as we lied over 50 years. In Jasenovac cca. 80,000 (and not 700,000 and more), in area of Jasenovac cca. 120,000, and where are the victims of the other parts of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo and Serbia? We know the territory of Vojvodina was the Island of Tranquillity in opposite to the other parts of former Yugoslavia. Did you count the Hungarians and the Germans also in this 50,000 people? So please, be very careful with the numbers. "while proper name for these settlers was "kolonisti" ("colonists")." No Mr. Pannonian you wrong, they called    themselves "dobrovoljci", "kolonisti" is afterwar (WW2) category.

"these colonists mostly settled in the ethnic Serb areas of Bačka" Look at the map Mr. Pannonian, where are these places? In the ethnic Serb areas of Bačka? Zimonjić, Mišićevo, Višnjevac, Karađorđevo, Rata, Novi Žednik, Mileševo, Lipar, Aleksa Šantić, Bački Sokolac. Mr. Pannonian, are you liar or just uninformed?

"It is well known that by the 1715 Austrian census, 97.6% of the population of Bačka were Serbs and Bunjevci." In these areas in the 18. century didn't exist the nation, this is a 19. century category. The confession exist only in the 18. century.

"Tell me please why the percent of Serbs and Bunjevci dropped so much between 1715 and 1910 censuses." Because, the great mass of the Serbs in the second half of the 18. century migrated to Russia (today Ukraine). Ako ne znamo raditi, bar znamo ratovati (If we don't know to work, we know to fight -  said Milošević in 1990, and lost 4 wars). They didn't know and didn't like to work, and they went to Russia, to fight against the Turks. Where are they now Mr.Pannonian? Do they speak Serbian language? What is your opinion about the Russification? Thanks. Bendeguz 20:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In 50,000 killed people in Vojvodina during WW2 are counted all citizens of Vojvodina who were victims of fascists (The number is taken from Enciklopedija Novog Sada, sveska 5, Novi Sad, 1996). Also, I must to say that the people who in recent years want to reduce the number of murdered civilians in Yugoslavia during WW2 are not the people with good intentions. And if Vojvodina was "the island of tranquillity" in WW2, then why Hungarian fascists killed my grandfathers father and why Croatian fascists burned the village where my other grandfather lived? Also, why Vojvodina is one of the marked areas where genocide occured during WW2 in the territory of former Yugoslavia on map in my historical atlas? Also, the name "dobrovoljci" was used when those people were volunteers in WW1, so they were not "dobrovoljci" because they settled somewhere but because they participated in war. In Serbian word "dobrovoljci" is not used for settlers. Also, I know that many of them settled in southern Bačka (for example in Veternik near Novi Sad). So, I do not lie, but speak what I know. And you want to say that Serbs were not nation in the 18th century? Please... And yes, it is correct that large number of Serbs from Bačka migrated to Russia in the 18th century, but you forgot to say that Hungarians and Germans then settled there instead of them. So, was this Hungarian-German colonization "rightful" in your eyes (because you claimed that Yugoslav colonization after WW1 was not, right?). Do we see "double standards" here or what? One standard for Hungarians, another for Serbs (how nice perspective, dont you agree?). But here is the real question, if both, Serbs and Hungarians were majority in Bačka in different parts of the history, why would one of these two nations have more right to this land than another? As for Serbs who migrated in Russia in the 18th century, that area is now in Ukraine, and they all are now Ukrainians. As for my opinion about Russification, I do not have one. My interest is mostly history of Vojvodina and Russification is not something which was related with the events in Vojvodina. PANONIAN  (talk)  02:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

When evaluating ethnic composition, including Serbs and Croats in one category is an obvious fiction and manipulation, considering that the Croats were always too happy to secede from the forcibly established Yugoslavia. Note also that the number of Serbian victims should not be accummulated, of course, there were many more victims of the partisan war in the Bosnian mountains than of the Hungarian pacification in Bácska which lasted only a few days (about 5000 dead). Also, an important fact, Hungarian troops only entered Bácska when Yugoslavia as a state ceased to exist (Croatia declared its independence).

