This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
A disambiguation page should be created to avoid confusion with the article on Blood Alcohol Content (BAC)
According to Hungarian sources the first mention was in 1111 as "Castrum Bache". Give any evidence that it was called Bač under Iustinianus - not a Roman castrum but THIS name in the 6th century. Zello 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have no doubt that Hungarian sources claim that World was created in 1000 AD, but you should read this: http://www.bac.co.yu/english/Pocetna.htm Eh, I should read it too, because I read only Serbian version of the site, so I will expand article with new things written there. PANONIAN (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And also about your addition: "In the early Árpád era Bács was a common Hungarian personal name, derived from the Old Turkic baya dignity. Hungarian historians assume that the town was named after the first comes of county, Bács ispán". I do not object that Bács could be a name used by Hungarians in that time, but claim that it derived from word baya is ridiculous. It is linguistically impossible that letter "y" is changed into "cs" like that. The most logical explanation (provided by Milica Grković and she is a linguist) is that name "was spread into other languages by the Vlach shepherds". That explain how this name is found in both, Hungarian and Slavic. And I already told you that theory about Hungarian origin of the name is impossible because name is found in the areas where Hungarians never lived, while areas that you claimed to be "Hungarian linguistic territory" were in fact inhabited by Vlachs and Slavs before Hungarians came. Also, claim that "Hungarian historians assume that the town was named after the first comes of county, Bács ispán" is neither convincing neither proven. If somebody assume that Aliens from another planet came and gave name to the city, should we include it here? Besides this, my source say that name of the first prefect of the county was Vid, not Bács. So, only thing that is certain is that town is most likely named after person with name Bač/Bács but who was he, when exactly he lived and what was his ethnicity is disputed. PANONIAN (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Almost every second Hungarian sources will use the name Délvidék because that is one of the accepted names of Vojvodina. I know that Serbs don't like it but the Hungarian language won't change from that. Also I'm not linguist but I accept what linguists said about the changes of sounds. I'm not able check them (similarly to the 99 % of people). The link you gave doesn't says anything about the name. Zello 21:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What we need is not that the region was populatid by Slavs in the 6th century (that's obviously true), but evidence about such early usage of the name, before the 11th century. Zello 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"The first reliable written document about Bac dates back to 1094. When Zagreb bishopric was founded ,the name of Archbishop of Bac,Fabian was also written down." - it is copied from you source. The other sentences are absolutely ambigous about the name, they speak about a town or castrum. Where is the name that Iustinian used in his letter? What form?
(I won't argue about Délvidék, it is used in Hungary until now and it will be used as a synomym for Vajdaság. There are travel guides, books etc, the language doesn't follow the changes of the borders)
What you really don't seem to understand that that nobody disputes that there is a Slavic word "bač". But these three sound in that same order can appear INDEPENDENTLY in other languages also, and in Hungarian it appeared as a personal name in the 11th century. Hungarian linguists claim that this wasn't borrowed from Slavic but Old Turkic. I don't think there is any nationalistic reason behind their claim as they don't deny the other hundreds of Slavic words that exist in Hungarian. Zello 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is something you cannot call revisionist propaganda, a simple guide about personal names and their origins for parents to choose in a Baby Magazin :)
http://www.babaszoba.hu/services/names?letter=B;nid=1-133
It says: "Bács - personal name of Hungarian-Turkic origin, originally a dignitary" It is living name even today although seldon used. Probably irredentist warriors occupied the editorial office of the Baby Magazin... Zello 22:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The source is the same I think, simply the Hungarian Etymological Dictionary. You can see that the Pallas Lexicon also writes the same. We can't decide about what group of linguists are right, because we are no linguists. There are complicated rules of sound changes etc. The Hungarian language borrowed a lot of words from Turkic in the 6-9th centuries and they changed radically, this is the reason because the word is called of Turkic-Hungarian origin. But NPOV doesn't mean we have to decice in this question, if there are reliable sources than the question is presented as disputed. There are two linguistic theories, that's all. Zello 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You first explain why you replaced sentence "the name was recorded among Vlachs, Slavs and Hungarians" with "Bács was a common Hungarian personal name" and then we will discuss other things. PANONIAN (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't replaced, it is there even now next to each other!
I found an example for a similarly "impossible" sound change, sayi (Turkic, means number) -> szám. y->m Zello 23:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that it was 3RR because at last time an anonym user appeared from the nowhere with 0 edit and deleted the disputed section. I can assume only two things: 1, that's an unknown new vandal, 2, you are using sockpuppets to evade 3RR. I assumed good faith I decided that a vandal appeared (not communicating on the talk page of course). Also removing the whole section is absurd because both theories are well sourced. Zello 00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That's absurd - a compromise is not the same as deleting the disputes. Both theories are well sourced so there is no reason to delete them. By the way you really not able to bear the possibility that a name in Vojvodine CAN be of Hungarian origin? There dozens of Slavic place all over Hungary and nobody makes such show about them... Zello 00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course, why not. I don't have any socks. That anonymous friend is not Bonny by the way? Zello 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
WHY is ridiculous? Because the sound change seems impossible to you? That's not enough. The only evidence can be the Iustinianus letter. If he used the name in some Latinized (but recognisable) form then I would accept the certainty of Slavic origin. Until that there are only two linguistic theories. Zello 00:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not a game that if you are not able to win then delete your part and my part. Obviously the two theories are widely accepted among the linguists of the two countries. They disagree that's it. Take a look at the Origin of the Romanians article - do you think that the NPOV version would be to delete both theories??? Zello 00:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Another personal name guides strictly for commercial use not "propaganda": http://www.babaruhazat.hu/fiunevek.php, http://www.cardxpress.hu/nevnapferfi.htm, http://www.bebinfo.hu/cikkek.php?uid=340&cikkmegnez=1 etc. They obviously used the Hungarian Etymological Dictionary as source. That's the ONLY theory you will find about the name in Hungarian sources. Zello 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That English version never existed so it's absolutely misleading as an article title. The town gave its name to the county and indirectly to the whole Bačka region. The name theories should be placed in these three articles as relevant information. That section didn't "destroy" the article, it is an NPOV version because doesn't claim that one or another theory is true. Such disputes are only solved like this or doing more research. There is a clear way for this to you - look up the Iustinian letter in some publication and present the form he used. That will be important new info. Zello 01:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You really don't seem to understand the core of NPOV - even those theories should have a place in articles that the another group of people don't like. Do you think that followers of Daco-Romanian theory accept the other theory as a real possibility? No, they call it Hungarian-inspirated propaganda. You can see that the Turkic theory is more than 100 year old and it is accepted by a lot of commercial websites who certainly not interested in Vojvodina at all. Zello 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The only proposal I have: delete the half sentence that the name was derived from baya. I will create a normal article about Bács (name) where the Hungarian personal name will be presented together with this Turkic theory. Zello 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you won't wipe out the other theory from the article. There should be two clearly distinct point-of-view next to each other. The name in that form was Hungarian, only derived from old Turkic, but wasn't Old Turkic in the 11th century. The two other sentence are two argument proving the possibility of the theory. There are absolutely similar arguments about the Slavic placenames in Yugoslavia and the Russian connection. Zello 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a way to clearly separate the two theories: "In the past, Bač was a personal name either of Slavic [1], Balkanic [2] or Hungarian origin. Serbian historians presume that the name of town is either Slavic or Vlach origin, as it was probably spread into other languages by the Vlach shepherds. In Southern Slavic linguistic territory places with the name Bač could be found in the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, and Slovenia. The similar name Bača was recorded among old Russians, which imply the possibility of Slavic origin. [5] On the other hand Hungarian historians presume that the name of the town is of Hungarian origin because Bács was a common Hungarian personal name in the early Árpádic era (11-13th centuries). There are also several place names with the word "bács" in the Hungarian linguistic territory. They think that the town was named after the first comes of county, Bács ispán [4]." Zello 02:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not my theory but the accepted Hungarian one. As I already said the words can be absolutely independent from each other. And there are a lot of other possibilites: probably Slavs also borrowed the name from Turkic peoples living in Balkan that time etc. That's not our task to resolve this dispute only to present the two point of view. You cannot write in such a way in wikipedia that only the Serbian theory exists. Zello 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Your friend has dozens of names... Zello 02:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I didn't bother to read the comments on the talk page, but it appears that there's a dispute over the origin of the Name. I don't think anyone here is going to convince one another of who is "right" here, the point is that if a theory can be supported by a verifiable source, then it deserves to be mentioned. The sources don't have to be neutral, as long as they're attributed properly (i.e. "according to Hungarian historians..."). There was a similar dispute at the Karbala article, and I hope that we can apply the same sort of method over here, and make it work. — Khoikhoi 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This certainly makes a candidate for
WP:LAME. As Khoikhoi said, the solution is to include all theories as long as they can be
cited and attributed.
As a suggestion, I'd prefer the section to be in
Bačka article (as the region is far more important than the town, regardless of the fact that the town name is older than the region), with a cross-link from here to there.
