Talk:District of Velika Kikinda

Districts

Why are these two districts so special to Vojvodina, that it has to mention them specifically in its history??? --PaxEquilibrium 13:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Districts of Velika Kikinda and Potisje were autonomous entities, while other districts did not. These two districts were established as territorial autonomies for Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy. PANONIAN (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is supposed to reflect basic info on the subject for people that never even heard of Vojvodina. I had no knowledge of the district, and still didn't get that it was some sort of a political "statelet". If such is the case, the article should reflect that, while it obviously doesn't.

This also puts Serbs in front; I'm sure there were other autonomies in Vojvodina ("political statelets"). The current History-line of Vojvodina seems to chronologically follow the Serbian nation's advancement mainly. --PaxEquilibrium 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you speak about this article or about History of Vojvodina article? If you speak about this one, there is sentence in the article that say: "Inhabitants of the District had, for that period, substantial economic, and even political privileges within the Habsburg Monarchy." That is more-less definion of its autonomy. Regarding these autonomous territories in present-day Vojvodina during the history, I am afraid that all of them are already mentioned (from Roman Pannonia to the present-day). The fact is that everything which is connected with autonomy of this region since 16th century is also connected with Serbs, so I do not see what else we can writte there? PANONIAN (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of autonomous recognitions for Slovak and Bunyev colonists... --PaxEquilibrium 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

But, as far as I know, that was personal and not territorial autonomy. Serbs also had personal autonomy as a people within Habsburg Monarchy, but this district was an example of territorial autonomy. Bunjevci and Slovaks did not had such autonomozs districts as far as I know. PANONIAN (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Koppany...

"Maria Teresia did so as Queen of Hungary, otherwise Austrian Empire has existed only since 1806"

She was queen of many other lands, but his main title was Habsburg Empress and that one should be mentioned - Habsburg rulers always directly communicated with their Serbs as Habsburg emperors, never as Hungarian kings. Regarding names, there is no base to writte Hungarian names for these places: these places did not had Hungarian majority and Hungarian was not official language in this time, so relevance of Hungarian names here would be same as relevance of Chinese or Swahili names. Please stop your magyarization of names of ethnic Serb cities. Once you accept the fact that these were Serb cities (confirmed by demographics data), you will become valuable user here. PANONIAN 07:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, she was queen of many other land, but in this case she acted as Queen of Hungary, because she ruled this territory by right of beeing quuen of Hungary. Otherwise she was an emperess only as wife of Holy Roman Emperor Francis of Lorrain, while she was Queen of Hungary on her own right. Emperor Francis had nothing to do in Kikinda, only his wife Maria Teresia was authorized to act here as Queen of Hungary.