Actually, Serbs and Croats are very often counted together in censuses and statistics because they are technically one same people divided only by religion. Also, despite the fact that my source mention those people as Croats, they actually were Bunjevci and Šokci, who are in many sources mentioned as "Catholic Serbs", and both, Bunjevci and Šokci voted in 1918 together with Serbs that they do not want to live in Hungary but in Serbia. As for number of the ethnic Serbian victims in Vojvodina during WW2, it was about 30,000 and it was a number of people who were killed during entire occupation (1941-1944), not only in 1941. If you do not believe in this number just visit some Serbian village in southern Bačka or Srem, and you will see there black memory stone boards with names of the victims of fascist occupation. Also, last thing, Yugoslavia never ceased to exist as a state, because during entire war, the only legal government recognized by the international community in that time was the Yugoslav government in exile. The fascist puppet states which occupied Yugoslavia were never recognized as well as occupation was never recognized as legal. PANONIAN  (talk)  18:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the point: Szerém (or Srem in your language), i. e. the territory between the Dráva and the Száva river was never occupied by Hungarians, neither was the territory east of the Tisza (Bánát). So again, adding up the numbers would actually exaggerate the Hungarian share (no matter how regrettable) in the atrocities. Also, people in Serbia may not be aware of this but Hungary was the only state which immediately started a court-martial procedure against those responsible for excess atrocities. As regards Croatians, I think they would be the ones who would protest the most vehemently if you tried to describe them as one nation with the Serbs (their war of liberation is just a good example of that). Moreover, the civilization of the two countries is entirely different, Croatia had a Catholic, Central Europe-oriented heritage whereas the center of gravity of the Serbian cultura was on the Balkans, south of the Száva river. Enigma1 19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did not added the numbers of victims into article, did I? Unfortunatelly, I have only numbers for entire Vojvodina, thus I cannot tell you numbers for Bačka only. As for Croats, I already explained that these "Croats" from Bačka are mostly Bunjevci and Šokci, for whom it is not quite certain whether they are of Serbian or Croatian descent. The number or "real" Croats in Bačka is negligible. For example, in 1918 assembly of the peoples of Vojvodina which voted to join Vojvodina with Serbia, there were 578 Serb deputies, 84 Bunjevac, 3 Šokac, and only 2 Croat (did not mentioned other ethnic groups). That can show how many "real" Croats were there. But what I am saying is that even "real" Croats and Serbs are often counted together as one ethnic group in such listings, like in this map:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Austria_hungary_1911.jpg

However, it is far from our subject, but if we want to be more correct, we can say that population of Bačka in 1941 had 301,000 Hungarians, and 463,000 Serbs, Bunjevci, Šokci, (and small number of "real" Croats would be here too). And by the way, centre of Serbian culture between 17th and 19th century was in Vojvodina, north of the Sava river, thus in Central Europe too. :) PANONIAN   (talk)  21:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"I must to say that the people who in recent years want to reduce the number of murdered civilians in Yugoslavia during WW2 are not the people with good intentions." In 1963 was an internal census about war victims ( to swindle some money out of Germany). And they counted 593,000 people in opposite to the Yugoslav propaganda which claimed 1,700,000 people. And it was TOP SECRET until 1990. We are damned liars. OK Mr. Pannonian, they (the Serbs) are damned liars. Here in Balkan, the lie has very long tradition. It is National Sport.

In 1919 Jovan Cvijić (1865-1927 Serb geographer whose image is on 500 Dinar banknote) lied about that the Serbs or Slavs lived in majority to the Lake Balaton. After that they lied about war victims. And finally they lied about Vukovar, Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Kosovo etc. And the list is veeery veeery long. Every their lie strikes back, like boomerang. Therefore is our (OK Mr. Pannonian, their) country on the brink of the abyss.

"Hungarian fascists killed my grandfathers father and why Croatian fascists burned the village where my other grandfather lived" In this case you are wrong person for NPOV.

I read your editing in article Banatski Brestovac. "In 1766 Catholic Church is erected (in 1945 it was demolished by communists)." Who were these communists? Are they from Mars? You wrote about "Hungarian fascists" or "Croatian fascists", but nothing about the communists. They were probably "German communists", weren't they?

"(because you claimed that Yugoslav colonization after WW1 was not, right?). Do we see "double standards" here or what?" Please, do not put your words in my mouth. I just asked you, are you liar or uninformed? I see, you are unimformed.

"I do not lie, but speak what I know." So, in this case you know very little.

