Talk:Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disputed name

Peacemaker67, stop with revert war and promotion of disputed name. Most users agree that name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” is bad and do not promote it all over Wikipedia. Name of that page is not same as name that we should use in other pages. Redirects can be used in other pages and “Military Administration in Serbia” is redirect that point to page “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia”. In this way people will be pointed to same page and this page will have more accurate description. Now, are you able to say why you revert? Say what is wrong or inaccurate in description “area governed by the Military Administration in Serbia”? Nemambrata (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)(note: Nemambrata is a suspected sock of Warhammer76 and has been blocked indefinitely)

As explained in my edit summary, there are several reasons for this revert. It is contrary to WP:EASTEREGG because you have linked a redirect to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia which requires the reader to follow it to understand what is going on, and also because there are people who print articles. Your change is also disputed, as the area was governed by the military government of occupation, not the military administration. They are not synonymous, and to suggest that they are merely exposes your lack of interest in understanding what the real situation was in the occupied territory. I won't go into your professed attempts to protect the Serbian people from supposed 'insults'. Facts are not insults. I am not promoting this name all over WP. I am focusing it on articles related to the WW2 occupation of Yugoslavia to make sure there is understanding of the real situation in the occupied territory due to the level of disinformation and misrepresentation (from editors like yourself) about the situation as it actually was. As has been pointed out to you before, you should limit your action on this until the RM at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is resolved. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Name of page “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” is already disputed by many editors. You know that this name is disputed but you promote this name all over Wikipedia despite opinion of others. “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” was a Nazi name and was illegally used for occupied territory that was illegally created. For most in World that territory was part of Yugoslavia. Nobody gave recognition to this occupied territory and nobody gave recognition to name of that occupied territory. So why you want to write illegal Nazi name in many pages in Wikipedia? This page have no relation to German occupied territory because it speak about other part of occupied Yugoslavia. There is no reason that Nazi name is promoted on this page. About redirect: I already pointed you to Wikipedia policy which say that redirects can be used in pages. About title “Military Administration in Serbia”: this was name used for that administration. Yes, it was illegal administration too, but it is less illegal to have an administration in country that you occupy than to have an illegally created territory in part of that country. Military administration in part of occupied Yugoslavia was less illegal than partition of Yugoslavia and formation of illegal territories. By international law, if someone occupy recognized country, he have no right to change status and borders of that country. It look to me that you just want to promote everywhere this illegal Nazi partition of Yugoslavia. That is POV pushing. If you think that sentence “area governed by the Military Administration in Serbia” is not good then please propose better sentence that will not promote Nazi partition of Yugoslavia in every page. Nemambrata (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)(note: Nemambrata is a suspected sock of Warhammer76 and has been blocked indefinitely)

Illegality is irrelevant. As is the fact that the article title is disputed. That will be resolved shortly by the RM. I have already pointed that your 'illegality' argument is fallacious using Kosovo as an example. WP does not permit censorship, especially not on the basis of supposed 'insults to the Serbian people'. This page is relevant to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia because the Hungarians expelled some of the population from the occupied area which is the subject of this article to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. You have not responded to my policy-based reasoning regarding WP:EASTEREGG, all I get in response to my comments is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, 'illegality' etc etc. Your editing is highly disruptive, please stop it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian place names in this article

I see the current edit war going nowhere fast. The fact that the occupation/annexation was illegal is a canard, signs were changed and Hungarian geographical names were used during the occupation/annexation. This should be mentioned in the article if it is not already (I haven't checked). IMO, the names the Hungarians used for cities and towns should be mentioned in the article. Discussion about this issue and resulting edits should follow the conventions of WP:PLACE. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Peacemaker67,

Thank you for joining the events, I have to emphasize I am not interested in any edit war, just always try to make articles better and if I see any imbalance or false allegation, mistakes, etc. my goal is to correct it with a good faith. I've placed some minor edits in the past days, and as I see, two ignorant or just fanatic user as Kereći svatovi and DIREKTOR almost commited vandalism by surpassing Wikipedia's rules and the principle of good faith, they reverted any edits and they can't prove they point just maintaning dubious propaganda.

Let's begin with Kereći svatovi, concerning on the existence of Yogoslavia and the toponyms

1. During history, general acknowledgement of states, falling or newly formed countries received almost never full agreement, and this is twice as true if in a war the side conquered almost never acknowledged it or mostly forced to sign any contract or agreement to acknowledge it, and mostly it did not happen but as approaching the modern era the documentary, legistlative and jusridictional profession made to interpret this disputable questions much more easily. Kereći svatovi's argumentation is nonsense, according to this, the fall of the Roman Empire could not be recognized by some, thus would be obligated to use the latin names, or i.e. Hungarians if Austrians ever tried to subdue them, it has resulted in a freedom fight, and they never acknowledged any attempt to cease Hungary, despite the German names or alternatives of the original Hungarian names are used (or forced to used by some Hungarophobes prior to 1860, etc.), furthermore it could be enlisted a plenty examples from the medieval ages up to today how many times a country was abolished or ceased to exist, not even recognized by some or of course the subdued but de facto and de jure it happened (like the multiple dissolution of Poland, or as well today are many countries not recognized by all other countries, but they are still exist). By the way you enlighted the problem. After long debate regarding the Gdansk/Danzig case, or by Hungary and Romania related articles, the common policy is we have to always regard everything in it's contemporary view and used for current specific articles the contemporary official names, and after mentioning the today used names. I could also say that Germany, Hungary, etc. was forced to sign a treaty they would never sign, and also it is a fact the the signed treaty's and it's conditions have not been fully kept by the "winner" coutries of WWI, and after that we could start a long debate that who will recognize and acknowledge who, or who surpassed any agreement first, but it does not belong to here and the facts happened in past should not be influenced of corrupted because of the today situation. In the 30's, Paris treaties started to abolish, new contracts and new changes redrawn the borders of Europe, as Yugoslavia were also ceased to exist when the Independent State of Croatia declared it's independence, as well as Hungary regained some part's of it's old territories by the events in 1941. Yougoslavia ceased to exist de facto and de jure, regardless the United Sates or some Allied countries did not recognize it, but many other countries of the Axis did it, and this was also de facto as well the reality, because the article also states the truth: the returned territories well fully incorporated administratively, legally in any form and any means to Hungary. We also cannot take serious the United States i.e. recognized a Chzechoslovak Goverment in exile about a dozen persons, but they do not form de facto and de jure a country ceased to exist, without a war but with multilateral agreements. I should not continue the explanation to intelligent people, because they understand (where this debate would go if we mention i.e. the question of Kosovo or Serbia, Palestine or Israel? The Allies also did not officially recognize when Germany recovered it's old German territories lost after WWI to Poland, although it happened de facto and de jure, but not any i.e. Anglo-Saxon historian debates today the re-conquered territories became part of Germany, and they even use and acknowledge this to those original Polish territories which was never under German reign before). So the argumentation of Kereći svatovi here fails.

2. Usage of toponyms

First of all, Kereći svatovi should not use expressions he does not understand, since the Hungarian names/alternatives along with the Serbo-Croatian ones are NOT exonmys, he should check what the expression means, some names are (phonetic) transcriptions of each, some are orginal names and they are used by NATIVE people living in the region, to say nothing of these territories were already part of Hungary when it was founded. According to the Wikipedia convention, this case I could use only the Hungarian names, but I didn't, just mentioned them along the Serbo-Croatian ones (thus I have shown a cultivated attitude and respect to the other side), so Kereći svatovi's awful and poor argumentation of "illegal" and "fascist" names are ignorant and ridicoulus, since that time these were not illegal and the original Hungarian names have no connection to any fascism, because the are the original names long back in time, this user should be blocked by his untruthful offenses to the Hungarian ethnic group. Moreover the Allies did obligatory in order to maintain armistice to sign an agreement Hungary resign the territories regained after 1937, so if they would not recognize the conquer, they would not made obligatory to sign such a documents. So all in all, although the treaties and agreements of the new borders were signed in reality 1946-1947, but regarding all context it is legal and fair to use the Hungarian names between 1941-1944, and Kereći svatovi should not revert any edits with insufficient knowledge related to the topic.