Duja
08:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to say that I accepted inclusion of such ridiculous theory that "bač" came from "baya" only to prevent that this article is further vandalized, but this theory is same if we include theory that "humans derived from pigs" into humans article. This "baya origin" theory exist only because of Greater Hungarian nationalism and nationalistic claims that everything in Central Europe is Hungarian. When Hungarians came to Central Europe, Slavs and Vlachs already lived here and most of the words that Hungarians borrowed from other languages are Slavic (mostly) or Vlach (almost all Hungarian words that designate life in civilized society are of Slavic origin, and that say all). Now, we have problem that Hungarian historians simply DO NOT LIKE the fact that these words and names are Slavic or Vlach, thus when they search for the origin of the name, they do not search with the purpose to find a true origin of the name, but with the purpose to "prove" that name was not Slavic or Vlach (this is because of Greater Hungarian aspirations towards territories inhabited by Slavs and Romanians). Even for such obvious Slavic names they search origin in Turkic or even Iranian languages. Here is very good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Csob%C3%A1nka&diff=59286831&oldid=57871485 Such clean and clear Slavic name Csobánka (čobanka - female shepherd, while čoban is male shepherd in Slavic) was explained as derivate from Iranian word suban!!! (No matter of the existence of the Slavic word "čoban", and no matter that this village is still partially inhabited by Slavs). Of course, I do not accuse for that Wikipedia editor that added this, but I accuse the historian who wrote book where this Wikipedia editor found this data. Same thing is with name Bač. The Hungarian historians had a mission to prove that this name is Hungarian (this in fact had much larger geo-political implications than simply to describe origin of one small town, because such implications transfer from here to the entire Bačka region), thus in order to prove Hungarian origin of the name Bač, they searched for meaning of this name in Hungarian. When they saw that it means nothing in Hungarian, they searched in Turkic, and when they saw that it means nothing in Turkic too, they searched for any word in Turkic and Hungarian that have at least two (!) similar letters with word "bač" (I am sure that they were very happy when they found Turkic name "baya"). Interestingly, they never searched in Romanian (the only language in which this name have meaning), or in Slavic where you have a dozen of "similar" names ("similar" to "bač" like "baya" is), like bačva (very similar indeed), bara, baka, baba, bala, etc, etc. Of course, they simply DID NOT WANT to explain origin of name as Vlach or Slavic. And finally, I have nothing against Hungarian names. In fact, you can see my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Telep&diff=55048218&oldid=55030008 I even explained original Hungarian version of this name there (because name is clearly Hungarian), but to claim that name "bač" is Hungarian or Turkic only because Hungarian historians think that it is "similar" to old Turkic word "baya" is completelly ridiculous and was invented with a geo-political purpose to prove "Hungarian historical right" for inclusion of Bačka into Greater Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The personal name Subanus was first mentioned in written sources in 1177... Today Serbs moved in Csobánka only in the 18th century. Zello 13:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems that Zello again demonstrates his nationalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ba%C4%8D&diff=73215843&oldid=73210046 Your sentence "In the early Árpádic age (11- 13th centuries) Bács was a common Hungarian personal name" is ALREADY COVERED with the sentence that "its existence was recorded among Vlachs, Slavs and Hungarians in the Middle Ages". You AGAIN want to imply that name was USED ONLY AMONG HUNGARIANS, WHICH IS AN OUTRAGE LIE! Do you want to say that Árpádic age was not during the Middle Ages??? And also claiming that name is "scattered all over the former Kingdom of Hungary" instead that it is "scattered all over the Balkans and Central Europe – in the countries of former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Romania" is ANOTHER LIE because such places exist in the parts of former Yugoslavia that WERE NEVER PART OF THE KINGDOM OF HUNGARY. PANONIAN (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that article is about the Hungarian personal name which exists today. From the etymology section it is clear that the word was know among the Slavs and Vlachs also. As for the other sentence do you really not understand that this is the same as you wrote? AND THE BALKAN - this is the regions what were never part of the KoH. But I won't use the expression of Yugoslavia speaking about the Middle Ages. By the way I still didn't see any evidence that the word not only existed in Slavic and Vlach but was used as a personal name also. The Romanian sentence only says that it means shepherd - that's not a personal name. Is there anybody in Serbia and Romania who is called Bač now? Zello 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
(Calling loudly somebody a liar in a content dispute is a personal attack) Zello 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop labeling my edits propaganda, lie, vandalism, POV-pushing etc or I will report your behaviour to an admin. I lost my patience seeing you are not able to argue in a non-agressive way. If the name was used by Serbs in medieval times you can mention this fact in the name article. Balkan is a geographic entity - much better to use it speaking about the Middle Ages then present-day countries. The Kingdom of Hungary also not-anachronistic. Zello 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
1, We are speaking about the Middle Ages when these names were given, not the present. In this region where present-day countries are absolutely different than medival ones your usage is misleading. Speaking about the origin of a name it is irrelevant what present-day countries have the given villages now. 2, The name article is about the Hungarian name because that's the only one that exists today (since the Middle Ages). The sentence you disagree with is true and veryfiable. I won't delete any other true and veryfiable information about the same medieval Serbian name. Zello 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a more concise version and it consists every important info about locations. Zello 22:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Here I found at last a good explanation about the difference of the two theories. There were two words with different origin in medieval Hung. language. 1, Bácsa later Bács personal name of Old Turkic origin. 2, bács - chief of the shepherds, borrowed from Slavic-Vlach languages. The same three sounds but not the same words, similarly than vár - "to wait" and vár - "fortress". So nobody tries to deny the existence of the Slavic word and names, place names derived from it. But Hungarian place names of early Árpádic origin were derived from the personal name. In the case of this given town NOBODY can decide what happened because both possibilities are realistic. The town and the county was re-established by the first Árpáds (Stephen or one of his followers) but there was a local Slavic population. Only the Iustinian letter can prove something. Zello 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Bagasin? It seems far enough from Bač, Bácsa or anything like that. Zello 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That seems very probable. By the way my contribution wasn't nationalistic propaganda and you gave an example of NOT assuming good faith in the whole debate. Zello 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a crybaby it doesn't matter. Despite the many nice wiki-rules the whole thing is somewhat like a sport match but better to play fair. Zello 00:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this revert - Some people around here seem to have started thinking that using sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is a good idea. It is not. As long as I have no strong clue as to who their master is, I'll use my 3 opportunities per day to revert such users' edits (even though I know 3RR is a restriction, not a privilege), and I'll also bring the matter to WP:AN/I as I feel appropriate. "You have been warned." K issL 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Zello, as you found about name Bač/Bacs, name Vid/Vitus also have two origins. Sveti Vid (Saint Vid) was old Slavic god and Vid is a name of Slavic origin (meaning "the one who can see" or "the one who have knowledge"). Another name Vitus is of Latin origin ad two names are later often confound. My source claim that this prefect had name Vid. Do you have some other source that claim that name was originally written as Vitus? PANONIAN (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I also found now the 1094 date as the first mention of the short-lived archbishopric that was amalgamated with the Archbishopric of Kalocsa in 1135. I haven't found that earliest name variant yet. Zello 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
