Talk:Banat Swabians

[Untitled]

cleaned it up a bit Guinnog 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Germans in Hungary

The numbers of Danube Swabians livng in hungary now are cited from the German wiki article [1], but seems to be wrong (see discussion page there). According to the latest Hungarian census(2001), the number of all ethnic Germans (which is not limited to Danube Swabians alone) should be about 120,000 (1.2% of a total population of about 10 million). As such, I think it needs to be corrected, and/or if alternative sources exist, there should another sentence dealing with that and indicating the source, after the official census results are given. As for German mayors in Hungary, I am not sure about that, and this sentence (oddly enough) seems to apply to Romania. The mayor of a major city (Sibiu) is German (see there, and Klaus Johannis), as well as mayors of smaller towns -- see DFDR. There could be more discussion on the topic, but I will leave it here. 19:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

English sources for the English language Wiki

Sources for the English Wikipedia need to be in English. English readers should be able to read them, and Wiki editors should be able to check them.

Also, even without being able to read German, it is obvious that the German version is largely without in-text citations. The problem is carried over to this article.

24.130.11.114 (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want neutrality move to Switzerland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.79.140 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

English readers must be Europeans and to know some important European languages or to use Google translations and to be intelligent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.94.65 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The mass rape

FkpCascais, you seem to have a problem that "some local Serbs" participated in the rapes, but not with "Red Army soldiers", and you claim that "this sounds very offensive". Like I explained, the source, written by a Serb historian, in the pages 54/55 says that "Women from the German minority were the victims of indiscriminate rape by Red Army soldiers [...] and some local Serbs used the occasion to exact private revenge." As far as I can tell, "and some local Serbs" accurately reflects the meaning of the original (we may not, remind you, copy and paste from sources), nothing has been cherry-picked from the source except for really relevant parts, and I don't have an axe to grind concerning the issue. Selectively omitting from the sources only the facts we don't like is called tendentious editing. The said events took place 60 years ago so I fail to see how anyone can be possibly offended. No such user (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Omiting the rest of the sentence changes much of the meaning. Do you have a problem writting that was in REVENGE? It also looks to me that way. I don´t know, needer care about Red Army soldiers (should I?) but I do about Serbs. The text you´re having as a source it is quite clear, so, if you can transmite the sense that sentence has in the source text, than OK, otherwise it sounds like simple offending (like some Serbs did it for sport). If you say that is not so important becouse happend 60 years ago, wy do you then care so much? FkpCascais (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

By using the kind of sentence you´ve wrote, you are inflaming hateriot between the two people, and transmiting it (exageratedly) to the next generations. Do you have some interess in doing this? I can tell you that I have been to Germany, have many German friends, and I like Germany and its people in their various aspects. It doesn´t really metter what I think, but I wanted you to know, so I have no interess in missinterpreting wrongly the German suffering in the past. But, as a Serbian, with familiar origins from the region, I can tell you that the way it was written, it doesn´t represent the common history and actuallity of both people. Serbian and German relations in the past have been much better that the ones imposed by pseudo-historians in service of the propagandas of the past regimes of both countries. Wy insisting in continuing with that policy? The sentence clearly doesn´t state what you say it means, and, if you really want to insist, I can tell you that then you should really have to think about including the reasons why (you and this historian say)those Serbs took revenge, becouse that would have than the same relation with the subject. What I can sincerelly tell you is that the Red Army soldiers joined with Partizans(not Serbs, as people) took revenge, but it wasn´t only against Germans... Hoping any of this is going to be necessary, Regards. FkpCascais (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You were told twice what the original was. If you thought that the sentence does not reflect it, the answer is to rephrase it, not to remove it altogether. You accuse me for the second time that I have some agenda about it. I assure you I don't. I can not ever agree, however, that because something was done IN REVENGE makes it less wrong. Raping of women is never excusable. Further, I don't believe that being silent about past crimes leads in any way to reconciliation, as long as the story is told openly and frankly, without hidden agenda. The article is equally frank about "Banat Germans who served the Nazis gained notoriety for crimes against Jews and Serbs during the Banat (1941–1944) period. Led by the infamous 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen, they alienated themselves from their non-German neighbors." It is understandable, but never excusable, that some people wanted the revenge by all means. Sorry, but that removal is whitewashing.

If you want to know the background, I rewrote that section after I removed a worse inflammatory language [2] and then did some research myself, having found very the thorough and honest source [3]. It is certainly open to improvement, but it is not open to whitewashing. That is not a way to reconciliation. Even if it were, it is not a job of an encyclopedia (or journalist) to omit the inconvenient facts because they might ostensibly hamper a political goal. No such user (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And what are you talking about "the ones imposed by pseudo-historians in service of the propagandas of the past regimes of both countries." The source is written by a Serbian and a German historian and published by an Italian institute. Why should they have an agenda? Where do you see "pseudo-historians" or "propaganda"? No such user (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, write it as in the source text, or at least in that perspective. (I never said that it should be whitewashed, I´m letting it out until you find some solution, whenever you have time). I am clearly (far from being alone) in favor of saying expressions like:(exemple) The Nazi regime instead of Germans. FkpCascais (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You still fail to pinpoint how does "raped by some local Serbs" (in the article) mean anything substantially different from "Women were the victims of indiscriminate rape [...] and some local Serbs used the occasion to exact private revenge." (in the source) except that it omits the revenge part (which is, may I say, fairly obvious from the context and largely irrelevant). No such user (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is the main reason. It is not fairly obvious. The difference is substancial. The way you wrote it gives the impression that the "local Serbs" (Banat Serbs) are oportunistic rappers. I also don´t agree with the autor of the text with the expression "local Serbs" , becouse he is clearly, becouse of the behaviour of some rappists, condemning the entire Serbian population from Banat, and Serbs in general. But, not wanting to go that far, simple undoing the unfair idea left by your resume, and bringing the point of view back to the original text would be enough. I think we both know the meaning "local Serbs" meant probably that local Partsans did those rapes,(they were the only ones to have power to do it) and they did also all sort of attrocities, toghether with the Red Army, to Serbian population, as well (don´t forget that half of the Serbian population in that time were Monarquists and anti-communist). So, I think it would be fair to say that the general population that didn´t supported the new communist regime, including the Germans from Banat, suffered all kind of attrocities from the Partisans and the Red Army. The thrue is much closer to "people that didn´t share the ideology with the new regime suffered the attrocities" that "Serbs rapped German wommen". The way the autor wrote it is already unfair, but by your simplification and descontextualization, makes it much worst.