About DIREKTOR, who reverted my former edits, and reinforced and obviously false and propagandastic argumentation of Kereći svatovi, proudly announcing on his user page:

"Well done. It's difficult to be objective, and harder to acknowledge when one is not being objective"

The sad sing is as we can see he does not apply this kind of objectivity in reality, but supporting an anti-Hungarian propagandist. Let's see what did he reverted:

1. He reverted the "German-Italian mediation" to "German mediation", however surprisingly, the well-known arbitrations were made by involving German and Italian side, dear DIREKTOR, do you know the name Galeazzo Ciano, excuse me?

2. "Included parts of southern Czechoslovakia" -> "Included parts of southern Slovakia". I have to say sorry to DIREKTOR, since the birth of the Slovakian state was in 1939, but not in 1938, the time of the 1st Vienna arbitrage....Ooops.

3. "Romania ceded" -> "Romania was forced to cede" This is not as clear as it is shown, since Romania asked and recognized the German-Italian arbitrage and the forthcoming decison, as Hungary did, and the final decision was made by only both sides could negiotiate, present and support it's claims. By the way the "forced to cede" was in reality by the Trianon treaty, where Hungary opposing to the other's could only present She's point of view after all decisions were made and signed, with a reduced time, so where is your objectivity, Mr. DIREKTOR?

4. "Hungary" -> "Hungary and it's annexed territories" This is also meaningless, because we all know what should be understand as Hungary that time, as well in 1000 AD, or after the Turk invasion or today, and it's obvious every country and its annexed territories = itself.

So, unfortunately DIREKTOR's revert shows a deep inobjectivity and unprofessionalism, with much ignorance.

Finally, returning to the usage of names, by the former, and even the reverted state of the article concerning citation 27 is false, since the original, English langauge source wordage is corrupted since the author uses Újvidék instead of Novi Sad, and altering the content on of an original English language source in the English Wikipedia is a very unpleasant thing, by the way reinforces the valid usage of the Hungarian names that time as well.

This I will restore the near vandalism edits, and kindly ask the four Wikiprojects to make a cultivated consense, involving the intelligentsia as well. Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

I suggest you do not do that. They are not vandalism, they just reveal a particular point of view. This is ARBMAC territory and you will just get yourself in strife. I'm afraid your post was too long and your English expression is a bit difficult for me to comprehend. We should discuss here using WP policy and come to some consensus (and if no consensus is achieved then dispute resolution). After all there is no WP:DEADLINE. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I already did that, and will no problem with that, I have also made an intensive communication with the Admin's borad/Incidents in the past, so don't worry. Particular point of views diluted with extremism cannot overcome de facto reality or undisputed facts and happenings of history, I clearly demonstrated the obvious problems. It will be understood, Regards (KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

I agree with Peacemaker67 that the names the Hungarians used for cities and towns should be mentioned in the article, but not in part of article where KIENGIR would put them. I propose that new part of article about administrative division of territory during occupation should be introduced and that Hungarian names should be there. I have no intention to try to convince KIENGIR that most of his historic believes from his long comment are nothing but Hungarian nationalist mythology and I will focus myself only on 1941-1944 period. There is one question to answer: how many countries recognized Hungarian annexation and how many countries recognized that this is part of recognized Yugoslavia illegally occupied by Hungary? First group of countries is very small and it include only several Nazi/fascist countries and their puppet states or puppet regimes. Another problem is that in English Wikipedia common English names for places should be used. Most readers will be confused if Hungarian names (barely known in English if known at all) are in parenthesis near common English names. If KIENGIR have any source that say that Hungarian annexation was recognized by most of International community and that Hungarian names that he introduce were common names in English in that time he can show that source to us. The most wrong thing is that KIENGIR even introduced name Vajdasag, which was in use only after the war and which certainly was not used by occupation regime. Hungarian nationalist were always against idea of autonomous Vojvodina and they certainly were not using name Vajdasag (Vojvodina) during occupation. Kereći svatovi (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)(note: Kereći svatovi is a sock of Oldhouse2012 and has been blocked indefinitely)

How a miracle turnaround, and how interesting you accuse again me and Hungarians as nationalists, because we don't let to corrupt history of those who's hatred toward our nation exceeds a fringe limit, because they never maintained or know important facts and never had reached any objetive evaluation, just hater propaganda. You can convince me of everything, if you can prove it, but don't even try to reflect your fundamentalism to me, because everyone can see your activity how deeply you rejected any near objective evaulation until now. My explanation has no connection any "nationalistic mythology" I presented only the facts and their wide-seeing interpretation by tha fair objectivity. If you have a different opinion/proof of these, present it, but don't make any misty allude because it's unprofessional and ridicoulous and seems the accuser accuses the accused about what he is doing to draw away attention of his poverty and loss. It's an interesting question if we would enlist the countries about recognition pro and contra, but it's rather dubious if this question could be decided in such a "democratic" enumeration. As I can see, your favorite wordage is "Nazi", "Fascist", "Puppet", "Regime" and you can maybe produce more, but cannot remain political correct or like so, however, real democracy does not judge about such things, because every entity is EQUAL, this is the base of any democratic concept, to say nothing of, everything depends in a POINT OF VIEW, because for the other side the other countries are occupiers and oppressive regimes. However, Yugoslavia is the symbol of cheating the principle of nation states after the Paris Treaties, because we can see until now how much ruin this artificial state caused to the nations, religions forced into this country, and we all remember all sad parts of the Yugoslavian Communist Regime, and the oppression of nations, minorities, so I would suggest you a little calm down by making holy the so-called allies and their communist friends who ruined Europe by the bloodiest occupation and regime over about 40 years, oppressing and ruining almost all nations regarding Central and Eastern Europe, to say nothing of the three Balkan wars, and the instability today as well the region. For most of these people Yugoslavia is the symbol of the "oppressor regime", excuse me. However, if the recognition of a country or events conflicts - de jure - then we must see what de facto happened. I won't repeat the principle of the English Wikipedia, so read it back or check it in any well, professional maintained pages the usage of the CONTEMPORARY official names at first are VALID. The other problem is, you even state your personal opinion that is only one point of view, but does not represent the truth, about "illegal occupation", since before the Hungarian Army entered the area Yugoslavia ceased to exist, because the Independent State of Croatia declared it's own state, and do not take away the right of Croatians to declare they own country, because they always wanted to secede Yogoslavia, and so long if you make holy speech of the democratic rights, you have to recognize their decision. You speak again about "Hungarian nationalists", it seems like your orthodoxy to accuse everybody with nationalism or fascism, because of their ethnicity, like our language without any real reason, you only present distorted false arguments. Awful shame. Vajdaság/Vojvodia, as name for a region was introduced by the Austrians, and yes, we did not used it that time, this is the only thing you're right, but this had less effect than any of your fringe and awful attacks towards Hungarians. Presenting any source in this is not necessary, because even the Anglo-Saxon history writing, of if you mind, the international community is also know and demonstrates inall WWII history articles which parts of the abolished Yugoslavia got to Croatia, Germany, which parts became under German administration and being proposed to tile up between Hungary and Romania, which part just became under occupation and which parts were incorporated to the Hungarian Kingdom legally, administratively, as a returning former, old Hungarian territory. It cannot be demonstrated as a foreign territory to be occupied a foreign army getting new names of the occupiers language...it's ridicoulus, it's not like Germany occupied France or like so (=territories never belonged to Germany and having no German population), but in the question of Elzass-Lotharingien, that's an old German historical province, the occupation meaned it's was returned to Germany the same way as parts of Délvidék to Hungary. Thus identifying the original Hungarian names as "names used by the occupational regime" is not more then a fringe phrase, because these are old, original names back in time, as they was only restored. Koertefa has right. By the way, there are many countries as well today not recognized by many nations, but they still exist, have an own entity, administration, legal jurisdiction, etc. everything an autonomous state has. I don't think i.e. Norway would cease to exist, because some countries or governments would not recognize them, existence does not depend on recognition. Did Poles recognized any dissolution of Poland? Did anyone not recognized the new countries formed, or the legal reign of the annexed territories? Just see any history book or map from the medieval ages. This is history. Pre and post recognition is a thing, the reality, existence is a different thing. You could also enlist many countries not recognizing the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, postpone the war, but it would not mean between 1939-1945 any country or entity called Czechoslovakia would exist and created back in time. Please understand this. The usage of the "international community", "internationally" is also dubious, because who and what will judge about which country is "international"? It is the best to state the "Allies"...and if we enlist the countries maybe you would surprise, about the numbers, but if a state doesn't made any reaction how it would be counted? Think about these before you judge anything so quickly and so simple, of course it would need enough objectivity.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC))