As for Vid I looked up hu-wiki where the article says that it is the South-Slavic variant of Guido and Guido is the Latinized variant of the German Wido. So the name is German-Latin-Slavic, and the original meaning was "woodman". The article mentions another theory: it was derived from the Latin Vitus. Then the original meaning is "ready, willing". On a Hungarian forum about names (certainly not a scientific source but generally quite good) - see http://forum.index.hu/Article/showArticle?t=9056730&la=53223724 - I found that Vid is a diminutive form of the Latin Vitus and as such it was probably evolved in the Slavic languages. The Hung. commercial sources - as Vid was also borrowed and still used as a Hungarian name - simply claim that it is of German-Latin-South Slavic origin. It seems quite complicated. Zello 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it is one possible theory but here we have at least to other theories also the one with Wido and the other with Vitus. They are also Slavic partially but not exclusively. Zello 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Zello wrote: "I don't think it existed as a place name, Romanians never lived there in the past hundreds of years"
I looked up the town in my toponymical lexicon and I found only the South-Slavic, Hungarian and German names. It is possible that a Romanian name exists, bur are you sure? That's not the same that the word baci exists. Many times smaller minorities simply use the other common names. Zello 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a presumed name - the word with Romanian orthography. But we don't know whether it really existed as a place name. I don't think because the toponymical lexicon mentions all existing variants (of course mistakes are always possible). If there isn't an accepted Romanian version they certainly use the Bač version similarly that Hungarians call the town of Niš to Niš, not Nis, although we don't have š. Zello 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
In Hungarian the situation is exactly the same as in Romanian. Zello 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but I think that's quite unusual. Zello 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, but very probably Bacs because of the county name. Zello 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Bacsensis County is a bit strange mix for me. Comitatus Bacsensis is an attributive form, translating into English the -ensis should be dropped. So Bacs County or Comitatus Bacsensis would be better. Zello 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And this one is most interesting: http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geuqF_mftEsHkAceFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEwbTllOWlmBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMTMEc2VjA3NyBHZ0aWQD/SIG=12m1c3osc/EXP=1157425919/**http%3a//mnytud.arts.unideb.hu/nevarchivum/szotar/doc/07betuhmut.doc
I think we should just pick one. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
brrr - there are a lot of attributive forms among them. Castrum Bachiense means Castrum of Bács where the "of" is the same as the -iense ending. For example Colonia Ostiensis is the Colonia of Ostia. To get the real name you should drop the ending but I think every Latin priest tried to express somehow the same three sound he heard Bač/Bács. In Latin the cs/č sound doesn't exist so they had a huge problem and tried every possible version: Bach, Bacs, Baci, Bachi, Bachy, Bachi (and some more extreme forms). Zello 04:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a list of name versions with dates:
Bács 1. ’település és vár Bács vm. Ny-i részén a Mosztonga mellett, a vm. központja’ +1158/[1220 k.]//403/PR.: in Baac˙, 1192/374/425: Baac, [1192]>394, [1230]/231, 1234/550 (VRH. 26: 20), 1333 (Sztáray 1: 79), 1341 (Kállay 1: 608): Baach, 1201: Bahc, 1212/231 (EO. 1: 43), 1226/550, 1250 (EO. 1: 214), 1274 (EO. 1: 334), 1325, 1333 (Z. 1: 417), 1346 (MiskOkl. 37–8): Bach, 1214/550: Bachu (Gy. 1: 210–2), 1234/550: Bách (VRH. 26: 20) | ~i 1337: Petrus de Bachy (A. 3: 347, Kállay 1: 514) | Lat. 1111 (DHA. 385), 1113 (DHA. 396): Bache, 1233/PR.: Bathie, 1316: Bachini ¦ 1124/666 (DHA. 416): Baacensis, 1134 (DHA. 261): Baaciensem ~ Baaciensi (Gy. 1: 210–2), 1134/227: Baatiensi (DHA. 261), +1135/[XIII.]: Bachasiensi, 1142/XVIII., 1192/374/425, 1229, 1233, 1234, 1237, [1241 u.], 1244, 1247, 1252, 1254, 1256, 1263, 1265/466/476, 1267, 1270, 1272, [1274 e.], 1275, 1279, 1280, +1282/346, 1289, 1297, 1297/332, 1299, 1301, 1328/335: Bachiensis, +1158/[1220 k.]//403/PR.: Bachyenses, 1163/XIV., 1181/288//XV., 1197/XVIII., 1198, 1198/226/PR., 1199/272, 1200/XIV., 1202, 1208, 1211, 1218 P./PR., 1222, 1229, 1234, 1234 P./PR., 1235 P./PR., 1237, 1238/377, 1240, [1244 e.], 1263, 1266 P./PR., 1270, [1274 e.], 1317 P./PR., 1323: Bachiensi, +1171/[XII–XIII.]: Baasiensis, [1177 k.], +1186/[1270 k.]: Baaciensis, 1179: Bahasnensis, 1181, 1199, 1199/227/PR., 1234: Baciensi, 1183/226/270, [1185]/XV., 1307 P./PR.: Bachiensem, 1192/374/425, 1192/XIII., 1237/279/385, 1263, 1270: Bachyensi, castr., [1192]>394, 1266/379, 1272, 1275, 1279, 1280, +1282/346, 1289, 1297, 1297/332, 1299, 1301, 1311/340, 1328, 1328/335: Bachyensis, 1193, 1199/315, [1230]/231, 1233: Baachiensi, 1197/XVIII.: Bacsiensi, 1198, 1332–7/PR., 1338–40/PR.: Baciense, 1206, 1234: Bááchiensi, 1211: Bahachiensibus, 1211, XIV./1071-re, XIV./1074-re: Bachiensibus, 1215>PR.: Baciensibus, 1217/227/PR.: Bachatiensis, 1217/272: Bachachiensis, 1223 P./PR.: Bachaciensi, 1227 P./PR.: Baatiensi, [1230]/231: Baachiensem, 1233, 1320 P./PR., 1332–7/PR., 1338–40/PR.: Baciensis, 1241 P./PR.: Baziensi, 1244, [1244 e.], 1247, 1252, 1254, 1255, 1263, 1263/466/476, 1270, [1274 e.]: Bachiense, castr., 1263: Bakachiensi, 1276/641: Batatinio [ƒ: Bacacinio], 1282 P./PR.: Batiensi, 1290: Bakachyni, 1309 P./PR.: Batiensis, 1332–7/PR.: Baciensy ~ Waciensis [ƒ: Baciensis], XIV./1074-re: Bacchienses ~ Bachienses ~ Wachienses [ƒ: Bachienses] | Arab [1154]: Bak(a)sŁn | Gör. [1180–83]/1164-re: Pag©tzion | Ol. 1309–11: Baccia (Gy. 1: 210–2).
That lexicon gives data only until 1350. Obviously the orthography of the name changed with times, in the 18th century the cs-version was used (see the county name). That's part of the bigger problem with place names of the KoH. There is a constant fight about this question but I think we are on the right way when looking up the versions used in written documents of the administration of the age. Basically we are searching for the HISTORICAL official name, not the present-day one or the modern Hung form. Latin is not a real solution because only a handful bigger towns had any real Latin names (like Cassovia). What makes things more complicated that there weren't one, clearly set name but a dozen more or less different version. We will be able to establish the most often used of them but I don't think we have to stick to the ever changing old orthography. Now the name itself is not a problem - obviously it was always Bač/Bács in every language. For the orthography I don't know the practical solution. Taken another village: nobody would write Abawyvar instead of Abaújvár. Without the ethnic dimension the old orthography itself is not a problem. French, German, Italian orthography changed a lot from the Middle Ages but nobody cares. This is not the same as using anachronisms like Istanbul for 13th century. Zello 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you reverted my corections, and you pretend to use Latin names, then use real Latin equvalents. Mayebe Baach or other Latin spellings. Neither Kalocsa is written with Hungarian "cs" in medieval sources. -- Koppany 12:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure why there is such a big controversy over here regarding the addition of the Slovak name to the infobox. In Bač, Slovaks make up more than 15% of the population which, according to Serbia's minority rights laws, makes Slovak an officially-recognised language in this locality, while also permitting the use of bilingual signs. Wikipedia should be a reflection of reality, and in places such as Bač, the reality is that both Slovak and Serbian are in official use. It doesn't matter that Serbs are a majority, what matters is that, because Slovaks make up more than 15% of the population, their language is in official use. Consequently, I believe that the Slovak name should be included in the infobox, in the same way that the Hungarian name is included at Romanian localities such as Oradea (27% Hungarian) or Satu Mare. This is not a political act, and, despite what Panonian said, does not imply any "territorial claim" or "irredentism". This should also be applied to all Vojvodinian localities where a given non-Serbian ethnic group makes up more than 15% of the population. For example, the Hungarian name should be included at Novi Bečej, Novi Kneževac and Srbobran. What do you think? Ronline ✉ 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I got those percents from the "demographics" section of this page. The whole town is a municipality? Then something is wrong in the article, or itself mixes the town and the municipality, and it drew us wrong :) -- 91.120.77.7 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Ronline's proposal that minority names should be included in the infoboxes BUT I still have a problem with the issue of municipalities/villages and, in Romanian relation, communes/villages. Bač is a good example because here - probably - nobody will accuse me that I'm biased. So here we have a town with an insignificant Slovak population, and a municipality which indeed a small district with a couple of villages like a Romanian commune. One village in the municipality Selenča has an absolute Slovak majority. Hopefully nobody will deny that Selenča needs a bilingual infobox. We can discuss about that the whole municipality needs a bilingual infobox or not. But I have to agree with Panonian - rare case, indeed - that Bač town with its absolute Serb majority is better without a bilingual infobox. But do we have an article about Bač town? No, it is the same as the municipality. I think this is the core of the problem. If you take a look at our discussion about Unirea with Alex there was a similar problem - the demographic history of the centre of the commune and the whole commune was different. There was a lot of debate about which data should be included in article. I think that administrative units (municipalities) and natural settlement units (villages, small towns) are different things and better not to mix them. I propose to copy paste the data relating to Bač town into an independent article and re-write this article as a short summary about the administrative unit similarly like the French cantons or arrondissiments (for example Arrondissement of Blois. The Bač town article will have a monolingual Serb infobox while the municipality - probably - a bilingual one but it will be obvious for the reader that Bač town has a Serb majority. Zello 13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In Serb laws there is a 15 % limit as far as we know. Zello 13:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