"And you want to say that Serbs were not nation in the 18th century? Please..." I want to say that, the Austrians didn't count Serbs, Hungarians, Germans or Bunjevci, but they count Catholic and Orthodox people.

"it is correct that large number of Serbs from Bačka migrated to Russia in the 18th century, but you forgot to say that Hungarians and Germans then settled there instead of them"  They were not expelled from their villages like Germans or Hungarians after WW2, but they freely migrated where they want. "As for my opinion about Russification, I do not have one." I asked for your opinion because, in Ukraine were lost around 100,000 Serbs for about 100 years, and you preaching us about magyarization. Bendeguz 14:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you please choose one single signature because I have no idea do I talk with one single user here or with more of them. Now other things: You claim that number of WW2 victims in Yugoslavia was smaller because some guy in some TV show said that, right? The numbers I used here are those from (still) official version of the history, and when relevant historians reduce these numbers, then we can accept them as such, but not until then. Also, I am not quite confident that Cvijić was wrong when he said that Slavs lived to the lake Balaton. Biased Hungarian census from 1910 certainly was not a good starting point to determine who was majority there, and since most of these Slavs migrated to Yugoslavia after the Trianon border was established, we cannot know whether they were majority there in 1919 or not. Also, such generalizations that "all Serbs lie" or that "Serbs do not know how to work", etc, are little nationalistic, dont you agree? Did you hear me to say such generalization about Hungarians or Croats? What I said was only about fascists who have nothing to do with ordinary people, and I certainly have no intentions to insult somebody only because he is Hungarian or Croat. Also if you said that I am wrong person for NPOV because my family was victim of fascists in WW2, would you also said that every Jew whose family was a victim of holocaust is also wrong person for NPOV? Also, if you check history page of Banatski Brestovac, you will see that it was not me who wrote that sentence about Catholic church, but another user, so you have one wrongly addressed comment. Also, many Serbs were expelled from their villages in Bačka during the uprising of Rakoci (1703-1711), many were expelled during WW2, etc, so sell your story about "evil Serbs" and "innocent Hungarians and Germans" to somebody else. And I am not Greater Serbian nationalist to care what happened with Serbs in Ukraine. I just do not like that somebody twisting the truth about that what happened to my family in WW2 and the reasons why that happened. That is all. PANONIAN  (talk)  19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Panonian, this user is an open fascist (he does not even deny that) and permanent lier. Do not discuss with him. The only point in his "discussions" is to place as much lies from postcards etc. as he can on a site with many google hits. Not a single sentence of what he is saying is true. Do not assume good faith and do not become personal with a fascist. Juro 22:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"and when relevant historians reduce these numbers, then we can accept them as such, but not until then" If you wait for this in Serbia, it is cca. 20 years long period. If the director of ¿¿¿National Institute of War Crimes??? in Belgrade(I didn't memorize the correct name) says this, he is "some guy", if the Croats claim this, it is damned lie, if the Russians claim this - deep confusion (..et tu mi fili Brute), and when the Americans claim this, it is dirty manipulation. So, Mr. Pannonian see you later in 2025.

"and since most of these Slavs migrated to Yugoslavia after the Trianon border was established, we cannot know whether they were majority there in 1919 or not." You poorly blow the smoke Mr. Pannonian.

"if you check history page of Banatski Brestovac, you will see that it was not me who wrote that sentence about Catholic church" Sorry, it's my mistake,you just put that at the right place. What you mean, who were these communists? Did you know that in Vojvodina are around 50 demolished, ruined, destroyed, vandalized churches. And each of them was after WW2 destroyed. Did you know that in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995 were about 1400 mosques, 500 catholic churches and 200 orthodox churches demolished. Did you hear the Serbian proverb Kažnjava me Gospo'n Bog k'o da sam crkve rušio (The Lord punish me, as if I ruined churches)? In words, who were these communists?

"many Serbs were expelled from their villages in Bačka during the uprising of Rakoci (1703-1711)" This expulsion during the uprising of Rákóczi was bilateral.

"many were expelled during WW2" Yes, dobrovoljci (you call them colonists), and the colonists from Bukovina too.

"Serbs do not know how to work" I just quote you Milošević, and you didn't deny his words. If it is the truth today, than it was probably the truth in 18. century.