Sorry, WP:TLDR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

KIENGIR, I have no intention to have any kind of political debate with you. Please focus your comment on our dispute, not on unrelated things. You failed to show any evidence that Hungarian occupation was recognized or legal or that territory in question was not legally part of Yugoslavia. I will now show evidence for opposite: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p348_Clive.html (“Despite the armistice, a Yugoslav government-in-exile was recognized and operated out of London throughout the rest of the war.”). Due to that I say that Hungarian names are not “CONTEMPORARY official names” in this situation because Hungarian occupation and annexation was fully against international law from that time. Independent State of Croatia and everything else that Nazis done in Yugoslav soil was illegal and unrecognized too. Another problem is that Hungary officially annexed these territories only in 27 December, so Hungarian names were not considered official even by Hungary itself before 27 December. I also see no reason why Koertefa deleted list of administrative divisions that I introduced. Kereći svatovi (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)(note: Kereći svatovi is a sock of Oldhouse2012 and has been blocked indefinitely)

You should not draw away the attention of the details, all I presented is just and only in connection to the details, but you still maintaining a farisse behavior, and you think if you repeat the same thing more once it will became truth, but sorry, it would be an amateur way to have a professional solution. I did not fail anything, because my intention was not to support my allegations with any source, because it is a talk page and I talked about obvious things anyone in the world can check on it's own, of course, I know the rules of Wikipedia about adding citations. By the way, the citation your presented has not any value than you can cite it, because it haven't told me anything new, or did appear anything decisive regarding this debate, and a citation will not change historical facts back in time, moreover the section you presented here was never debated by me, you think you can trick me with this? Really? Again: the Allies recognized, what the Axis not recognized, and the Allies does not represent the international law, since Axis countries are also international. The problem is you have one fixa idea, and you repeat it again and again, and just because the Allies won the war, it does not mean they have only legality back in time. Everything has to be viewed on it's contemporary evaluation. Since there are two conflicting views, and both have support, the article has to be politically correct with full objectivity, and not one sided, and if you still not understand the problem, read back my former argumentation any hopefully once you understand why, but I see unnecessary just to add a plenty of sources which would state how many countries recognized the new borders of Europe that time, opposing to the Allies. So your allegation "fully against the international law" is not valid, since that law not anymore was existed, kept, not even the Allies, prior to the war beginning with the Paries Treaties that were surpassed immediately, and again, Wikipedia is not a place to do any personal judgement about the existence and creation of The Independent State of Croatia, this is almost the same case like the Hungarian annexation of some territories. Not any "international law" can overcome of people's will of self-declaration, it has no connection to even who helps to get rid of the oppression, it is just the same from the opposing view when the Soviets "liberated" nations of Europe and helped to create new states, and those were also surpassed any "international laws", and it was the real occupational regime, the most bloody dictatorship on the world, when Hungary was only an "authoriter" democracy with parlamentarism that time, falsely identified as a "regime". Of course the winners identify everything righteous from their point of view, but it is not decisive in this case, since Wikipedia should not be a place of propaganda. Please discuss the details with Koertefa about your introduction if you want, however I think I understand him, as you were told, Hungary restored the orignal names and districts as it was possible, but the section you added suggest if anything new would be introduced, that's the confusion and that's why it sounds weird. And notice again, from the opposing point of view, the Allies created artificial states like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, they not even dare to make a plebiscite because then these states would be never created or not even with borders encorporating so much nationalities, although they could be left without any serious serious minority losses to their mother countries, and the United States left the Paris Conference beacuse of their disappointment about misleading them the real ethnic situations and the principles harmed, the U.S. Congress DID NOT enacted and accepted the Paris Treaties, even made or own peace Treaty with Hungary in 1921. Of course, despite we, Hungarians will not equal the United States with the international law, and we do not distribute or deleting Czech/Slovak, or Serbo-Croatian names, and does not claim these states were not existed between 1920-1939, 1921-1941, repectively. We just want a politically correct, truthful history shown, without any nationalistic bias (KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC))

I can't follow your WP:TLDR posts. Your prose lacks appropriate punctuation, there are spelling mistakes and your sentence construction is problematic. Please try to use brief dot points if you want anyone to respond. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My intention is not to have a respond at all, I really try be as short as possible but in this case about "international law" and related is very hard to shorten, if the other party do not understand still the situation, it is very complex. I think it is not that seriously hard to read and understand but you are right, I will tabulate and tile in the future to be able to read easier, and as I am not a native English speaker excuse me about the mistakes, I'll try to be always better and better, you could tell me on my user page about them to learn and thanks again your participation by improving the article. (KIENGIR (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC))

Talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM. If you are not trying to enter into a discussion, your posts here may be removed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reminder about ARBMAC

G'day all, just a reminder that edit-warring in WP:ARBMAC-land can get ugly quickly. Can we get some real discussion here about what it is you are arguing the toss about instead of a long polemic followed by a revert? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

My argumentation is professional and can be understood by any historical expert or English speaker, or just even ordinary people. I have demonstrated all points a will make no further edits after any discussion. It is long, some things cannot be explained very shortly, because the trollers then try to find 1000 ways of arguments and false premises, that's why it is better to see almost all colletaral things leading to the conclusion thus any resolvation and discussion in the future will be short and sharp. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by KIENGIR (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit war needs to stop now. Any further reverts will be reported to ARBMAC. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation system used

Does anyone have any objections to changing the citation system for this article to simplified? ie ((sfn|name|year|page))? It makes things a lot easier and I'd be happy to convert it over. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume permission by silence and start changing it over shortly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Balas is a memoir, therefore not a WP:RS except in the article about him, propose removing it

The book by Egon Balas is described on Google Books as "Balas (mathematics, Carnegie Mellon U.) remembers his live under Nazi and communist rule in Hungary and Romania and provides a eyewitness account of the social and political upheaval in the region from the middle 1930s to the middle 1960s. Particularly he charts his course as underground resistance fighter, political prisoner, fugitive, Community Party official, and disenchanted dissident." It is therefore highly questionable if this, effectively an autobiography or memoir, is reliable per WP:RS. I propose its removal on that basis. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I will go ahead and remove it and the relevant sentence. Feel free to revert (and discuss here with WP policy reasons) if you consider it to be a WP:RS. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Table with towns and districts

The table that has been added has some redundancies. The first is that a simple line of prose could be used to explain that the entire occupied area was part of the Danube Banovina prior to the Hungarian occupation. A column is not needed for that aspect. The table would be better organised by the districts the Hungarians reinstated to avoid repetition. I'm not much chop at tables, so I'd suggest whoever put it together goes ahead and simplifies it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Use of Horthy's memoirs as a source

I propose removing the quotes from Horthy's memoirs, because a. it is not a reliable source, and b. because it promotes Horthy's discredited claims about disorders and massacres. Tomasevich 2001 states unequivocally on p. 169 that Horthy's claims were not true. Instead I propose using Ramet's (p. 137) statement that Horthy issued a declaration on 10 April to the effect that Hungary was obliged to assure the welfare of those lands which it had lost after 1918, and using Tomasevich's statement that Horthy had later stated to the Americans after the war that he had not wanted to attack Yugoslavia but was forced to do so because of disorders and the massacres of Hungarians in Bačka, but that this was not true. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I also propose removing the claim from the intellectual property law text along with the Horthy statements. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Going ahead with those changes. Feel free to revert and discuss here (on a WP policy basis) if you believe Horthy or the IP law text are reliable sources in the context of this article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I have added an infobox to the article to summarise the key points. Happy to discuss anything I have added there. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The subject of this article is defined in the first sentence as occupation of two geographical regions. Why did you add former countries infobox then? (My comment is based on this diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what infobox is used. Of the available infoboxes, this seemed the most useful one. I have added the nocat field to stop any inappropriate categorisations. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There would be a point to introduce an infobox, but Template:Infobox former subdivision instead of "former countries", if the occupied territory was established as one administrative unit. But it wasn't. Using this infobox, especially some of its fields could mislead readers (i.e. during Hungarian occupation the occupied territory was divided between two administrative units of Hungary with two capitals which were not Budapest).