No, that is wrong. In this case she acted as Habsburg Empress. As I said, she never acted as Queen of Hungary dealing with Serbs. And she did not "ruled this territory by right of beeing quuen of Hungary". Habsburgs regarded these lands as newly conquered lands. PANONIAN 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Official language was Latin, but Latin documents used mostly the Hungarian or Latinized Hungarain place names, sometimes German ones. I do not protest again the use of Serbian name, but historical official names should be mentioned in a historical article. I neither dispute that a significant part of the region was inhabited by ethnic Slavs among them Serbs as well, so the use of Serbian names is justified, but only alongside with Hungarian, and if important with German names because these names were in use. Your comparison with Chinese and Swahili is ridicoulous. Please stop ignoring facts of Hungarian history and stop your intolerant and agressive behavior. Thank you. --Koppany 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Serbian names are also historical names that were officially used by local administrations and by majority of inhabitants of these places. Also it is very wrong to say that Nagybecskerek is a former name of Zrenjanin. Nagybecskerek is just a Hungarian name of this city that is used today as well, so it is not "former name", while Zrenjanin is a Serbian name and former Serbian name of this city was Veliki Bečkerek. Also, the relevant articles about these cities already mention all these Hungarian and German names, so there is no reason to writte them just everywhere (there are Hungarian and German Wikipedia for that). Regarding "Hungarian history", just by yourself a geographical atlas and you will see that I am not dealing here with "Hungarian history". Your attempts to impose former colonial names for these cities are insulting for most of population of this region that achieved its independence in 1918. PANONIAN 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I never protested again the use of Serbian or whatever relevant names, but I see no reason to exclude historical official names of a historical article. May I suggest you to buy a historical atlas and you will see that this region was part of Hungary. This is a fact, and not irredentism you always complain about. Facts does not harm anyone. I dont feel offended if someone mention a hsitorical German, Latin, or Slavic name of a Hungarian city. --Koppany 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not excluded "historical official names of a historical article" - as I said, Serbian names were official names used by local administrations. Regarding Latin names, they were somewhat different from Hungarian names, so what you wrotte in this article are certainly not "historical official names". Regarding Hungary (Mađarska - the state of Hungarians), it was created in 1918 and therefore the region was not part of it. The former Kingdom of Hungary (or Ugarska - the multiethnic state) was a state of many different peoples in which Hungarians were not majority. PANONIAN 08:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia for the propagation of the concept created by some Serbian historians. You can write an article about Madarska-Ugarska concept, but I mention again: this is English wikpedia, and the Kingdom of Hungary and Republic of Hungary have legal continuity which was recognized even by Trianon peace traety and the governement of SHS Kingdom (Yougoslavia). Otherwise Kingdom of Hungary existed not only befeore 1918, but also until 1946, when republic was proclaimed. The governamnetal system changed but the countyr remained the same. --Koppany 08:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are not "some Serbian historians", but the view generally accepted by Serbian, Croatian and Slovak historiography and according to this view Kingdom of Hungary and Republic of Hungary do not have "legal continuity". This have nothing to do with English Wikipedia because the view that they have "legal continuity" is simply the view of Hungarian historiography (i.e. the historiography of one country that contradict with historiographies in 3 countries). And the Treaty of Trianon did not said anything about continuity of Hungary, it just defined its borders. Regarding 1918-1946 period, you forgot the fact that Hungarians themselves destroyed that Kingdom by creation of Hungarian Democratic Republic and Hungarian Soviet Republic. The later pro-fascist state of Miklos Horthy perhaps was called by the name Kingdom of Hungary but was de facto new state created after these Hungarian republics. PANONIAN 08:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, the rulers of afore mentioned Hungarian republics claimed by themselves that their states do not have continuity with the former kingdom because they thought that would help to their state in peace conference. Later, Miklos Horthy changed the story because he wanted to create Greater Hungary, so he needed a concept by which he would claim "right" to territories outside of Hungary. PANONIAN 09:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal continuity is regulated by international law and international treaties. Continuity was recognized by the international community, League of Nations and even by the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. So what are you talking about? --Koppany 10:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not recognized by such things. Quote any document that recognize continuity of that state if you can... PANONIAN 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just some examples: Szászy István: Az államok közötti utódlás elmélete, Budapest 1928, P O'Conell: State succession in Muncipal Law and International Law, Cambridge 1967. The Traety of Trianon itself available in internet, and documents of League of Nations etc. --Koppany 22:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not asked you that: I read the whole text of the treaty and I did not saw its part that speak about state continuity. I asked you to quote exact sentence from the treaty or any other document that speak about continuity according to you, and I mean exactly to quote that sentence, not to post your opinion what sentence mean (or opinion of any nationalist Hungarian historian). PANONIAN 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Panonian, are you saying that "Hungary" was created out of thin air in 1918, and did not exist prior to that? I just read through part of the treaty online (too tired to slog through the whole thing right now) and they say nothing about creating a new state called Hungary. Rather, they talk about redefining the borders of Hungary, redefining borders of a country that already existed. K. Lásztocska 03:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, treaty do not use term "redefining" but "defining" borders, which means that treaty regarded all these countries (including Hungary) as new states and regarded all of them as successors of the Kingdom of Hungary - the treaty clearly say that Romania, Czechoslovakia, Kingdom of SCS, etc would have to accept financial and other obligations of former Kingdom of Hungary for territories assigned to their jurisdiction. In another words, the word that make connection between these states is "succession" not "continuity" and this word do not apply only to Hungary but to all successor states. PANONIAN 15:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Боже мой, Ласточка (Lastochka), My Dear you can't understand this. There was a nation called Hungary, but because there was a couple months when Kun Béla et al. declared the country to be a Soviet Republic, from that time on the country was not Hungary any more, it was something else, but these irredentist Hungarians still call it Hungary for some reason. Having said this, it is outrageous that some international agreements from the 19th century are still in force in Hungary today. --KIDB 07:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking the language of your ancestors, KIDB? - there is hope for you yet... Anyway, as I said pre-1918 country was not called "Hungary" (Mađarska) but "Kingdom of Hungary" (Ugarska) and treaty of Trianon regarded all new states (including Hungary) as successor states of the Kingdom of Hungary and all of them gained some of the obligations of the former Kingdom of Hungary. Therefore, such international agreements that you mentioned are part of that succession and they indeed reflect only that succession, but not continuity. PANONIAN 15:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Brother, we might have a lot of common genes after all these 1000 years (provided that you are a true Serb and your ancestors are not Ottoman) but this doesn't mean you are right about this issue. --KIDB 15:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You can always try to prove that I am not right about this issue. Regarding Ottomans, they are mostly descendants of Islamized Greeks and Armenians, so I my ancestors cannot be Ottoman. Of course, besides Slavs, my ancestors cettainly were Illyrians, but that is another story of course. PANONIAN 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just let me mention that Austria and Hungary (Madarska) were punished by Trianon and St. Germain as legal successors of Austria-Hungary. Republican Austrian governement protested against this and claimed to be not successor of Austrian Empire but in vain, the Entente powers refused their claim at the conference. --Koppany 16:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, mister Koppany, "Mađarska" was created by Trianon (you will simply not find any mention of this name in Serbo-Croatian sources for country that existed before 1918). But, yes, Austria-Hungary and Ugarska were indeed punished because they started WWI and because they commited genocide against civilians in the Kingdom of Serbia. Regarding "successors", I already say that all countires that included parts of the territory of former Kingdom of Hungary were successors of the Kingdom of Hungary. Of course, like in every succession, all countries cannot succede exactly same things. PANONIAN 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Прости меня, KIDB. Это правда: я ничего не понимаю в этом разговоре!!! Panonian, what is your little "language of your ancestors" comment supposed to mean? I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore so I'm going to step away before I make things worse...K. Lásztocska 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It mean exactly what it mean... :) PANONIAN 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But KIDB is a Hungarian...so I don't understand your point. K. Lásztocska 18:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

KIDB understand it - perhaps you should ask him. :)) PANONIAN 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, Brother, I'll tell her, you wanted:

Lastochka, the guy thinks he knows my genetic background. I feel like some other people 70 years ago. He lives about 200 miles from me. It's scary. --KIDB 16:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)