Talk:Baja, Hungary

Bela Tarr

I can't find any sources but it's a fact that at least two Bela Tarr films were shot in and around Baja. These include Satantango and Werckmeister Harmonies -- most obviously the town hall square (or at least, I guess that's what it is). For town boosters and Tarr fans, this is a pretty significant fact. Baja is mentioned vaguely in the credits of Stantango. I haven't seek Werck lately. Badiacrushed (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Map

Image:bajamaphungary1.png|Map of Baja

I doubt this image is free to use; will contact website manager. – Alensha 寫 词 14:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bunjevcies

Bunjevci do not constitute a nation in Hungary, in fact, they are not considered to be a "nation" anywhere, except in Serbia, and this is the result of a very recent political development. However, Bunjevci as such do not exist as a recognized national minority in Hungary, consequently there is not such a thing as Bunjevci language in Baja. Nevertheless, there is a certainly a bunjevci dialect, which is, in Hungary (and everywhere but is Serbia), considered to be a dialect of the Croatian language. Geographical names in official Croatian language and in Bunjevci dialect correspond to each other anyway. --Vedran.b 19:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Check 1910 census in the Kingdom of Hungary and you will see that Bunjevac language was listed separatelly back then. It might be not "officially" recognized today, but:

• 1. It was recognized in 1910, thus it has historical value.
• 2. It "de facto" exist today too, no matter if somebody (who is not Bunjevac) consider that it is Croatian. PANONIAN (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Bunjevcies are protesting to consider them as a nation such as in Serbia. => if they consider themselves a nation, even if they do not exist "on paper", they are one. As far as I remember, there is a distinction between Croatian/Serbian/Bunjevci in Baja, and in the neighbourhood of it. And they have an own language, Bunjevci. Cserlajos 15:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is who?

PANONIAN, I am Panonian too, and I am also Bunjevac, and I hope you agree that it is perhaps better not to discuss my national identity here.

Yes, in 2001, there were 263 Bunjevci in Baja, out of 37,916, the total of the population of the town! But this is not the point. Nevertheless, I can't wait when you are going to put the Hungarian name of Belgrade right in the first sentece of the article on the Serb capital. There are more than two thousend of Hungarians living there, and the city has got quite a long Hungarian related history too (My goodness, I've never thought of it, but it could turn out that the Hungarian related History of Belgrade was longer than that, which is explicitely Serbian!).

All Croatians, whom I now in Baja (and also in Subotica) are Bunjevci. On the other hand, it is true, that this, for some funny reason, is not commutative any more: There are some Bunjevci, who does not want to consider themselves as Croatians. You know probably very well, that the recent Bunjevci issue is a very complex "problem", and it is still discussed very much. However, I don't agree with your view that every group that would claim that it was an ethnic group, it is actually one. In Hungary, there are some people who began to call themselves to be "Huns", or others "Turanians", and, what is more, they already collected the thousend signature which is necessairy for the official recognition to be a national minority in Hungary. There is a law endeed, which says that all these old-new national groups should have the right to be an ethnic group, if they "want". But this is all about national identity? It is also a fact that there is possible to gain quite a lot of money with declairing that "we" are a seperate religious or national group. I heared recently that some people are already playing with the idea to proclaim a homosexual nation too. It would be a graet fun, wouldn't it be?!

I agree, of course, that Bunjevci and our history in Baja has to be mentioned in this article. But the existence of a "Bunjevci language" is like saying that there was a "Banatian Slavic", or "Panonian Slavic" language, which is not Serb, not Croat, or whatsoever, but a language on its own right. If there were some poeple, who would claim this, is it automatically a fact that it was actually a seperate lanbuage?

"Bunjevac language", as far as I know, is not yet recognized in Serbia either! Unfortunatelly, I have to be sure, that it will be soon. --Vedran.b 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, mister Vedran, you may notice how some Hungarian editors of Wikipedia insist to write Hungarian names right in the first sentences of articles about cities of Vojvodina, Transylvania, and Slovakia. Seems that same does not work for Slavic names for the cities of Hungary, according to you, right? Of course, we can move Slavic names from the first sentence to some other section, but then please do not object if I do the same with Hungarian names for the towns of Vojvodina. Regarding Bunjevac language, it is recognized as a separate minority language in Serbia: there are newspapers in Bunjevac and Television of Vojvodina have also TV program in Bunjevac. There will be probably a school classes in Bunjevac too. So, who are you to claim that lamguage does not exist? If Croatian and Serbian exist, then Bunjevac exist too, but if Bunjevac does not exist, then we can claim that Serbian and Croatian do not exist too and that we all in fact speak Serbo-Croatian. PANONIAN (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mister PANONIAN, I do not think it was fair from the side of you to draw the conclusion and to claim that I am "insisting" on the withdrawal of the Slavic names of the cities of Hungary from the introductory text of a given article here, in Wikipedia. If you wouldn't mind to read again what I wrote above, you might realize that I was just aiming to some inconsistency of yours regarding the policy of the Slavic, Hungarian, or whatsoever geografical names.

As you know, Bunjevci in Baja constitute 0,69% of the total population of the town, whereas there are some settlements in the Republic of Serbia, in which you can find much more non-Serbs in absolute number and also in terms of persentage. And this aplies also when we take history in consideration. For instance, I mentioned you the case of Novi Sad, and also Belgrade. In these cities there lives a relatively large number of Hungarians, and also other nationalities, many thousand of them, and you don't aply there what you would like to require here, in the case of the Wiki article on Baja.

What is more, I did claim, and I do claim it also now, that the language of the Bunjevci people is arguably a language on its own. There are, actually, more Bunjevci who claim that the language their use is just a dialect of Serbo-Croatian, or Croatian language. This is a very delicate matter, and I really do not think that this debate is settled yet. Neverheless, I also said that there is a tendency, even if I don't agree with it, according to which it appears that there are going to be probably enough people in the future who shall succed in promoting the language of Bunjevci people to be an "official" language - at least, in the Republic of Serbia.

As for haveing newspapers in the language of Bunjevci, it doesn't necessarily proves that this language is more than a lively dialect.

I am sure that the goverment of Serbia will help also in the future that the number of those Bunjevci who identify themselves as Croats shrink as much as possible. I wouldn't like writing here any further comment on this.

Finally, I do think that in this article on Baja it shall be most welcomed one's writings about the history and cultural heritage of Bunjevci, or any national minority, the members of which are living here, or used to live in the town of Baja. I am sure, you could give a very valuable contribution to this. --Vedran.b 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Irredentism

As someone living in North America who does not have a dog in this Baja fight vis which culture or people should dominate Baja, might I just observe that parts of the "article" as well as the above discussion section "Bunjevcies" clearly shows there is strong [irredentist]] editorializing in the article. Let's clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bundas (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)