There are some wrong date in the infobox. The Hungarian occupation was succeeded by the German occupation, not with Yugoslavia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make about the infobox is that it adds useful information to the article, not that the name of the infobox template matches the exact status of this occupied then annexed territory. The former subdivision infobox is no more useful in terms of the fields it includes, and in fact it is based on this infobox. There is no "former occupied territory" infobox (I wish there was, and have asked about it, but lack the skills to create one myself), so we just work with what we have. If you think that having Budapest as the capital is potentially misleading, I will leave it blank and it will not be displayed. Please let me know in what way you think any of the other fields might mislead readers? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now adjusted the succession to reflect the German occupation and instead of having the capital field showing "not specified" have substituted the county seats for Budapest. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many ways how this infobox could mislead the readers. Infobox issues probably reflect some of the issues of the article itself. I.e. it contradicts the title of the article. The article about occupation makes clear distinction between annexation and occupation. The infobox says that territories of Bačka and Baranja were "under Hungarian administration". It could mislead readers to believe that Hungary occupied this region and administered it. But the infobox says that Hungary occupied this region only until 27 December 1941 and then annexed it. If that is so, the territories of Bačka and Baranja were parts of Hungary after 27 December 1941, not under Hungarian occupation who administered it. Ethnic map is inappropriate and against NPOV being presented in infobox, especially its minority/majority descriptions. From another perspective Slavs were minority in Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946).

This kind of infobox might be appropriate if this was article about occupation of one political entity. Like i.e. Occupation of Japan. That is not the case with this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Antidiskriminator. Infobox is not inappropriate for this article. This is article about occupation of two geographical regions and even original articles about such regions do not have infoboxes: Bačka, Baranja. If main articles about Bačka and Baranja do not have infobox, why having one for period when they were occupied by Hungary. It would make sense that infobox is used if this occupied area was administrative unit of Hungary, but it wasn't. Instead, territory was officially divided into Bács-Bodrog County and Baranya County (former) and both articles have appropriate infoboxes. So, per 2:1 consensus on this talk page, I will remove infobox, as it is not appropriate for this article at all. Kereći svatovi (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)(note: Kereći svatovi is a sock of Oldhouse2012 and has been blocked indefinitely)

You should not remove this infobox without giving some time to other party to present counterarguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Antidiskriminator. I have amended the status text and moved the map to the background section to address the concerns expressed above. The ethnic mix is described in the background section and the map complements the text. This is not about the occupation of two political entities. These territories were actually a part of one legal political entity, the Danube Banovina of Yugoslavia. How the Hungarians organised them is far less important in my view than the fact that they were contiguous and were subjected to the same Hungarian policies and "magyarisation". Are you suggesting another article title would be better? Do you have any suggestions? My view is that the "annexation", being illegal under international law, actually remained an occupation (at law at least) throughout. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, question here is: why this article should have infobox? Your statement that this territory was "a part of one legal political entity, the Danube Banovina of Yugoslavia" only confirms that this article should not have infobox. And here is just a list of reasons why infobox is wrong: 1. territory was never officially called "Delvidek" or "south territories", 2. it didn't had flag, coat or anthem, 3. so called "capitals" were capitals of counties, not of this occupied territory, 4, it didn't had government or currency. It is clear from this list that current infobox is totally stupid and misleading and because arguments for its preservation are not shown, I will remove it again. If you think that this article should have infobox, then please propose another better infobox on this talk page. Current one is complete crap and it have to go. Kereći svatovi (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)(note: Kereći svatovi is a sock of Oldhouse2012 and has been blocked indefinitely)

Kereći svatovi, there is no such thing as something being "complete crap and it have to go". By which I think you mean "complete crap and it has to go". Stating that something is "totally stupid and misleading", listing fallacious reasons and simply deleting the infobox will not cut it around here, certainly not while I am watchlisting this page. It may get you blocked rather rapidly though. You are looking more and more like a WP:SPA, and to alleviate my concerns in that respect I suggest you start being more conciliatory and less confrontational. So, I suggest you concentrate on providing sources for your asserted "reasons" rather than firing off a polemic and deleting material. Do it again and you'll find yourself on WP:ANI explaining it in front of the community, to whom you will need to explain your recent reversions, as well as edit summaries like "wrong! there was recognized yugoslav government in exile. hungarian occupation was unrecognized and illegal. there is no need for illegal fascist names here" and "undid Koertefa - please do not delete list of administrative units, do not add Hungarian names for period before official annexation in 27 december. Names can be used only after that". You are not demonstrating that you are willing to discuss details, you appear to just want your own way. That will not happen unless your way happens to coincide with the consensus. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, let have infobox then, but not one that mislead readers to think that this geographic area was some sort of former country. I replaced misleading infobox with better one and please stop with your revert warring already. Kereći svatovi (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)(note: Kereći svatovi is a sock of Oldhouse2012 and has been blocked indefinitely)

Discuss, achieve consensus, then implement. Your approach is just going to get you blocked. I am happy to discuss the contents or even the type of infobox, but the approach you are taking is not constructive or collaborative. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kereći svatovi. You must stop revert war. This was no country and should have no country infobox.

Please take a look here. There are plenty of examples of this template being used for territories other than countries. Here are just two examples: Warsaw Pact and Occupation of Japan. GregorB (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(I've just realized I made a third revert, something one is not supposed to do. I have self-reverted. I'll be abstaining from further edits to the article. GregorB (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC))

Bačka and Baranja Bačka i Baranja (Бачка и Барања)
Yugoslav territories occupied then annexed by Hungary
1941–1944
Historical era	World War II
• Occupied by Hungary	11 April 1941
• Annexed by Hungary	27 December 1941
• Occupied by Germany	15 March 1944
Today part of	Serbia Croatia

I see no connection. Japan was occupied political entity and Warsaw Pact was political organization. I see no example that template is used for non-existing geographical entities. I do not understand why you insist on it? It is not wrong to you that readers who see this template will think that this was actually a country or administrative unit of some sort? Why you want that readers think that? How flag or currency of Hungary in this infobox are of any use to any reader? First sentence of this article say that region was occupied by Hungary and point readers to this article: Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946). That is article about Hungary and info about flag and currency of Hungary are located there. Is there any logical reason to repeat that in article about occupied Bačka and Baranja? Article about Northern Transylvania (a similar geographical area occupied by Hungary) have no such infobox. So why you want this infobox here and why this infobox must be a copy of infobox from article Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)? As a compromise, I proposed some more neutral and more accurate infobox that will show data only about this territory and not about occupying power. There is already article about this occupying power and all that info is there. However, article version of editor 94.127.0.166 with no infobox is acceptable to me too. I propose that all users that participating in revert war try to find some compromise and to agree should be infobox here or not, and if agreement is to have infobox, how it might look. My proposed infobox version is here, so please give me your opinions what is wrong with it and why some editors removed it? Kereći svatovi (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)(note: Kereći svatovi is a sock of Oldhouse2012 and has been blocked indefinitely)

The connection - and my point - is that if one can legitimately use that infobox in articles that are decidedly not about former countries, then why one shouldn't use it in this article? How exactly could readers be misled about it? (Hint: the article's title is "Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja" - is there more that one way to understand what the article is about?) GregorB (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I already used the Occupation of Japan in one of my previous comments as an example for appropriateness of this infobox because Occupied Japan was one political entity. It had its flag, capitol, etc.... That is not the case with the topic of this article. I think that readers maybe could be mislead by infobox to believe that Hungarian occupied Bačka and Baranja were one political entity or its subdivision. It is impossible to precisely determine if I am right or not. That is only my honest opinion and I accept that it can be wrong. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