People: you again mixing here scientific and political arguments. There is no single word in the Serbian law that minority names should be used in Wikipedia infoboxes and I really do not see of what relevance to readers of English language Wikipedia these names would be. All these names are mentioned in the "Name" sections (where English readers can to find them and therefore to gain information about these names) and we can also create "Language" section where we can writte about official languages used in each municipality. If you people have goal to inform English-language readers about these names and about their official usage, please tell what possibly could be wrong with my proposal? Regarding split of articles about town and municipality, I do not agree because that will just create two bad stub-type articles instead one good and large. And we certainly should not split these articles only because of the question of the names in the infoboxes. The one thing that I can agree is that infoboxes could have minority names if minority groups make absolute or relative majority either in the municipality or in the town/village. For example, Nova Crnja article that speak about both, village and municipality have Hungarian name in the infobox because Hungarians form majority in the village, no matter that whole municipality is majority Serb. PANONIAN 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I was encouraged to drop by this talk page, but I am not very familiar with articles about Serbian municipalities. Is there any rule or custom regarding inclusion of names in infoboxes or this discussion aims to create such a rule? It is not completely clear from this discussion, as it already focuses on specific numbers and Serbian laws. Tankred 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are various models we can use:
|
|
Let see:the only acceptable version of the "new" infobox would be this one:
PANONIAN
13:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Bač
Бач 70% 70% 70% | |
---|---|
Municipality and Town | |
Coordinates: 45°23′N 19°14′E / 45.383°N 19.233°E | |
Country | Serbia |
District | South Bačka |
Settlements | 6 |
Government | |
• Mayor | Tomislav Bogunović ( DS) |
Area | |
• Municipality | 367 km2 (142 sq mi) |
Population (2011 census)
[6] | |
• Town | 6,087 |
• Municipality | 16,268 |
Time zone | UTC+1 ( CET) |
• Summer ( DST) | UTC+2 ( CEST) |
Area code | +381 21 |
Car plates | NS |
Website |
www |
Your irredentist concern is ridiculous and tells much about your way of thinking. In fact you are the one who have such fears and tries to hide minority names behind special sections and long paragraphs. There is no connection between the territorial integrity of a country and minority rights, including the usage of place names. Zello 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You think that articles about Transyvanian cities just look exactly like that Hungarians already "took them back from Romanians". OK you are absolutely right, this is what happened in the past weeks. You discovered the secret. And Vojvodina will be the next if you are not hard enough to defend it. And we bought Ronline. I sent him a box of sweets, and he became a traitor. That's how the Hungarian mafia works. Zello 18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
*giggle* yeah, it was an offer he couldn't refuse. Long Live the Magyar Cabal! ;-) K. Lásztocska 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Do what you want Panonian. This is not so important for me that I would like to argue about it a lot. Indeed - in spite of your fears - I didn't intended to try to do any changes in Serbian and Slovakian infoboxes. These debates consume too much energy. Zello 12:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If you read the whole text you will realize that the context of this sentence is totally different what you try to present here. But even if Hungarians in Vojvodina were separatists or dangerous not a rapidly decreasing community on the verge of disappearance, their minority rights were inalienable (until they exist). There is a 15 % limit in Serb laws, nobody asked for more, and it is quite a reasonable number. Under this percent minorities are almost invisible, above there is a presence that we should show somehow. Seeing place names as a danger is a typical symptom of political phobia. Place names indeed have a symbolic meaning, you are right. A bilingual infobox mean exactly what anybody without political fears would think - a settlement with a mixed population. I think it is a reasonable claim that in places with Serb majority the other name should be smaller to express its lesser importance. Zello 16:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a straw man, Panonian, even if some Serbs in Vojvodina believe in it. 64 counties is a fringe group with no real public support. European integration, international law and demographic realities make the present-day borders unchangeable. Both of us know that the ethnic map of Vojvodina will significantly change in the next 30 years mainly because of the consequences of Hungarian immigration. I don't really understand Serb fears, Vojvodina is not like Kosovo. Zello 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you put this sentence in a footnote? This version is really crazy. Zello 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
But you can put this explanation in a footnote without this brutal interruption of the infobox Zello 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me offer a 2c of sources (ZOMG, I'd better not, that's how I entered this whole mess). The municipal Statute (kind of Constitution) is not available online, but there are few accompanying documents:
U radu Opštinske uprave u službenoj upotrebi je srpski jezik i ćirilično i latinično pismo i slovački i mađarski jezik i pismo, u skladu sa Statutom opštine Bač.
In the operation of municipal administration, in official use is Serbian language of Cyrillic and Latin script, and Slovak and Hungarian language and alphabet, according to the Statute of Municipality of Bač.
Na slovačkom jeziku ispisani su nazivi samo 3 mesta i to Bački Petrovac, Gložan i Kisač. Ova tri mesta nalaze se na teritoriji 2 opštine od 10 posmatranih u kojima je garantovana službena upotreba slovačkog jezika. U osam opština koje su bile u uzorku istraživanja, a u kojima se garantuje službena upotreba slovačkog jezika, nazivi mesta nisu obeleženi na tom jeziku.
In Slovak language only 3 placenames are written: Bački Petrovac, Gložan and Kisač. Those 3 places are on territory of 2 municipalities out of 10 observed, where the official use of Slovak language is guaranteed. In 8 municipalities included in the research sample (Bač apparently not in the sample, op.trans.), in which official use of Slovak is guaranteed, placenames were not marked in that language.
Duja ► 07:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
<undent>No, I don't accept any kind of sentence in the infobox title, and I don't see why is it necesary. I'd just note that all South Tyrol articles use both German and Italian name in infoboxes and in lead, even in non-fixed order ( Altrei has German first, La Val Ladin, and Bolzano Italian), and no one seems to make a big deal out of it nor write long contrieved explanations why they're all there. Why is even a footnote not acceptable? Why is it mandatory that the (self-evident, I repeat) legal information stays in so prominent place? What horrible happens if no one reads it? I think you're trying a false middle ground here. Duja ► 14:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
...If you insist on "proposing the compromise", I wouldn't mind leaving the infobox as is, and putting only the official minority names in the lead section (the "Name" sections stay as is). However, what will you do with infoboxes where the minority name already is in the infobox, such as Subotica or Kanjiža. It's a half-solution. Duja ► 14:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Bač
Бач 70% 70% 70% 70% | |
---|---|
Municipality and Town | |
Coordinates: 45°23′N 19°14′E / 45.383°N 19.233°E | |
Country | Serbia |
District | South Bačka |
Settlements | 6 |
Government | |
• Mayor | Tomislav Bogunović ( DS) |
Area | |
• Municipality | 367 km2 (142 sq mi) |
Population (2011 census)
[8] | |
• Town | 6,087 |
• Municipality | 16,268 |
Time zone | UTC+1 ( CET) |
• Summer ( DST) | UTC+2 ( CEST) |
Area code | +381 21 |
Car plates | NS |
Website |
www |
Minority names without explanation why they are used as such could be seen by some people that they are posted there because of irredentist purpose,... it would be much more useful to readers to have explanation why these names are there instead to think or guess for themselves about such reasons.
The following names are also in official use according to the Law and municipal Statute. However, it should not be treated as an endorsement of any irredentist claims that might result by their inclusion here. According to international law and Constitution of Serbia, the municipality is a sovereign part of Republic of Serbia.