OK, I´m going to be honest with you. I am a Serbian with German roots from my father side, so that is why this topic is personaly hot for me. What happends here. From the stories told by my family, they, as many other German families in Serbia, did spend some hard times in 1945. But there is one thing that here is not mentioned. When the Red Army came to Vojvodina (North Serbia with Banat included) hunting German habitants was their primary target, as trophies. So, many German families find refuge in Serbian houses mainly, becouse other nationalities were too affraid to help them, as theyselfs were trying to show as "Russian friends", and many other nationalities, did "give" German families to the Soviets so they win "points". So, by the story I know, if there was no Serbian good will, there wouldn´t remain any German in the area. So, after all the Serbs (non-communist, aproximatly 50%, becouse they were Monarquists) did for the Germans in Vojvodina and Banat region, what I find here? A text saying that the Germans in Hungary and Romania were pretty OK, but in Serbia, the Serbs, put them in the concentration camps and rapped the wommen!!! If my grand-father read this, I wouldn´t respond to what he would do to you... and you are saying:"Who cares? It was 60 years ago!!!. The good things here are not even mentioned, and now there is a will to even exagerate it. My family didn´t wrote any books (they were engeneers, mainly), but what says in this text completely distorces the reality. FkpCascais (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're taking this way too emotionally. I was appalled when I read the source too, but I don't have a slightest reason to doubt the credibility. I cannot possibly accept your proposed principles of equity ("the text does not talk about atrocities in Romania"; "Partisans killed collaborators and Hungarians too"), and what you are trying to read from the article ("reader will think that only Serbs rape women") is simply not there. Your solution to plainly remove the fact stinks of whitewashing. Unfortunately, bad things had happen, and they were made from various sides, whoever had the balance of power at the moment. Good people helped good people, bad people killed, tortured and raped good people. What is there so important to hide? Don't you think it's entirely plausible and that it indeed happened, that local village bullies, local and side Partisans did participated in those rapes, already in progress by the Red Army "comrades"? Should we be silent about atrocities in Jasenovac, Srebrenica, Foibe, and wherever they occurred or whoever committed them, just because it might give a "nation" a bad name? It ain't nation, those are bastards. But "some local Serbs" is not equal to "Banat Serbs are opportunistic rapers", as you're trying to read into it -- not even close. No such user (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is better. I´m not emotional, I´m fed up! I´m in favour of condemning all crimes. I´m in favour of "all the people is equal, and should be treated equaly." That´s enough of this showing of Serbians as rappers. Did you ever see Serbian wommen? Ask about it... Like poor Serbs are "houngry" and need to rape other nationalities wommen. If something like this was said about your nationality, I also bet you wouldn´t like it. Maybe we should go further and see what evidence this historian has to state that sentence, but that is more "Foreign Affairs" bussiness, and I don´t have time now to do more for now. I´ll try to obtain some verifiable material in future, but for now, this way is much better. Than you. Regards. FkpCascais (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't know anything about my nationality and it doesn't matter anyway, and I'll say only that your comment is off-base. I think that you fail to acknowledge your own biases. What next, should a Russian whose grandfather served Red Army come here and delete the text about the mass-rape by Russian soldiers, under the pretexts that it "casts bad light on Russian nation", "it was made as revenge", and that Nazis have killed 20 million Russians in WWII so they deserve it. But let's put the matter to rest now. No such user (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Colonist Origin's section is silly...

Presumably the name best fits the fact that the colonist were Schwäbisch or Alemannic speakers and not from the Hapsburgs' territory. This group certainly includes Alsace-Lorrain as well as parts of Fraconia, Austria and Bavaria. This article really should be merged with the general "Danube Swabians" article.Stardude82 (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banat Swabians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19970204103909/http://www.feefhs.org/banat/bhistory.html to http://feefhs.org/BANAT/BHISTORY.HTML

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banat Swabians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520012559/http://www.media-diversity.org/beta%20articles/Vojvodina%20Germans.htm to http://www.media-diversity.org/beta%20articles/Vojvodina%20Germans.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Banat Swabians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304100309/http://www.iue.it/PUB/HEC04-01.pdf to http://www.iue.it/PUB/HEC04-01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304100309/http://www.iue.it/PUB/HEC04-01.pdf to http://www.iue.it/PUB/HEC04-01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)