GregorB, one can legitimately object to use that infobox too. Wikipedia articles should be made by mutual agreement of editors and what I do not understand is why some editors would fight to include in article something that is described as wrong, inaccurate or misleading by other editors? There are several editors (me included) that expressed concern that such infobox is wrong and misleading and if you or Peacemaker67 are constructive editors you would work together with us in search for solution acceptable for all. But no, it looks that you just want to have POV and misleading infobox in article. My proposed compromise is “infobox former subdivision” and I think that geographical areas are closer to be “former subdivision” than “former country” (even use of that other infobox is somewhat wrong, but it is acceptable compromise for me). If we have “infobox former subdivision” (and we have it) there is no reason that we use “infobox former country”. Can anybody explain why “infobox former country” is better than “infobox former subdivision”? I propose that we use “infobox former subdivision” and that only info about occupied Bačka and Baranja is included in that infobox. There is no reason that we include general info about Hungary because there is another article for that. Can I get some constructive opinion about this proposal from other editors? And how exactly could readers be misled about “infobox former country”? Very simple: many readers have very limited knowledge about history of Bačka and Baranja and if they see “infobox former country” in its full misleading form they will certainly think that this was some sort of country or administrative unit with its flag, currency, anthem and other stuff. What is a purpose of that stuff here? Can anybody answer that? Kereći svatovi (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)(note: Kereći svatovi is a sock of Oldhouse2012 and has been blocked indefinitely)

Look, I am not married to one infobox or another. The matter is under discussion here, and while it is then perhaps no infobox should be on the article. However, I believe that an infobox is a useful addition to the article, and will continue to advocate for one. It has been suggested to me that Template:Infobox settlement might be an appropriate template which we could consider. It avoids the "there was more than one subdivision" issue, it is a "sub-country" infobox. I would just like to get past the "which infobox do we use" issue (which is actually almost irrelevant because only those that go to edit rather than just read the article can even see what type of infobox it is). So, any views on using Template:Infobox settlement?--Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The infobox you proposed has the same issue as the previous one. It is used for political entities ("for human settlements ... as well as... any subdivision below the level of a country") which is not the case with the topic of this article. It would be easier to decide about appropriate infobox after the topic of this article is properly defined. Is it occupation or annexation or both, should it deal only with Hungarian occupation or both Hungarian and German,.... I think there is no point to divide period of Hungarian occupation from Hungarian annexation and later German occupation. Every occupied or annexed part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia has its designated article for the whole period of WWII, so based on the consistency the Hungarian and German occupations from annexations of Bačka and Baranja should probably have a single article for the whole period of WWII which can be titled as i.e. "Bačka and Baranja during WWII".

A couple of remarks unrelated to the infobox:

• the article about 1942 raid in southern Bačka says that "Hungary organized a trial of several officers who were among those responsible for the raids" in 1943. Since this article says that people responsible for this events ("war criminals and traitors") were sentenced after communists brought "liberty" to Bačka and Baranja, to follow NPOV policy it would be necessary to add that Hungary also organized a trial.
• the same article says that "Horthy was a witness at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, and all accusations were dropped against him" Since this article mentions possibility that Horthy was responsible for this events, to follow NPOV policy it would be necessary to add that all accusations were dropped against him.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Not surpisingly, I completely disagree with your approach regarding scope. The Hungarian occupation and annexation of Yugoslav territories is a discrete subject which has a particular historical background going back to the Treaty of Trianon (at least) and is treated as in such sources such as Lemkin, Tomsevich and Pavlowitch. The German occupation of the whole of Hungary in Operation Margarethe I (which included these annexed areas) was significantly different in nature, and was an operational decision by Hitler to secure the whole country. It had no historical background to it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wüstenfuchs (talk · contribs) 16:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• The Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja was the occupation of the Bačka and Baranja regions of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia by Hungary during World War II.

In the lead, I think you should rather link to the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), rather then to the Hungary in World War II.

• • Fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• You linked to the Serbs two times in the lead, there's no need for that. One link is enough.
  • Fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Prior to their withdrawal from the Balkans in the face of the advance of the Soviet Red Army, the Germans evacuated 60,000–70,000 Volksdeutsche from Bačka and Baranja to Austria.

You linked the Russian SSR, but noth the Soviet Union, why?

• • Good question. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

--Wüstenfuchs 16:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is another notable aspect of wartime and post-war changes in the area discussed by the article, albeit not a direct consequence of the Hungarian occupation per se. During World War II and in the period immediately following the war, there were further significant demographic changes as the German speaking population (the Volksdeutsche) were either forced or otherwise compelled to leave—reducing their number from the prewar German population of Yugoslavia of 500,000, living in parts of present-day Croatia and Serbia, to the figure of 62,000 recorded in the 1953 census. The figure pertains to other areas besides Bačka and Baranja (Banat, Slavonia, etc.) but I suspect a mention of that would be beneficial to the article. The source may be: Charles W. Ingrao & Franz A. J. Szabo: The Germans and the East, p.357 ([1]).--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

addressed, I think. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I suspect Pecs and Zombor are mixed up in the infobox?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• absolutely, doh. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Aren't the flag, arms, motto, anthem, government type in fact attributes of Hungary and not really specific to the area? While population figure, language information etc. presented in the infobox are really useful, I fear that readers might easily be tricked into thinking that the area had a specific symbols and that those presented in the infobox are those. It is perfectly possible that I'm under a wrong impression here, but perhaps those elements of the infobox need be reconsidered, provided with notes or something entirely different.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean re: the infobox. The purpose of including that information in the infobox is to show what applied in that area during the occupation and annexation, rather than specific symbols for these territories (which were essentially re-incorporated into Hungary). I have added "of Hungary" to the Flag and CoA though. The infobox treatment of annexed territory is consistent with the infobox used for Governorate of Dalmatia (annexed by Italy) for example, although that was a grouping of three new provinces of Italy rather than being incorporated into existing provinces. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really mind having an infobox, that's completely fine by me - but make sure that readers can make no mistake in respect of the flag, i.e. that careful readers are offered information that the territory had no separate flag, but the Hungarian one was used instead. That can be done in an infobox note or in the main text, ditto for other symbols. Of course, this is merely a suggestion - I'd go that way. On a further note, I just noticed you have quite a little edit war going on about the infobox. That in itself is sufficient to fail a GAN, but I trust the primary reviewer will have patience to see it resolved. WP:RFC might be the fastest avenue to do that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm dealing with the edit war at ANI, and it's not just about the infobox. I'm sanguine with a fail at GAN at this point, it's obvious there are some opinions that need to be worked through, even about the article title, despite the editors in question having been absent for a month prior to the nom. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am working on an expanded version which utilises infobox settlement and should be far less controversial. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The 1931 census conveniently groups together Serbs and Croats - I suspect that Hungarians were the most numerous single ethnic group in the area at the time. Since it might significant to context of the events, is there any way to check the specific figures, i.e. individual ethnic groups instead of language-based distinctions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• There really weren't many Croats there. I located a source that breaks them down properly [2], turns out you were right, in the two regions combined, Hungarians were the largest minority (33%), with Hungarians and Germans neck and neck in Baranya. Fortunately the same source provides the breakdowns for the areas proposed to be included in the scope below. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Background

• At the Paris Peace Conference following the conclusion of World War I, the Entente Powers signed the Treaty of Trianon with the restored Kingdom of Hungary.

You should make a link to the Entente Powers.

• Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Rest of the text in this section is fine. --Wüstenfuchs 06:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Invasion

The text here is ok. --Wüstenfuchs 06:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Geography

The text in this section is also fine. --Wüstenfuchs 06:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Administration

The section is ok. --Wüstenfuchs 08:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Districts

This sectio is also fine. --Wüstenfuchs 08:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Bačka and Baranja

• Only 2 per cent of those sent to the Eastern Front survived the war.

Should be "percent" rather then "per cent"?

per MOS:PERCENT, I write in Australian English, either should be acceptable, OK? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the text is ok. --Wüstenfuchs 08:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Resistance and repression

Could you move up the black and white image with the Hungarian soldiers?

Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The text is ok. --Wüstenfuchs 08:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The liberation and aftermath

• Fearing that Hungary might conclude a separate peace with the Allies, Hitler launched Operation Margarethe in March 1944, and ordered German troops to occupy Hungary.

You should make a link to the Operation Margarethe.

Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• After the liberation of Yugoslavia, the military and national courts in Bačka prosecuted war criminals and traitors who during the period of occupation killed about 10–20,000 innocent men, women, and children from all parts of Bačka.

Could you rewrite the number to "10,000–20,000"?

Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the text is fine. --Wüstenfuchs 08:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Good article criteria

Well-written

✓ Pass

• the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; ✓ Pass
• it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. ✓ Pass

Factually accurate and verifiable

✓ Pass

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; ✓ Pass
• it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;✓ Pass
• it contains no original research.✓ Pass

Broad in its coverage

✓ Pass

• it addresses the main aspects of the topic;✓ Pass
• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.✓ Pass

Neutral

✓ Pass

• it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.✓ Pass

Stable

✓ Pass

• it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.✓ Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by images

✓ Pass

• images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;✓ Pass
• images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.✓ Pass

Overall

✓ Pass

--Wüstenfuchs 12:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing the review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The article was not stable. There was no consensus about its topic and consequently its name. Its title does not correspond to its content. Promoting this article to GA status was mistake.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No doubt I am wasting my energy responding to you (given the fact that we are rarely on the same page on any topic), but this article did not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute, the infobox not being a significant issue, despite some highly disruptive editors' strong views on what should or should not be in it. I would also note that the behaviour of the editor at the centre of the infobox issue was ARBMAC-warned for that behaviour, and was then joined by suspiciously WP:MEAT-like IP's displaying extremely poor wikibehaviour. Wüstenfuchs obviously saw through the poor behaviour and determined that the article was not changing significantly. I note that there were almost no substantive changes to the body of the article during the GAN review period. The discussion about the expansion of the topic and its name on the talk page are yet to be resolved. That does not mean that the article cannot be promoted. BTW, in what way does its title not correspond with its content? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is again unnecessarily harsh, like almost every single of your comments addressed to me. I will save you from wasting your energy. This is my last comment on this article's talkpage. I hope that the topic and title issues will be resolved soon. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja → Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories – From 1941 to 1944 Hungary occupied 4 regions of Yugoslavia: Bačka, Baranja, Međimurje and Prekmurje. I think that article should cover all of them, not just two. Article should be expanded to include two more regions and title should reflect that too. Kereći svatovi (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)— Kereći svatovi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. talk 00:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

SupportOppose. Per my response to AjaxSmack. I support such a move, on the basis that they were all areas of Yugoslavia that were occupied and annexed by Hungary in WWII. It will require substantial expansion of the article and creates additional complexity due to the differing ethnic situations in Međimurje and Prekmurje, but I think it is a natural move given they were all essentially re-incorporated into Hungary by this method. I am concerned that User:Kereći svatovi has made some unsubstantiated claims on this talk page, has displayed some clear issues with POV in his edit summaries, and has opposed the introduction of a pretty straightforward infobox, but I am willing to move forward on the basis that the move has been proposed in good faith. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article does not currently cover all of the occupied Yugoslav territories Yugoslav territories occupied by Hungary. In the spirit of WP:CRYSTALBALL, the article should not be moved until the content of the article reflects the proposed title. —  AjaxSmack  21:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• G'day AjaxSmack. For clarity, this only refers to those Yugoslav territories occupied by Hungary. Sounds like a chicken and egg problem to me. In what way are you saying WP:CRYSTALBALL applies here? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I assume good faith but I would like to see an actual article such as proposed by User:Kereći svatovi before supporting a move. It's not too much to ask and, to solve the chicken/egg problem, the necessary edits can be performed in userspace or boldly added to the article directly prior to a move request. —  AjaxSmack  22:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I see your point, I think it would be necessary to gain consensus for the expansion of the scope of the article first, then do a consensus-based move, rather than RM. I have changed my support to oppose on that basis. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason set out by AjaxSmack above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal to widen scope of article to include Hungarian occupation of Međimurje and Prekmurje

Based on RM above (which looks like it was premature), I propose that the scope of this article be widened to include all the areas of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia that were occupied and annexed by Hungary in 1941. I think it makes sense, mainly because 1. they were all treated the same by the Hungarians despite their different ethnic mixes (ie they were annexed), and 2. the two smaller areas are probably too small to rate an article on their own and this article seems like a good fit. It would result in a longer and more complex article, but I believe if we can achieve consensus for this we will be able to work out a good article title and structure (even maybe an acceptable infobox...). Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I would welcome such an article. I don't know if there's enough material to have a meaningful separate articles on occupation of Prekmurje, Međimurje, Baranja and Bačka but I suspect there would be considerable similarities between them, allowing a single article to discuss the topic coherently. If and when there's sufficient and sufficiently distinct material on the various regions the single article may be split into two to four new ones if needed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Tomobe03. Since there is currently no article (and very little info) on either the Međimurje or the Prekmurje occupations, go ahead and add that info here. Then repropose the move request above. —  AjaxSmack  04:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Any other comments on this proposal? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I will take a week's silence as consensus for expansion as proposed. I will commence the expansion and once there is substance to the coverage of the new areas I will propose a consensus move. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you have commenced and made sufficient progress to repropose the move. —  AjaxSmack  23:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Délvidék

It appears that the term Délvidék is a wider term than the territory under Hungarian occupation of the Bačka and Baranja (and Međimurje and Prekmurje). Since pre-Treaty of Trianon era, the name apparently referred to various areas in the south, generally identified as Požega County, Syrmia County, Virovitica County, Bács-Bodrog County, Torontál County and Temes County, and Keve (I have no idea why this is listed separately from the Temes Co.) (not the best source, but one for starters: is here). Árpád Hornyák specifically says (here) that Hungary "took part in invasion of Yugoslavia and occupied its large part of so called Southern Lands "Délvidék" (Bačka, Branja triangle, Međimurje and Prekmurje)..." [sudjelovala u napadu na Jugoslaviju i okupirala njen veliki dio tzv. Južnih krajeva “Délvidéka” (Bačku, Baranjski trokut, Međimurje i Prekomurje)]. In this context, the territories occupied by Hungary in 1941-1944 were "a part of Délvidék". Apparently the term may have evolved at some point - according to Hungarian wiki article on hu:Délvidék (I am fully aware that wikis are not reliable sources per WP:CIRCULAR) - to include only Vojvodina or only territories of former Bács-Bodrog, Syrmia, Torontál and Temes counties. In that case, it is also unlikely that the territory occupied by Hungary in 1941-1944 encompassed all of Délvidék, and some of the Délvidék is still in Hungary (within Bács-Kiskun County and/or other present-day counties.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tomobe03, There are quite a few refs for the use of Délvidék to refer to these occupied territories [3] published by a university press (and in conjunction with the USHMM), [4] another university publication, this time from Germany, and [5] published by Routledge and written by a English professor. It certainly appears to be used for these territories in those references.

Yes that seems to be alright, but I suppose the article would need a short paragraph on the evolution of the name to avoid any misunderstandings and provide info on what the term actually means (the latter being explained in the article already), so I thought to point that out in advance.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomobe03 is right. Délvidék is much undefined term. It was never used officially for anything. In its largest possible meaning term might cover parts of modern Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Slovenia, and Bosnia. It was also not used officially for Bačka and Baranja in 1941-1944. Two presented sources are not confirming opinion of Peacemaker67 that term was used only for Bačka and Baranja. Source [4] nicely describe how vide this term is. Yes, it was unofficially used for territories occupied by Hungary in 1941, but there are two problems: 1. Term was not used officially – its meaning was rather geographical, 2. It was not used for occupied territories only (according to Hungarian point of view, parts of Yugoslavia occupied by Hungary were only “liberated part of Délvidék”, while term still designated to describe other territories). Conclusion: there is no basis that term “Délvidék” is used in title or in infobox of this article. Kereći svatovi (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)(note: Kereći svatovi is a sock of Oldhouse2012 and has been blocked indefinitely)