Ok, let see:
Since these articles are about present-day administrative entities, it is clear that we will not use these names in their historical meaning as well as we will not use them in the political meaning especially if it reflect politics that is not in accordance with existing social-political system. This mean that we would use these names with two meanings: official and demographical. Minority names used in the articles about Subotica and Kanjiža are posted there because of the demographical reason, i.e. they reflect names used by largest ethnic group that live in these areas. In Bač, we have very different case: here we have intention to include names as reflection of their official status, thus we encounter very different problems than those in Subotica or Kanjiža. So, the basic task would be the question how we can use these minority names to reflect their official status (and partially demographic one, since these names are used by some local inhabitants), but also to inform readers that these names are used because of official and demographic reason, but not because of political or historical one. My thought was that infobox with a sentence that explain such official and demographic reality would be best solution, but since argument opposite to this is that infobox with such sentence is "ugly and awful", I would really like to hear any other proposals how we can achive this task. PANONIAN 20:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Bač
Бач | |
---|---|
Town | |
Country | Serbia |
District | South Bačka |
Settlements | 6 |
Government | |
• Mayor | Tomislav Bogunović ( DS) |
Area | |
• Municipality | 367 km2 (142 sq mi) |
Population (2002 census)
[10] | |
• Total | 6,087 |
• Municipality | 16,268 |
Time zone | UTC+1 ( CET) |
• Summer ( DST) | UTC+2 ( CEST) |
Postal code | {{{postal}}} |
Car plates | NS |
Area code | +381 21 |
Website | http://www.bac.co.yu |
I still don't think you're being rational, but never mind. I made another proposal here. It contains "official languages and names" (short enough for me, I hope long enough for you) in a separate section of an infobox, with a list below it. Sold? (although I'll have to run in a while and won't be around until Monday). Duja ► 13:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, since this discussion lead nowhere, this is my modified comprose version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duja/Temp02 Let stop discussing things that are not related to the subject, but if somebody think that this version is bad please elaborate why, if somebody think that it is ugly, please elaborate why as well. PANONIAN 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
A disambiguation page should be created to avoid confusion with the article on Blood Alcohol Content (BAC)
According to Hungarian sources the first mention was in 1111 as "Castrum Bache". Give any evidence that it was called Bač under Iustinianus - not a Roman castrum but THIS name in the 6th century. Zello 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have no doubt that Hungarian sources claim that World was created in 1000 AD, but you should read this: http://www.bac.co.yu/english/Pocetna.htm Eh, I should read it too, because I read only Serbian version of the site, so I will expand article with new things written there. PANONIAN (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And also about your addition: "In the early Árpád era Bács was a common Hungarian personal name, derived from the Old Turkic baya dignity. Hungarian historians assume that the town was named after the first comes of county, Bács ispán". I do not object that Bács could be a name used by Hungarians in that time, but claim that it derived from word baya is ridiculous. It is linguistically impossible that letter "y" is changed into "cs" like that. The most logical explanation (provided by Milica Grković and she is a linguist) is that name "was spread into other languages by the Vlach shepherds". That explain how this name is found in both, Hungarian and Slavic. And I already told you that theory about Hungarian origin of the name is impossible because name is found in the areas where Hungarians never lived, while areas that you claimed to be "Hungarian linguistic territory" were in fact inhabited by Vlachs and Slavs before Hungarians came. Also, claim that "Hungarian historians assume that the town was named after the first comes of county, Bács ispán" is neither convincing neither proven. If somebody assume that Aliens from another planet came and gave name to the city, should we include it here? Besides this, my source say that name of the first prefect of the county was Vid, not Bács. So, only thing that is certain is that town is most likely named after person with name Bač/Bács but who was he, when exactly he lived and what was his ethnicity is disputed. PANONIAN (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Almost every second Hungarian sources will use the name Délvidék because that is one of the accepted names of Vojvodina. I know that Serbs don't like it but the Hungarian language won't change from that. Also I'm not linguist but I accept what linguists said about the changes of sounds. I'm not able check them (similarly to the 99 % of people). The link you gave doesn't says anything about the name. Zello 21:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What we need is not that the region was populatid by Slavs in the 6th century (that's obviously true), but evidence about such early usage of the name, before the 11th century. Zello 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"The first reliable written document about Bac dates back to 1094. When Zagreb bishopric was founded ,the name of Archbishop of Bac,Fabian was also written down." - it is copied from you source. The other sentences are absolutely ambigous about the name, they speak about a town or castrum. Where is the name that Iustinian used in his letter? What form?
(I won't argue about Délvidék, it is used in Hungary until now and it will be used as a synomym for Vajdaság. There are travel guides, books etc, the language doesn't follow the changes of the borders)
What you really don't seem to understand that that nobody disputes that there is a Slavic word "bač". But these three sound in that same order can appear INDEPENDENTLY in other languages also, and in Hungarian it appeared as a personal name in the 11th century. Hungarian linguists claim that this wasn't borrowed from Slavic but Old Turkic. I don't think there is any nationalistic reason behind their claim as they don't deny the other hundreds of Slavic words that exist in Hungarian. Zello 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is something you cannot call revisionist propaganda, a simple guide about personal names and their origins for parents to choose in a Baby Magazin :)
http://www.babaszoba.hu/services/names?letter=B;nid=1-133
It says: "Bács - personal name of Hungarian-Turkic origin, originally a dignitary" It is living name even today although seldon used. Probably irredentist warriors occupied the editorial office of the Baby Magazin... Zello 22:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The source is the same I think, simply the Hungarian Etymological Dictionary. You can see that the Pallas Lexicon also writes the same. We can't decide about what group of linguists are right, because we are no linguists. There are complicated rules of sound changes etc. The Hungarian language borrowed a lot of words from Turkic in the 6-9th centuries and they changed radically, this is the reason because the word is called of Turkic-Hungarian origin. But NPOV doesn't mean we have to decice in this question, if there are reliable sources than the question is presented as disputed. There are two linguistic theories, that's all. Zello 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You first explain why you replaced sentence "the name was recorded among Vlachs, Slavs and Hungarians" with "Bács was a common Hungarian personal name" and then we will discuss other things. PANONIAN (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't replaced, it is there even now next to each other!
I found an example for a similarly "impossible" sound change, sayi (Turkic, means number) -> szám. y->m Zello 23:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that it was 3RR because at last time an anonym user appeared from the nowhere with 0 edit and deleted the disputed section. I can assume only two things: 1, that's an unknown new vandal, 2, you are using sockpuppets to evade 3RR. I assumed good faith I decided that a vandal appeared (not communicating on the talk page of course). Also removing the whole section is absurd because both theories are well sourced. Zello 00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That's absurd - a compromise is not the same as deleting the disputes. Both theories are well sourced so there is no reason to delete them. By the way you really not able to bear the possibility that a name in Vojvodine CAN be of Hungarian origin? There dozens of Slavic place all over Hungary and nobody makes such show about them... Zello 00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course, why not. I don't have any socks. That anonymous friend is not Bonny by the way? Zello 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
WHY is ridiculous? Because the sound change seems impossible to you? That's not enough. The only evidence can be the Iustinianus letter. If he used the name in some Latinized (but recognisable) form then I would accept the certainty of Slavic origin. Until that there are only two linguistic theories. Zello 00:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not a game that if you are not able to win then delete your part and my part. Obviously the two theories are widely accepted among the linguists of the two countries. They disagree that's it. Take a look at the Origin of the Romanians article - do you think that the NPOV version would be to delete both theories??? Zello 00:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Another personal name guides strictly for commercial use not "propaganda": http://www.babaruhazat.hu/fiunevek.php, http://www.cardxpress.hu/nevnapferfi.htm, http://www.bebinfo.hu/cikkek.php?uid=340&cikkmegnez=1 etc. They obviously used the Hungarian Etymological Dictionary as source. That's the ONLY theory you will find about the name in Hungarian sources. Zello 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That English version never existed so it's absolutely misleading as an article title. The town gave its name to the county and indirectly to the whole Bačka region. The name theories should be placed in these three articles as relevant information. That section didn't "destroy" the article, it is an NPOV version because doesn't claim that one or another theory is true. Such disputes are only solved like this or doing more research. There is a clear way for this to you - look up the Iustinian letter in some publication and present the form he used. That will be important new info. Zello 01:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You really don't seem to understand the core of NPOV - even those theories should have a place in articles that the another group of people don't like. Do you think that followers of Daco-Romanian theory accept the other theory as a real possibility? No, they call it Hungarian-inspirated propaganda. You can see that the Turkic theory is more than 100 year old and it is accepted by a lot of commercial websites who certainly not interested in Vojvodina at all. Zello 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The only proposal I have: delete the half sentence that the name was derived from baya. I will create a normal article about Bács (name) where the Hungarian personal name will be presented together with this Turkic theory. Zello 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you won't wipe out the other theory from the article. There should be two clearly distinct point-of-view next to each other. The name in that form was Hungarian, only derived from old Turkic, but wasn't Old Turkic in the 11th century. The two other sentence are two argument proving the possibility of the theory. There are absolutely similar arguments about the Slavic placenames in Yugoslavia and the Russian connection. Zello 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a way to clearly separate the two theories: "In the past, Bač was a personal name either of Slavic [1], Balkanic [2] or Hungarian origin. Serbian historians presume that the name of town is either Slavic or Vlach origin, as it was probably spread into other languages by the Vlach shepherds. In Southern Slavic linguistic territory places with the name Bač could be found in the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, and Slovenia. The similar name Bača was recorded among old Russians, which imply the possibility of Slavic origin. [5] On the other hand Hungarian historians presume that the name of the town is of Hungarian origin because Bács was a common Hungarian personal name in the early Árpádic era (11-13th centuries). There are also several place names with the word "bács" in the Hungarian linguistic territory. They think that the town was named after the first comes of county, Bács ispán [4]." Zello 02:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not my theory but the accepted Hungarian one. As I already said the words can be absolutely independent from each other. And there are a lot of other possibilites: probably Slavs also borrowed the name from Turkic peoples living in Balkan that time etc. That's not our task to resolve this dispute only to present the two point of view. You cannot write in such a way in wikipedia that only the Serbian theory exists. Zello 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Your friend has dozens of names... Zello 02:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I didn't bother to read the comments on the talk page, but it appears that there's a dispute over the origin of the Name. I don't think anyone here is going to convince one another of who is "right" here, the point is that if a theory can be supported by a verifiable source, then it deserves to be mentioned. The sources don't have to be neutral, as long as they're attributed properly (i.e. "according to Hungarian historians..."). There was a similar dispute at the Karbala article, and I hope that we can apply the same sort of method over here, and make it work. — Khoikhoi 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This certainly makes a candidate for
WP:LAME. As Khoikhoi said, the solution is to include all theories as long as they can be
cited and attributed.
As a suggestion, I'd prefer the section to be in
Bačka article (as the region is far more important than the town, regardless of the fact that the town name is older than the region), with a cross-link from here to there.