"Also if you said that I am wrong person for NPOV because my family was victim of fascists in WW2, would you also said that every Jew whose family was a victim of holocaust is also wrong person for NPOV?" Yes. My mother became war criminal when she was 3 months old. In 1945 and 1946 she was in concentration camp (Konzlager) in Bački Jarak, and later in Gajdobra. She is still war criminal, because there is nobody to tell her:" You couldn't be a war criminal, you were only 3 months ". There is nothing but big silence and big lie. So, I'm a wrong person for NPOV too.

"I just do not like that somebody twisting the truth about that what happened to my family in WW2 and the reasons why that happened." Me neither, Mr. Pannonian.

this user is an open fascist (he does not even deny that) and permanent lier What a nice label Mr.Juro. You have no idea what was the Balkan, and what is the Balkan today. Please, contact one Slovak from Vojvodina and ask him about the Balkan, about the fraud, about the nastiness, about what is permanent lie. You going to fall back.

Not a single sentence of what he is saying is true. I just wonder what you know from a distance of 500 km about these "liaisons dangereuses". Put down your pink glasses, come and live here just a week, and tell us after who is a liar. Bendeguz 19:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Bendeguz 05:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I will listen the good advice of Juro, and I will not discuss with you further. Wikipedia is not a Forum and the things discussed on this talk page should be about changes in this article. Since nobody of us does not change anything here, we have no reason to discuss this further. I just made one mistake in my previous post, South Slavs were not majority to the Balaton lake, but to the Meček mountain (I confused these two). PANONIAN  (talk)  19:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If we have to discuss Serb-on-Hungarian violence or whether Serbs in Bácska have really adopted Central European culture (implanted there previously by German and Hungarian culture) or they are truly Balkanic, we should not solely focus on history, just look at the present state of continuous ethnic violence against Hungarians in Vojvodina (alone in the region from Szabadka (Subotica), 130 cases were reported last week). 81.182.208.76 15:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I see what Juro meant when he spoke about you, and since I saw your other edits about Slovakia and Transylvania, I also see that your main goal here is to insult and instigate. However, since at this moment I do not have something smart to do, I will answer you. I never said that Serbs "adopted" culture from somebody. It is Hungarians and Germans from Vojvodina who did not created their own culture but adopted it from Budapest and Vienna. Serbs in Vojvodina did not have from where to adopt culture because there was no Serbian state in that time, thus they created their own autochtonic culture here in Vojvodina and later exported that culture to other Serbs in the Balkans. That is why modern Serb culture have Central European origin, not because it was adopted from somebody. That is also why Vojvodina was so important for Serbs and so unimportant for Hungarians and Germans. For Hungarians and Germans it was not more than a colony, but for Serbs it was a place where their modern culture and idea about  revived Serbian state was born. Karađorđe would never create Serbian state in 1804 if Serbs from Vojvodina did not gave him a IDEA about that state. Also, if you again want to call me "Balkanic", you should know that my family was recorded to live in Vojvodina as long in the past as there are records from the village from which my family originate. So, calling me "Balkanic" would be the same if I call you "Asian". As for these "reported incidents" in Vojvodina last week, how I never heard for them? How can be that of all nations of Europe only Hungarians are "persecuted" in all countries where they live??? You speak about incidents in Serbia, incidents in Romania, incidents in Slovakia...and always only Hungarians are persecuted? There are 26 different nations in Vojvodina and nobody of them complains, only Hungarians are persecuted by "evil Serbs"? If Hungarians in Vojvodina are persecuted, then why Hungarian political party is a member of the Vojvodinian government? By the way, did you know that Hungarian is on the head of the provincial government department for human rights in Vojvodina? If human rights here are not respected he is guilty for that. Now one more thing, it is in fact correct that South Slavs were ethnic majority between the Balaton lake and the northern bank of the river Mures, but they were not majority there in the beginning of the 20th, but in the beginning of the 18th century (That is from where confusion come). In the first half of the 18th century, South Slavs (Serbs, Bunjevci, Šokci) were majority in the entire area between Danube and Sava in the south and Balaton lake and the northern bank of the river Mures in the north. The Hungarians used name Serbia (Rascia) to designate that area in this time. As for demolished churches in Vojvodina after WW2, many Serbian churches were demolished too by the communists. I also forgot to mention the expulsions of Serbs from their homes in Vojvodina in 1848-1849 (I mentioned only those from 1703-1711 and 1941-1944). Also, it is not correct that fascist Hungarian state from ww2 persecuted only Serb colonists who settled there after WW1. In 1942 raid many Serbs from the Šajkaška region were killed, and Serbs in Šajkaška were not colonists but indigenous Serbs who settled in Bačka long before Hungarians. I also do not care what Milošević said about Serbs. Milošević was a great enemy of the Serbian people and I never liked him or cared what he said. So, try to quote somebody else, just dont quote Milošević. PANONIAN  (talk)  19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just close this window for a second and listen to the news: ethnic Hungarians are regularly attacked, beaten up, etc. just for speaking Hungarian in public. I guess you haven't heard about the Sötét family from Szabadka who had to apply for political refugee status in Hungary because of constant harassment and threats on their lives or the Hungarian person who was talking Hungarian on his mobile phone in Szabadka Wednesday night and he was attacked by thugs. Vojvodina has many nationalities but Hungarians seem to be especially targeted (unfortunately, Serbia has amassed a pretty negative track record on ethnic cleansing, especially now that extremists parties have high popularity). It is funny to read about Vojvodina being a center of Serbian culture, so far I have only known about Kosovo being called that. But it looks like whichever region belonged to Yugoslavia anytime in history holds a special place in the Serbian heart (I understand it though, during the war of liberation, you lost most of the prosperous regions of former Yugoslavia, now you have only Vojvodina to cling to). By the way, are you saying that in the 18th century, the counties Baranya, Zala and Somogy had a Serbian majority? Can you give some objective sources to corroborate that? 84.2.101.23 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If I try to listen the news in Serbia, I would listen only that "ethnic Serbs are regularly attacked and beaten up in Kosovo". Your country have one kind of propaganda, and my country have another. But, difference between you and me is that I know that this is only propaganda and you do not. As for the culture, Kosovo was a center of MEDIEVAL Serbian culture, and Vojvodina was center of a MODERN one. Serbs from Kosovo migrated to Vojvodina in the 17th century, remember. As for my sources about Serbs being in the majority in the large parts of the present-day Hungary in the 18th century, I have several sources, but the best one is: "Srbi u Vojvodini" (Dr Dušan J. Popović, Novi Sad, 1990). The author of this book is a famous historian, perhaps with best knowledge about history of Vojvodina. PANONIAN  (talk)  20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