Even if the name is used by reliable sources (such as the ones specified above) in an unofficial capacity, it should be reported by the article, albeit in a proper context. If, for instance, some sources say those regions are "a part of Délvidék" and other identify them as "Délvidék as defined in the period" (or something to that effect) both should be reported, in a proper context. It is quite possible for toponyms to evolve over time (and as current politics dictate) - and such an evolution should also be reflected by the article contents.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, would say that Randolph L. Braham supports a view that the Délvidék equates Yugoslav territories occupied by Hungary in 1941, Bojan Aleksov does not (and supports vague definitions of Délvidék), while I have no access to contents of the David Turnock source. (sources offered above by Peacemaker67).--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am comfortable with the word Délvidék being mentioned in an unofficial capacity in the body of the article and not in the title or infobox as Kereći svatovi insists. However, the Hungarian law that re-incorporated these territories (and Međimurje and Prekmurje) is re-produced in Lemkin p.631 (in English translation of course), and is titled "Law XX, 1941, concerning the Reincorporation of the Recovered Southern Territories into the Hungarian Holy Crown and their Unification with the Country, December 27, 1941". It goes on to use the term "Southern Territories" numerous times. Unfortunately, p. 631 is not available in preview, but you can see from this search [6] the way that Lemkin treats the term. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedily moved, WP:SNOW, the discussion was basically already had previously, there's no observable controversy (any more). Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja → Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territory – This article has been expanded (by consensus on the talk page above) to include all the Yugoslav territory occupied and annexed by Hungary during WWII. The two additional regions are Međimurje and Prekmurje. This makes the current title too narrow. While Hungary officially referred to these territories as the "Southern Territories" (or Délvidék in Hungarian), this reflects Hungarian irredentism, and I suggest that aspect makes using such a title a WP:POVTITLE. Therefore, and given there is no WP:COMMONNAME that covers all of the territory in question, a WP:NDESC title is appropriate. There is no need for "during WWII" or the addition of years in the title as Hungary only annexed Yugoslav territory on one occasion, and addition of these words would be too WP:PRECISE. The proposed title is consistent with Hungarian occupation of Vidin which relates to Hungarian occupation of Bulgarian territory in an earlier era, and numerous articles relating to Axis occupation during WWII, such as Axis occupation of Greece and German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Hungarian occupation of Yugoslavia would be insufficiently precise, as it would imply Hungary annexed the whole of Yugoslavia, which they did not. Occupation has been used rather than annexation, as the territory was occupied IAW the laws of war, but the subsequent annexation was not. This is consistent with the other articles where occupied territory was subsequently annexed such as German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The article's scope has been expanded since the previous request and "Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territory" is a fair description. Alternatively, "Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories" could be used to emphasize that the areas occupied were not contiguous —  AjaxSmack  01:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd accept that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, more accurate. I support "Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories". --Norden1990 (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes to infobox and map

I have made some changes to the infobox and map following Kereći svatovi's edits. My edits are as follows:

• I reverted the name in the infobox to that used in the Hungarian law that incorporated those territories in Hungary (Southern Territories). This is not a POV name, it is the name the Hungarians used for those territories in their laws. This is referenced to Lemkin who reproduces the law translated into English on p631. I have, however, placed scare quotes on it to show that it is a "dubious" term used only by the Hungarians.
• I have returned the description of the settlement type to remove the word "Territories", not necessary given the name is "Southern Territories". I have returned the improved map substituted by Kereći svatovi to the infobox where there is a field which accommodates it. There is no reason not to place the map in the infobox. I have added an explanation of what areas are Yugoslav.
• I have removed the references/date of the Axis defeat. This article relates to the Hungarian occupation, not the German occupation of Hungary in 1944–45. The date was also wrong, as the western territories were not liberated until nearly the end of the war.
• I removed the POV combination of Serb, Croat and Slovene populations, which leaves out the large Volksdeutsche population. It is much better to show the individual totals and let readers do the maths rather than add some combination of them to make a point (either way).

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Answer:

• Yes, name "Southern Territories" is POV because it represents Hungarian POV which is opposite to Yugoslav POV, which was using names Bačka, Baranja, Međimurje and Prekmurje for these areas. What you think that infobox use title "Bačka, Baranja, Međimurje and Prekmurje" instead? Or, in fully neutral approach, infobox can use title of the article and name "Southern Territories" could be in use in infobox body together with Yugoslav names.
• Because Hungarian occupation was internationally unrecognized, article should also use map of occupied Yugoslavia (as a first map), and map of enlarged Hungary should be in use as a second view only because it represents a minority view point. Yugoslavia was recognized by most countries, while partiotion of Yugoslavia was recognized only by minority of countries.
• I would also keep joint percent of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Due to my previous statement, it is important to inform the readers that Yugoslav nations formed the largest part of population in this part of Yugoslavia which was occupied by Hungary. Kereći svatovi (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)(note: Kereći svatovi is a sock of Oldhouse2012 and has been blocked indefinitely)

• I have corrected the description of the Recovered Southern Territories as it was the legal name from a Hungarian perspective. I have also removed the combination of populations which is POV and cherry-picks the stats, leaving out the Germans some of whom clearly would have considered themselves one or the other. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Book by Zvonimir Golubović, Racija u južnoj Bačkoj 1942. godine (in Serbian Cyrillic)

G'day all, some material from the subject book has been queried by User:Norden1990. I do not have access to a copy of the book or the Serbian Cyrillic necessary to verify the material. Any help with providing a quotation from the relevant material would be appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to cut it on the basis of failed verification. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You removed work of the most reputable expert for this events without appropriate justification. Verification can fail only if "the source does not support what is contained in the article" (Template:Failed verification). If you do not have access to this source you could not check if it supports the cited text or not. You haven't even notified Norden1990 about your request for quotation. Please restore the source and text it supports, inform Norden1990 about your request and use Template:Request quotation in the text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Now there is a POV assertion. On what basis are you asserting that this source is the "most reputable expert for this (these, actually) events"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Does your comment address the issue in question (unjustified removal of cited assertions and source)? Although there is a source which says "Istoričar Zvonimir Golubović, koji se najkompetentnije bavio temom Racije" [Historian Zvonimir Golubović dealt with raid most competently] I will strike-trough a part of my comment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• per WP:NONENG. "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, where English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." Now Professor Klanj's book is clearly of at least equal quality and relevance as that of Golubović, especially regarding matters of law, so I replaced one with the other. On top of being in English and the other factors, his book is available in preview through Google Books, so anyone can easily verify the material sourced to him. Quite a reasonable course of action, I believe. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Your introduction of Klanj's work resolved this issue. Thanks. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

1931 census

Jozo Tomasevich presents different number of Serbs and Croats in Bačka and Baranja (305,917 out of 837,742) - Jozo Tomasevich. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945. Stanford University Press. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-8047-7924-1. Retrieved 7 July 2013. According to the census of 1931, Backa and Baranja had a total population of 837,742 people: 305,917 Serbs and Croats... comparing to the number presented with this article. The article presents figure of 153,400 (150,000 people less). I propose figures to be double checked.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is a discrepancy, no doubt to do with the language-based methodology of the census and subsequent analysis by different scholars. I will look at some other sources and see what I can come up with. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. This topic is not within the main field of my interest but I saw this nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/Article alerts where I am one of most active members so I decided to take look if I can help, like always. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Sources vary regarding the demographics of the occupied territories." - that is not what sources used to support the text say. That is editor's interpretation. Similar to case of UNCRO article where editor's interpretation of several primary sources was used to support assertion about UNPAs. In cases where there are no reliable sources which can support certain assertion there is an issue of WP:OR. Additionally, WP:ORIGINALSYN says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• What? The fact that their figures vary is not OR. It is WP:BLUE, or if you like WP:CALC. I could quite reasonably include the numerical differences between the figures under WP:CALC, because it is mere adding or subtracting numbers, and would "meaningfully reflect the sources". I haven't done that, because I believe the reader can do that themselves. I don't consider your comment is valid. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you checked the figures in source used to support data presented in the table?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I have a copy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. I was convinced that there was a mistake with its interpretation. Taking in consideration that:

• there is no mistake with interpretation of the source used to support data in the table and in the infobox
• there are other sources, besides Tomasevich, which contradict it (i.e. Károly Kocsis; Eszter Kocsisné Hodosi (1 April 2001). Ethnic Geography of the Hungarian Minorities in the Carpathian Basin. Simon Publications LLC. p. 169. ISBN 978-1-931313-75-9. Retrieved 12 July 2013.)

I think it is wrong to present only data from that source within table and infobox. Instead it is better to use ranges, i.e. number of Serbs in Baranja in 1931 was between 6,060 and 10,434. In order to do this properly more sources should be researched.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my position and removing disputed figures from the infobox (diff). The problem with the table could be resolved by introducing ranges of lowest and highest estimations instead of disputed figures.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Liberation ?