Duja
08:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to say that I accepted inclusion of such ridiculous theory that "bač" came from "baya" only to prevent that this article is further vandalized, but this theory is same if we include theory that "humans derived from pigs" into humans article. This "baya origin" theory exist only because of Greater Hungarian nationalism and nationalistic claims that everything in Central Europe is Hungarian. When Hungarians came to Central Europe, Slavs and Vlachs already lived here and most of the words that Hungarians borrowed from other languages are Slavic (mostly) or Vlach (almost all Hungarian words that designate life in civilized society are of Slavic origin, and that say all). Now, we have problem that Hungarian historians simply DO NOT LIKE the fact that these words and names are Slavic or Vlach, thus when they search for the origin of the name, they do not search with the purpose to find a true origin of the name, but with the purpose to "prove" that name was not Slavic or Vlach (this is because of Greater Hungarian aspirations towards territories inhabited by Slavs and Romanians). Even for such obvious Slavic names they search origin in Turkic or even Iranian languages. Here is very good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Csob%C3%A1nka&diff=59286831&oldid=57871485 Such clean and clear Slavic name Csobánka (čobanka - female shepherd, while čoban is male shepherd in Slavic) was explained as derivate from Iranian word suban!!! (No matter of the existence of the Slavic word "čoban", and no matter that this village is still partially inhabited by Slavs). Of course, I do not accuse for that Wikipedia editor that added this, but I accuse the historian who wrote book where this Wikipedia editor found this data. Same thing is with name Bač. The Hungarian historians had a mission to prove that this name is Hungarian (this in fact had much larger geo-political implications than simply to describe origin of one small town, because such implications transfer from here to the entire Bačka region), thus in order to prove Hungarian origin of the name Bač, they searched for meaning of this name in Hungarian. When they saw that it means nothing in Hungarian, they searched in Turkic, and when they saw that it means nothing in Turkic too, they searched for any word in Turkic and Hungarian that have at least two (!) similar letters with word "bač" (I am sure that they were very happy when they found Turkic name "baya"). Interestingly, they never searched in Romanian (the only language in which this name have meaning), or in Slavic where you have a dozen of "similar" names ("similar" to "bač" like "baya" is), like bačva (very similar indeed), bara, baka, baba, bala, etc, etc. Of course, they simply DID NOT WANT to explain origin of name as Vlach or Slavic. And finally, I have nothing against Hungarian names. In fact, you can see my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Telep&diff=55048218&oldid=55030008 I even explained original Hungarian version of this name there (because name is clearly Hungarian), but to claim that name "bač" is Hungarian or Turkic only because Hungarian historians think that it is "similar" to old Turkic word "baya" is completelly ridiculous and was invented with a geo-political purpose to prove "Hungarian historical right" for inclusion of Bačka into Greater Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The personal name Subanus was first mentioned in written sources in 1177... Today Serbs moved in Csobánka only in the 18th century. Zello 13:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems that Zello again demonstrates his nationalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ba%C4%8D&diff=73215843&oldid=73210046 Your sentence "In the early Árpádic age (11- 13th centuries) Bács was a common Hungarian personal name" is ALREADY COVERED with the sentence that "its existence was recorded among Vlachs, Slavs and Hungarians in the Middle Ages". You AGAIN want to imply that name was USED ONLY AMONG HUNGARIANS, WHICH IS AN OUTRAGE LIE! Do you want to say that Árpádic age was not during the Middle Ages??? And also claiming that name is "scattered all over the former Kingdom of Hungary" instead that it is "scattered all over the Balkans and Central Europe – in the countries of former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Romania" is ANOTHER LIE because such places exist in the parts of former Yugoslavia that WERE NEVER PART OF THE KINGDOM OF HUNGARY. PANONIAN (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that article is about the Hungarian personal name which exists today. From the etymology section it is clear that the word was know among the Slavs and Vlachs also. As for the other sentence do you really not understand that this is the same as you wrote? AND THE BALKAN - this is the regions what were never part of the KoH. But I won't use the expression of Yugoslavia speaking about the Middle Ages. By the way I still didn't see any evidence that the word not only existed in Slavic and Vlach but was used as a personal name also. The Romanian sentence only says that it means shepherd - that's not a personal name. Is there anybody in Serbia and Romania who is called Bač now? Zello 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
(Calling loudly somebody a liar in a content dispute is a personal attack) Zello 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop labeling my edits propaganda, lie, vandalism, POV-pushing etc or I will report your behaviour to an admin. I lost my patience seeing you are not able to argue in a non-agressive way. If the name was used by Serbs in medieval times you can mention this fact in the name article. Balkan is a geographic entity - much better to use it speaking about the Middle Ages then present-day countries. The Kingdom of Hungary also not-anachronistic. Zello 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
1, We are speaking about the Middle Ages when these names were given, not the present. In this region where present-day countries are absolutely different than medival ones your usage is misleading. Speaking about the origin of a name it is irrelevant what present-day countries have the given villages now. 2, The name article is about the Hungarian name because that's the only one that exists today (since the Middle Ages). The sentence you disagree with is true and veryfiable. I won't delete any other true and veryfiable information about the same medieval Serbian name. Zello 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a more concise version and it consists every important info about locations. Zello 22:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Here I found at last a good explanation about the difference of the two theories. There were two words with different origin in medieval Hung. language. 1, Bácsa later Bács personal name of Old Turkic origin. 2, bács - chief of the shepherds, borrowed from Slavic-Vlach languages. The same three sounds but not the same words, similarly than vár - "to wait" and vár - "fortress". So nobody tries to deny the existence of the Slavic word and names, place names derived from it. But Hungarian place names of early Árpádic origin were derived from the personal name. In the case of this given town NOBODY can decide what happened because both possibilities are realistic. The town and the county was re-established by the first Árpáds (Stephen or one of his followers) but there was a local Slavic population. Only the Iustinian letter can prove something. Zello 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Bagasin? It seems far enough from Bač, Bácsa or anything like that. Zello 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That seems very probable. By the way my contribution wasn't nationalistic propaganda and you gave an example of NOT assuming good faith in the whole debate. Zello 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a crybaby it doesn't matter. Despite the many nice wiki-rules the whole thing is somewhat like a sport match but better to play fair. Zello 00:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this revert - Some people around here seem to have started thinking that using sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is a good idea. It is not. As long as I have no strong clue as to who their master is, I'll use my 3 opportunities per day to revert such users' edits (even though I know 3RR is a restriction, not a privilege), and I'll also bring the matter to WP:AN/I as I feel appropriate. "You have been warned." K issL 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Zello, as you found about name Bač/Bacs, name Vid/Vitus also have two origins. Sveti Vid (Saint Vid) was old Slavic god and Vid is a name of Slavic origin (meaning "the one who can see" or "the one who have knowledge"). Another name Vitus is of Latin origin ad two names are later often confound. My source claim that this prefect had name Vid. Do you have some other source that claim that name was originally written as Vitus? PANONIAN (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I also found now the 1094 date as the first mention of the short-lived archbishopric that was amalgamated with the Archbishopric of Kalocsa in 1135. I haven't found that earliest name variant yet. Zello 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
As for Vid I looked up hu-wiki where the article says that it is the South-Slavic variant of Guido and Guido is the Latinized variant of the German Wido. So the name is German-Latin-Slavic, and the original meaning was "woodman". The article mentions another theory: it was derived from the Latin Vitus. Then the original meaning is "ready, willing". On a Hungarian forum about names (certainly not a scientific source but generally quite good) - see http://forum.index.hu/Article/showArticle?t=9056730&la=53223724 - I found that Vid is a diminutive form of the Latin Vitus and as such it was probably evolved in the Slavic languages. The Hung. commercial sources - as Vid was also borrowed and still used as a Hungarian name - simply claim that it is of German-Latin-South Slavic origin. It seems quite complicated. Zello 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it is one possible theory but here we have at least to other theories also the one with Wido and the other with Vitus. They are also Slavic partially but not exclusively. Zello 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Zello wrote: "I don't think it existed as a place name, Romanians never lived there in the past hundreds of years"