”Serbs in Vojvodina did not have from where to adopt culture because there was no Serbian state in that time, thus they created their own autochtonic culture here in Vojvodina and later exported that culture to other Serbs in the Balkans. That is why modern Serb culture have Central European origin, not because it was adopted from somebody.” Shortly this is not true, because Serbs in Vojvodina adopted they culture from Budapest, from Vienna, and from other German cities. After WW1 Serbian culture or uncultivated behavior swallowed the Serb culture in Vojvodina. I wrote about this [here]. Bendeguz 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So, you want to say that Serbs were savages before "cultural" Germans and Hungarians teached them to be cultural? Before you say something like this, you first read something about medieval Serbian culture that flourished in Balkans and about achievements of that culture. Then read something about Serbian monasteries in Vojvodina which were founded during the Ottoman rule (not during Austrian or Hungarian). These monasteries were cultural centres during the 16th and 17th century and they are base for the culture of Serbs in Vojvodina. Finally the Serbian patriarch of Peć moved in the end of the 17th century his seat from Peć to Sremski Karlovci, thus Vojvodina became the main cultural centre of the Serbian people. These are origins of the Serb culture. Of course, there were certain influences from Vienna, Budapest, Kiev and Moscow, but that are influences, not origins of the culture. Also, I do not see that something "swallowed" the culture of Serbs in Vojvodina, it is just not any more the main cultural centre of Serbian people (since it is now Belgrade), but it is still one of the cultural centres. PANONIAN  (talk)  20:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention of the Eötvös Nationalities Act of 1868 in the present article which was one of the most liberal and tolerant law on national minorities of the contemporary era (it is worth of comparison with the policies of France or England, for instance, where large groups of minorities and minority languages became extinct in the period), which was far more generous than the treatment of Hungarian minorities in the successor states. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.182.209.156 (talk • contribs) 22 April 2006.