Is liberation part of subtitle "Liberation and aftermath" really neutral? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's not neutral and we should integrate the fact of Communist purges in Serbia in 1944–1945 in the "aftermath" section, when ethnic Hungarian and German civilians were massacred by Tito's partisans. --178.164.161.48 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that article. Some of the images presented in that article should probably replace "Monument to the 1942 raid victims in Novi Sad" which is unrelated to the "liberation" section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Have retitled the section to "German occupation and aftermath". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• What about replacing the image? Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION "An image should generally be placed in the section of the article that is most relevant to the image." "Liberation/occupation" section is about post 1944 events while image "Monument to the 1942 raid victims in Novi Sad" is about 1942 event.
• Liberation POV is not resolved (I am starting to be concerned about the GAR). This section, which practically describes the genocide of Volksdeutsche who lived in Yugoslavia, still refers to this events as "liberation"? Y
• "German occupation and aftermath" directly refer only to German occupation although it is only mentioned in two sentences or 7% of the text, vaguely referring to the events described in the remaining 93% of the text as aftermath. I propose more NPOV and precise subtitle. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

the section is about the aftermath of the Hungarian occupation. The use of the title "Aftermath" is very common in all sorts of articles, and is quite appropriate here. A lot of things happened in the Aftermath of the occupation, no need for a long, involved title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I sincerely apologize because you again did not understand my position. I never complained about the existence of the Aftermath section. Aftermath section should exist and describe what happened after Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, i.e.:

1. to what country this territories belonged after this events and to what countries those territories belong today (it is described in the lede but not in the remainder of the article (GAR has obviously not been properly done))
2. what is the consequence to modern relations, i.e. (resolution of parliament of Serbia),
3. total numbers of all victims together with different estimations of their number (link, etc.

• If subsection describes murder of 100,000 people and expulsion of hundreds of thousands then such subsection should have appropriate name, like other (involved?) subsections of this article which describe murder of the people. I think it is wrong and against NPOV to give different weight to war crimes of Axis forces comparing to war crimes of "liberators". Although "liberators" murdered and expelled much more people than Axis forces (around 100,000 Hungarians and Volksdeutsche people murdered and hundreds of thousands expelled) war crimes of Axis forces are given two sections (Holocaust and repression) and two images while war crimes of "liberators" are covered in vague Aftermath section with no image.
• The number of murdered Hungarians (5,000—40,000) is not even presented to the readers.
• It is emphasized that liberators murdered people "of various ethnic backgrounds" including "some members of the Volksdeutsche and Volksdeutsche population, as well as Serbs". That is completely misleading and incorrect. The main criteria for murders committed by "liberators" was ethnicity. Almost all people "liberators" murdered were Volksdeutsche and Hungarians.
• Please accept my apology if you still do not understand my position and please do not hesitate to request its clarification. I am willing to clarify my position as many times as it takes for you to understand it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• the article is about the occupation, not the aftermath. I have no philosophical objection to what you are describing, but anything more than a passing mention of post-occupation events (covered in detail in another article in the case of the communist killings), is not consistent with maintaining focus on the subject of this article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for not having philosophical objection to my position. This topic ("liberators'" murder of around 100,000 and expulsion of hundreds of thousands Hungarians and Volksdeutsche people) is:

1. extremely important from pure human aspect
2. chronologically practically part of the main subject of this article which served as main justification for murders and expulsion.

so I think this topic should be described within separate subsection, although I don't insist on it because there are more important issues regarding this topic:

1. lack of information about the number of Hungarian victims of "liberators"
2. comparison of the total number of victims of "liberators" and Axis
3. misleading text about the ethnicity of the victims of "liberators"
4. MOS:IMAGELOCATION problem described above--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

These are all facts that belong on WP. However, the immediate aftermath of the Hungarian occupation of these territories was the German occupation of them (in March 1944), and the most significant thing that happened during that period was the transport of the remaining Jews to their deaths. The Aftermath section of this article should focus on the aftermath of the events that occurred during the occupation, the German occupation, the return to Allied/Yugoslav control (not its aftermath in terms of the killing and expulsion of the Germans and Hungarians), the post-war trials regarding the 1942 raids. What you are effectively trying to do here is add in the "Aftermath of the Aftermath". The events you refer to occurred when the Soviets and Bulgarians (with some Partisan assistance) gained control of these areas from October 1944 onwards. Discussion of them properly belongs in the Aftermath section of the Operation Margarethe article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Events related to the subject of this article which happened after it should be presented in the aftermath section. Aftermath section is not "immediate aftermath" section. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If that was the case it would be stretched into all sorts of things, and end up being longer than the article. If it needs anything, this article's Aftermath section could do with some tightening up, not expansion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for substituting "liberation" (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Such POV terminology should not have passed GA review.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, numerous sources use that term. It is merely your opinion that it is POV. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Optants

I did not notice information about move of around 20,000 "optant" Serbs from Hungary to Vojvodina in period 1921—1931. They, based on the Treaty of Trianon, had a right to opt for the country they would live at and opted for KSHS (hence their name:Optants). Without this information the picture about ethnic composition of the region is not completely covered.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian and Volksdeutsche minorities?

The text of the article emphasize that Hungarian and Volksdeutsche people were minorities. I.e. "Hungarian and Volksdeutsche minorities remained in the areas incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes", and six more times in the text without references. On the other hand the text itself explains that after:

• many Hungarians were deported to Hungary
• and many Slavs settled to the area (though Optants are still not mentioned in this article)

the percentage of Hungarian and Volksdeutsche people was actually still the highest of all other ethnic groups in 1931 and 1941. Referring to Hungarian and Volksdeutsche people is therefore wrong and against NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, you are very quick to label something "against NPOV", Ad. As is often the case, I have no idea what you are trying to get at. A minority is any group that isn't the majority, isn't it? Several sources are used for the references to "minorities", that is what the sources describe them as, so it is not unnatural or POV to use the word in the article. I am not aware of minorities being a "word to watch". Could you clarify what it is you are trying to say? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I clearly explained that "the percentage of Hungarian and Volksdeutsche people was actually still the highest of all other ethnic groups in 1931 and 1941. Referring to Hungarian and Volksdeutsche people is therefore wrong". Please read Ethnic minorities which explains why it is also against NPOV.
• Yes, you often write comments about me emphasizing that you actually do not understand me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• that is because I don't (understand you, I mean). You didn't clearly explain anything at all, copy and pasting your original unclear comment does nothing to advance this discussion. The message is only communicated when I receive it, not when you think you've written enough, regardless of how impenetrable your comments might be. I still don't know what you are going on about, even now. "Referring to Hungarian and Volksdeutsche people is therefore wrong" - in what way? Are you saying Hungarians and Volksdeutsche should not be mentioned in the article for some reason, or they should not be referred to as minorities? BTW, Ethnic minorities is not a WP policy, it is an article and referring to a WP article to explain why something should be done a certain way on WP is WP:CIRCULAR. This underlines my point, you often post unclear comments and make unique interpretations of WP policy, and this is just another example (along with your assertion about [[WP:OR] above, or below, or wherever it is on this page). In good faith I have assumed that your comment has something to do with the word minorities, so I have culled some examples of the word from the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I was unclear or that you did not understand me because after I started this discussion you removed several "minority" terms from the article (including the sentence which I cited in my first comment here) justifying this removal with this talkpage discussion (i.e. diff and diff).
• This issue is practically resolved as far as I am concerned.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I will be thankful for small mercies. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

Almost all aftermath section deals with war crimes "liberators" committed right after the occupation. I think that aftermath section should include some important information related to present perspective and situation:

1. to what country this territories belonged after this events and to what countries those territories belong today (it is described in the lede but not in the remainder of the article)
2. what is the consequence to modern relations, i.e. (resolution of parliament of Serbia),
3. total numbers of all victims together with different estimations of their number (link, etc. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

New section

I've come across a news article which talks about some sort of reconciliation between the Hungarian and Serbian governments, with the president of Hungary apologizing for war crimes committed against ethnic Serbs during World War II and Serbia condemning crimes committed against ethnic Hungarians. Wouldn't it be a good idea to add this to the article, possibly alongside similar "apologies" directed to the Croatian and Slovenian governments? 23 editor (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

certainly. No reason why it couldn't be added as a subsection at the bottom of the Aftermath section, perhaps titled "Formal apologies"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That corresponds with what I proposed in item number 2 in the previous section. I just don't think Formal apologies is best title because the topic of this section are not only apologies but condemnations and other recent events while apologies are not formal but sincere.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. It doesn't get any more formal than by the President. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I presented two arguments for my position:

1. the topic of this section are not only apologies but condemnations and other recent events
2. term formal maybe might imply that apology was not sincere

Your comment does not address any of my arguments. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)