I looked up the town in my toponymical lexicon and I found only the South-Slavic, Hungarian and German names. It is possible that a Romanian name exists, bur are you sure? That's not the same that the word baci exists. Many times smaller minorities simply use the other common names. Zello 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a presumed name - the word with Romanian orthography. But we don't know whether it really existed as a place name. I don't think because the toponymical lexicon mentions all existing variants (of course mistakes are always possible). If there isn't an accepted Romanian version they certainly use the Bač version similarly that Hungarians call the town of Niš to Niš, not Nis, although we don't have š. Zello 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
In Hungarian the situation is exactly the same as in Romanian. Zello 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but I think that's quite unusual. Zello 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, but very probably Bacs because of the county name. Zello 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Bacsensis County is a bit strange mix for me. Comitatus Bacsensis is an attributive form, translating into English the -ensis should be dropped. So Bacs County or Comitatus Bacsensis would be better. Zello 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And this one is most interesting: http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geuqF_mftEsHkAceFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEwbTllOWlmBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMTMEc2VjA3NyBHZ0aWQD/SIG=12m1c3osc/EXP=1157425919/**http%3a//mnytud.arts.unideb.hu/nevarchivum/szotar/doc/07betuhmut.doc
I think we should just pick one. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
brrr - there are a lot of attributive forms among them. Castrum Bachiense means Castrum of Bács where the "of" is the same as the -iense ending. For example Colonia Ostiensis is the Colonia of Ostia. To get the real name you should drop the ending but I think every Latin priest tried to express somehow the same three sound he heard Bač/Bács. In Latin the cs/č sound doesn't exist so they had a huge problem and tried every possible version: Bach, Bacs, Baci, Bachi, Bachy, Bachi (and some more extreme forms). Zello 04:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a list of name versions with dates:
Bács 1. ’település és vár Bács vm. Ny-i részén a Mosztonga mellett, a vm. központja’ +1158/[1220 k.]//403/PR.: in Baac˙, 1192/374/425: Baac, [1192]>394, [1230]/231, 1234/550 (VRH. 26: 20), 1333 (Sztáray 1: 79), 1341 (Kállay 1: 608): Baach, 1201: Bahc, 1212/231 (EO. 1: 43), 1226/550, 1250 (EO. 1: 214), 1274 (EO. 1: 334), 1325, 1333 (Z. 1: 417), 1346 (MiskOkl. 37–8): Bach, 1214/550: Bachu (Gy. 1: 210–2), 1234/550: Bách (VRH. 26: 20) | ~i 1337: Petrus de Bachy (A. 3: 347, Kállay 1: 514) | Lat. 1111 (DHA. 385), 1113 (DHA. 396): Bache, 1233/PR.: Bathie, 1316: Bachini ¦ 1124/666 (DHA. 416): Baacensis, 1134 (DHA. 261): Baaciensem ~ Baaciensi (Gy. 1: 210–2), 1134/227: Baatiensi (DHA. 261), +1135/[XIII.]: Bachasiensi, 1142/XVIII., 1192/374/425, 1229, 1233, 1234, 1237, [1241 u.], 1244, 1247, 1252, 1254, 1256, 1263, 1265/466/476, 1267, 1270, 1272, [1274 e.], 1275, 1279, 1280, +1282/346, 1289, 1297, 1297/332, 1299, 1301, 1328/335: Bachiensis, +1158/[1220 k.]//403/PR.: Bachyenses, 1163/XIV., 1181/288//XV., 1197/XVIII., 1198, 1198/226/PR., 1199/272, 1200/XIV., 1202, 1208, 1211, 1218 P./PR., 1222, 1229, 1234, 1234 P./PR., 1235 P./PR., 1237, 1238/377, 1240, [1244 e.], 1263, 1266 P./PR., 1270, [1274 e.], 1317 P./PR., 1323: Bachiensi, +1171/[XII–XIII.]: Baasiensis, [1177 k.], +1186/[1270 k.]: Baaciensis, 1179: Bahasnensis, 1181, 1199, 1199/227/PR., 1234: Baciensi, 1183/226/270, [1185]/XV., 1307 P./PR.: Bachiensem, 1192/374/425, 1192/XIII., 1237/279/385, 1263, 1270: Bachyensi, castr., [1192]>394, 1266/379, 1272, 1275, 1279, 1280, +1282/346, 1289, 1297, 1297/332, 1299, 1301, 1311/340, 1328, 1328/335: Bachyensis, 1193, 1199/315, [1230]/231, 1233: Baachiensi, 1197/XVIII.: Bacsiensi, 1198, 1332–7/PR., 1338–40/PR.: Baciense, 1206, 1234: Bááchiensi, 1211: Bahachiensibus, 1211, XIV./1071-re, XIV./1074-re: Bachiensibus, 1215>PR.: Baciensibus, 1217/227/PR.: Bachatiensis, 1217/272: Bachachiensis, 1223 P./PR.: Bachaciensi, 1227 P./PR.: Baatiensi, [1230]/231: Baachiensem, 1233, 1320 P./PR., 1332–7/PR., 1338–40/PR.: Baciensis, 1241 P./PR.: Baziensi, 1244, [1244 e.], 1247, 1252, 1254, 1255, 1263, 1263/466/476, 1270, [1274 e.]: Bachiense, castr., 1263: Bakachiensi, 1276/641: Batatinio [ƒ: Bacacinio], 1282 P./PR.: Batiensi, 1290: Bakachyni, 1309 P./PR.: Batiensis, 1332–7/PR.: Baciensy ~ Waciensis [ƒ: Baciensis], XIV./1074-re: Bacchienses ~ Bachienses ~ Wachienses [ƒ: Bachienses] | Arab [1154]: Bak(a)sŁn | Gör. [1180–83]/1164-re: Pag©tzion | Ol. 1309–11: Baccia (Gy. 1: 210–2).
That lexicon gives data only until 1350. Obviously the orthography of the name changed with times, in the 18th century the cs-version was used (see the county name). That's part of the bigger problem with place names of the KoH. There is a constant fight about this question but I think we are on the right way when looking up the versions used in written documents of the administration of the age. Basically we are searching for the HISTORICAL official name, not the present-day one or the modern Hung form. Latin is not a real solution because only a handful bigger towns had any real Latin names (like Cassovia). What makes things more complicated that there weren't one, clearly set name but a dozen more or less different version. We will be able to establish the most often used of them but I don't think we have to stick to the ever changing old orthography. Now the name itself is not a problem - obviously it was always Bač/Bács in every language. For the orthography I don't know the practical solution. Taken another village: nobody would write Abawyvar instead of Abaújvár. Without the ethnic dimension the old orthography itself is not a problem. French, German, Italian orthography changed a lot from the Middle Ages but nobody cares. This is not the same as using anachronisms like Istanbul for 13th century. Zello 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you reverted my corections, and you pretend to use Latin names, then use real Latin equvalents. Mayebe Baach or other Latin spellings. Neither Kalocsa is written with Hungarian "cs" in medieval sources. -- Koppany 12:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure why there is such a big controversy over here regarding the addition of the Slovak name to the infobox. In Bač, Slovaks make up more than 15% of the population which, according to Serbia's minority rights laws, makes Slovak an officially-recognised language in this locality, while also permitting the use of bilingual signs. Wikipedia should be a reflection of reality, and in places such as Bač, the reality is that both Slovak and Serbian are in official use. It doesn't matter that Serbs are a majority, what matters is that, because Slovaks make up more than 15% of the population, their language is in official use. Consequently, I believe that the Slovak name should be included in the infobox, in the same way that the Hungarian name is included at Romanian localities such as Oradea (27% Hungarian) or Satu Mare. This is not a political act, and, despite what Panonian said, does not imply any "territorial claim" or "irredentism". This should also be applied to all Vojvodinian localities where a given non-Serbian ethnic group makes up more than 15% of the population. For example, the Hungarian name should be included at Novi Bečej, Novi Kneževac and Srbobran. What do you think? Ronline ✉ 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I got those percents from the "demographics" section of this page. The whole town is a municipality? Then something is wrong in the article, or itself mixes the town and the municipality, and it drew us wrong :) -- 91.120.77.7 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Ronline's proposal that minority names should be included in the infoboxes BUT I still have a problem with the issue of municipalities/villages and, in Romanian relation, communes/villages. Bač is a good example because here - probably - nobody will accuse me that I'm biased. So here we have a town with an insignificant Slovak population, and a municipality which indeed a small district with a couple of villages like a Romanian commune. One village in the municipality Selenča has an absolute Slovak majority. Hopefully nobody will deny that Selenča needs a bilingual infobox. We can discuss about that the whole municipality needs a bilingual infobox or not. But I have to agree with Panonian - rare case, indeed - that Bač town with its absolute Serb majority is better without a bilingual infobox. But do we have an article about Bač town? No, it is the same as the municipality. I think this is the core of the problem. If you take a look at our discussion about Unirea with Alex there was a similar problem - the demographic history of the centre of the commune and the whole commune was different. There was a lot of debate about which data should be included in article. I think that administrative units (municipalities) and natural settlement units (villages, small towns) are different things and better not to mix them. I propose to copy paste the data relating to Bač town into an independent article and re-write this article as a short summary about the administrative unit similarly like the French cantons or arrondissiments (for example Arrondissement of Blois. The Bač town article will have a monolingual Serb infobox while the municipality - probably - a bilingual one but it will be obvious for the reader that Bač town has a Serb majority. Zello 13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In Serb laws there is a 15 % limit as far as we know. Zello 13:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
People: you again mixing here scientific and political arguments. There is no single word in the Serbian law that minority names should be used in Wikipedia infoboxes and I really do not see of what relevance to readers of English language Wikipedia these names would be. All these names are mentioned in the "Name" sections (where English readers can to find them and therefore to gain information about these names) and we can also create "Language" section where we can writte about official languages used in each municipality. If you people have goal to inform English-language readers about these names and about their official usage, please tell what possibly could be wrong with my proposal? Regarding split of articles about town and municipality, I do not agree because that will just create two bad stub-type articles instead one good and large. And we certainly should not split these articles only because of the question of the names in the infoboxes. The one thing that I can agree is that infoboxes could have minority names if minority groups make absolute or relative majority either in the municipality or in the town/village. For example, Nova Crnja article that speak about both, village and municipality have Hungarian name in the infobox because Hungarians form majority in the village, no matter that whole municipality is majority Serb. PANONIAN 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I was encouraged to drop by this talk page, but I am not very familiar with articles about Serbian municipalities. Is there any rule or custom regarding inclusion of names in infoboxes or this discussion aims to create such a rule? It is not completely clear from this discussion, as it already focuses on specific numbers and Serbian laws. Tankred 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are various models we can use:
|
|
Let see:the only acceptable version of the "new" infobox would be this one:
PANONIAN
13:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Bač
Бач 70% 70% 70% | |
---|---|
Municipality and Town | |
Coordinates: 45°23′N 19°14′E / 45.383°N 19.233°E | |
Country | Serbia |
District | South Bačka |
Settlements | 6 |
Government | |
• Mayor | Tomislav Bogunović ( DS) |
Area | |
• Municipality | 367 km2 (142 sq mi) |
Population (2011 census)
[6] | |
• Town | 6,087 |
• Municipality | 16,268 |
Time zone | UTC+1 ( CET) |
• Summer ( DST) | UTC+2 ( CEST) |
Area code | +381 21 |
Car plates | NS |
Website |
www |
Your irredentist concern is ridiculous and tells much about your way of thinking. In fact you are the one who have such fears and tries to hide minority names behind special sections and long paragraphs. There is no connection between the territorial integrity of a country and minority rights, including the usage of place names. Zello 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You think that articles about Transyvanian cities just look exactly like that Hungarians already "took them back from Romanians". OK you are absolutely right, this is what happened in the past weeks. You discovered the secret. And Vojvodina will be the next if you are not hard enough to defend it. And we bought Ronline. I sent him a box of sweets, and he became a traitor. That's how the Hungarian mafia works. Zello 18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
*giggle* yeah, it was an offer he couldn't refuse. Long Live the Magyar Cabal! ;-) K. Lásztocska 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Do what you want Panonian. This is not so important for me that I would like to argue about it a lot. Indeed - in spite of your fears - I didn't intended to try to do any changes in Serbian and Slovakian infoboxes. These debates consume too much energy. Zello 12:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If you read the whole text you will realize that the context of this sentence is totally different what you try to present here. But even if Hungarians in Vojvodina were separatists or dangerous not a rapidly decreasing community on the verge of disappearance, their minority rights were inalienable (until they exist). There is a 15 % limit in Serb laws, nobody asked for more, and it is quite a reasonable number. Under this percent minorities are almost invisible, above there is a presence that we should show somehow. Seeing place names as a danger is a typical symptom of political phobia. Place names indeed have a symbolic meaning, you are right. A bilingual infobox mean exactly what anybody without political fears would think - a settlement with a mixed population. I think it is a reasonable claim that in places with Serb majority the other name should be smaller to express its lesser importance. Zello 16:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a straw man, Panonian, even if some Serbs in Vojvodina believe in it. 64 counties is a fringe group with no real public support. European integration, international law and demographic realities make the present-day borders unchangeable. Both of us know that the ethnic map of Vojvodina will significantly change in the next 30 years mainly because of the consequences of Hungarian immigration. I don't really understand Serb fears, Vojvodina is not like Kosovo. Zello 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you put this sentence in a footnote? This version is really crazy. Zello 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
But you can put this explanation in a footnote without this brutal interruption of the infobox Zello 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me offer a 2c of sources (ZOMG, I'd better not, that's how I entered this whole mess). The municipal Statute (kind of Constitution) is not available online, but there are few accompanying documents:
U radu Opštinske uprave u službenoj upotrebi je srpski jezik i ćirilično i latinično pismo i slovački i mađarski jezik i pismo, u skladu sa Statutom opštine Bač.
In the operation of municipal administration, in official use is Serbian language of Cyrillic and Latin script, and Slovak and Hungarian language and alphabet, according to the Statute of Municipality of Bač.
Na slovačkom jeziku ispisani su nazivi samo 3 mesta i to Bački Petrovac, Gložan i Kisač. Ova tri mesta nalaze se na teritoriji 2 opštine od 10 posmatranih u kojima je garantovana službena upotreba slovačkog jezika. U osam opština koje su bile u uzorku istraživanja, a u kojima se garantuje službena upotreba slovačkog jezika, nazivi mesta nisu obeleženi na tom jeziku.
In Slovak language only 3 placenames are written: Bački Petrovac, Gložan and Kisač. Those 3 places are on territory of 2 municipalities out of 10 observed, where the official use of Slovak language is guaranteed. In 8 municipalities included in the research sample (Bač apparently not in the sample, op.trans.), in which official use of Slovak is guaranteed, placenames were not marked in that language.
Duja ► 07:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
<undent>No, I don't accept any kind of sentence in the infobox title, and I don't see why is it necesary. I'd just note that all South Tyrol articles use both German and Italian name in infoboxes and in lead, even in non-fixed order ( Altrei has German first, La Val Ladin, and Bolzano Italian), and no one seems to make a big deal out of it nor write long contrieved explanations why they're all there. Why is even a footnote not acceptable? Why is it mandatory that the (self-evident, I repeat) legal information stays in so prominent place? What horrible happens if no one reads it? I think you're trying a false middle ground here. Duja ► 14:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
...If you insist on "proposing the compromise", I wouldn't mind leaving the infobox as is, and putting only the official minority names in the lead section (the "Name" sections stay as is). However, what will you do with infoboxes where the minority name already is in the infobox, such as Subotica or Kanjiža. It's a half-solution. Duja ► 14:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Bač
Бач 70% 70% 70% 70% | |
---|---|
Municipality and Town | |
Coordinates: 45°23′N 19°14′E / 45.383°N 19.233°E | |
Country | Serbia |
District | South Bačka |
Settlements | 6 |
Government | |
• Mayor | Tomislav Bogunović ( DS) |
Area | |
• Municipality | 367 km2 (142 sq mi) |
Population (2011 census)
[8] | |
• Town | 6,087 |
• Municipality | 16,268 |
Time zone | UTC+1 ( CET) |
• Summer ( DST) | UTC+2 ( CEST) |
Area code | +381 21 |
Car plates | NS |
Website |
www |
Minority names without explanation why they are used as such could be seen by some people that they are posted there because of irredentist purpose,... it would be much more useful to readers to have explanation why these names are there instead to think or guess for themselves about such reasons.
The following names are also in official use according to the Law and municipal Statute. However, it should not be treated as an endorsement of any irredentist claims that might result by their inclusion here. According to international law and Constitution of Serbia, the municipality is a sovereign part of Republic of Serbia.
Ok, let see:
Since these articles are about present-day administrative entities, it is clear that we will not use these names in their historical meaning as well as we will not use them in the political meaning especially if it reflect politics that is not in accordance with existing social-political system. This mean that we would use these names with two meanings: official and demographical. Minority names used in the articles about Subotica and Kanjiža are posted there because of the demographical reason, i.e. they reflect names used by largest ethnic group that live in these areas. In Bač, we have very different case: here we have intention to include names as reflection of their official status, thus we encounter very different problems than those in Subotica or Kanjiža. So, the basic task would be the question how we can use these minority names to reflect their official status (and partially demographic one, since these names are used by some local inhabitants), but also to inform readers that these names are used because of official and demographic reason, but not because of political or historical one. My thought was that infobox with a sentence that explain such official and demographic reality would be best solution, but since argument opposite to this is that infobox with such sentence is "ugly and awful", I would really like to hear any other proposals how we can achive this task. PANONIAN 20:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Bač
Бач | |
---|---|
Town | |
Country | Serbia |
District | South Bačka |
Settlements | 6 |
Government | |
• Mayor | Tomislav Bogunović ( DS) |
Area | |
• Municipality | 367 km2 (142 sq mi) |
Population (2002 census)
[10] | |
• Total | 6,087 |
• Municipality | 16,268 |
Time zone | UTC+1 ( CET) |
• Summer ( DST) | UTC+2 ( CEST) |
Postal code | {{{postal}}} |
Car plates | NS |
Area code | +381 21 |
Website | http://www.bac.co.yu |
I still don't think you're being rational, but never mind. I made another proposal here. It contains "official languages and names" (short enough for me, I hope long enough for you) in a separate section of an infobox, with a list below it. Sold? (although I'll have to run in a while and won't be around until Monday). Duja ► 13:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, since this discussion lead nowhere, this is my modified comprose version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duja/Temp02 Let stop discussing things that are not related to the subject, but if somebody think that this version is bad please elaborate why, if somebody think that it is ugly, please elaborate why as well. PANONIAN 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help)