Talk:Atlas of Hungary

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Map deletions[edit]

VízPart, please explain why you removing these maps from the article. PANONIAN (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are fantasy maps, other incorrect or inappropriate. Please explain why are you accusing others of vandalism when you are a clear POV pusher. VízPart (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Fantasy maps, incorrect or inappropriate"? Well, then elaborate here for each map because of which reason you think that it is "fantasy, incorrect or inappropriate"? I do not see any proof for such claims. PANONIAN (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You act as if you own the atlas of Hungary page, when in fact you do not own it. VízPart (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an explanation for your actions - this is atlas of Hungary where maps related to Hungary should be posted. Why you removing them? PANONIAN (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's take an example a chauvinist Serb historian is proposing that no Hungarians existed and let's say a Serb supremacist map is made based on that. That is not a map related to Hungary, it's related to supremacism, chauvinism, ultra-nationalims, hate mongering etc etc, but it's an opinion of hate, not a "map-related to Hungary". Do you agree with that hypotethical example? VízPart (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using word "chauvinist" for everybody. There is no proof that any historian whose work I used for any map is "chauvinist". Modern Hungarians are genetically same as Slavs which is best proof that such map is correct, I do not see why you removing something that is proved by modern genetic research. PANONIAN (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way to resolve the problem[edit]

Ok, I will try to start discussion with you regarding each map that you removed from this article since you obviously (partially) elaborated removal of only one of them. PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map number 1[edit]

This map was created by Italian user Cristiano64. I really do not understand why you removing this map and what possible might be wrong with it? PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map number 2[edit]

I understand that info in this map contradict with view of some Hungarian historians, but map itself is a valid historical view and also the one confirmed by modern genetical research (otherwise, modern Hungarians would not look as Europeans at all since original Hungarians belonged to mongoloid race). Also, the article already contains a map that represent a view of Hungarian historians about that same time period (I refer to this map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_b._10th_century.png ) and the NPOV policy of this site require that we present all opposite views about various subjects, not only to push one single point of view. PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map number 3[edit]

This map is created by Hungarian user Esoltas, and I do not see what might be wrong with that map? PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map number 4[edit]

I also do not see what might be wrong with this file. Serbs are even today recognized minority in Hungary and history of Hungary is not related only to ethnic Hungarians, but also to other ethnic groups that lived there. PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map number 5[edit]

This is an old map uploaded by Hungarian user Bizso. I do not understand what might be wrong with it? PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map number 6[edit]

I made this according to Hungarian sources, see: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/57.gif - I do not understand why you removing it? PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map number 7[edit]

I made this map according to this source: http://www.thomasgraz.net/glass/map-popov.htm - I do not understand why you removing it? PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map number 8[edit]

I made this map according to this Hungarian source: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/224.gif - so why you removing it? PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map number 9[edit]

As for this map, that one perhaps is not of significant relevance for this article, but it is not completelly irrelevant either. I do not have an strong opinion whether this map should be included into this article or not. PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding file descriptions[edit]

You made 3 basic changes in file descriptions:

1. Replacing word "Hungary" with "Kingdom of Hungary" in relation to WW2 Hungary. Although, that was official name of Horthy's state term "Kingdom of Hungary" apply to 3 very different historical states/territories, so I propose usage of 3 different descriptions for them to avoid any confusion: 1. "Medieval Kingdom of Hungary" (for independent Hungarian kingdom that existed from year 1000 to year 1526), 2. "Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary" (for Habsburg possesion that existed to 1918) and 3. "Horthy's Kingdom of Hungary" for fascist Hungarian state that existed until the end of WW2. PANONIAN (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Replacing word "Bačka" with "Bácska" is not appropriate in relation to WW2 since Hungarian occupation of Bačka was not recognized by the international community, which regarded entire territory of pre-war Yugoslavia as occupied Yugoslav territory, no matter which of the occupying powers held which part of the country. However, as a sort of compromise, I propose usage of form "Bačka/Bácska". PANONIAN (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Replacing term "Vojvodina" with "south Hungary" in relation to 1848-1910 period is also not appropriate since term Vojvodina was officially used for that territory from 1848 to 1860 and also unofficially from 1860 to 1944, while term "delvidek" ("southern Hungary") was invented by Hungarian fascists after 1920 - in another words, such term was not used in 1848-1910 time period and is also not appropriate for usage because it was created by fascists and it would be very big damage for this site if it start to support fascist ideas. I propose usage of term "territory of present-day Vojvodina" instead since it does not imply that Vojvodina existed as official political unit and it is also connected to the title of that atlas section, which is "Historical maps of Hungarians in Vojvodina". PANONIAN (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with POV pushing. Your points are rejected. Your all maps need to be reviewed and checked for factual accuracy because you are obviously a very strong POV pusher. For example "Although, that was official name... your own POV". NOBODY cares about your extreme POV, if that is the official name that will be used period. I will now review maps that you made for POV pushing such as you attempt here. I will start with maps that were proposed for deletion previously because of being false and extremist POV. starting with this one
My points are rejected? By whom? You? It is not you but Wiki community that should reject or accept points that are presented by somebody. As for my maps, if you have problem with any of them post your opinions on proper map talk pages, but here we discuss which maps we will include into this article (including maps made by other users) and which descriptions we will use. Also, regarding POV accusations do you have any specific proof that I am POV pusher or that I want to present or push certain points of view or ideas? And what official name you speak about? PANONIAN (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PANONIAN POV Pushing[edit]

Please stop with POV pushing. Your points are rejected. Your all maps need to be reviewed and checked for factual accuracy because you are obviously a very strong POV pusher. For example "Although, that was official name... your own POV". NOBODY cares about your extreme POV, if that is the official name that will be used period. I will now review maps that you made for POV pushing such as you attempt here. I will start with maps that were proposed for deletion previously because of being false and extremist POV. starting with this one VízPart (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My points are rejected? By whom? You? It is not you but Wiki community that should reject or accept points that are presented by somebody. As for my maps, if you have problem with any of them post your opinions on proper map talk pages, but here we discuss which maps we will include into this article (including maps made by other users) and which descriptions we will use. Also, regarding POV accusations do you have any specific proof that I am POV pusher or that I want to present or push certain points of view or ideas? And what official name you speak about? PANONIAN (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What did others say about PANONIAN POV pushing?[edit]

Please see the following discussion about PANONIAN extreme POV pushing QOUTES:

  • On map are Serbia borders which has never been international accepted. Hungarian territory under Serbia occupation is shown like Serbian territory. Part of territory under occupation will be given to Romania, part will stay with Hungary and greatest part will be given to Serbia with peace agreements 1919/20. Simple speaking this map which show borders on 26 november 1918 is false so it must be deleted. More about that on talk page. —Rjecina 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • the map is misleading because Serbia never existed as a state shown here. 1918 demarcation lines weren't internationally recognized borders. Vojvodina, Baranya and Banat were occupied by the Serb army but borders were finalized in 1920 Trianon peace treaty along different lines. The map makes no distinction between demarcation lines and borders, occupied territories and recognized Serb territory. The creator refused any cooperation to improve the map which in present form seems Serb nationalist propaganda. 89.133.142.105 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) User: Zello on en.wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zello )[reply]
  • It is truth that borders shown on map were not internationally recognized,


  • Oh, Mr. PANONIAN, if you really dont want to create a falsification, Hungarian territory under Serbian occupation must be indicated on the map properly, with clearly distinctive coloration. That's the end of story for any apparently normal adult human beeing... V79benno 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (First: there's no need for proof that you are a POV-pusher, it's clear as the daylight, my dear, don't play games. Who else on Earth would spend so much time with hardly defending such a ridiculous falsification?! Oh, my God.) ... I wish you to find a better activity than this poor old game... You cannot change the past, but you can learn from it. :) It's never too late. V79benno 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Everybody not familiar with the history of Central Europe should know that Pécs, Baja and Timisoara weren't recognized as part of Serbia in 1920 when international borders were finalized. Instead these areas became part of Hungary and Romania and their status never changed since then. The borders are recognized by the Serb government. The northern border shown here was never accepted by the international community. 89.133.142.105 User: Zello 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This map is a clear fabrication, and an attempt at falsification of history. This map is born out of either complete ignorance of historical facts, or the desire to spread extreme propaganda, take your pick. Hamada2 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Rjecina clearly explained, prime exemplar of panserbian propaganda. -- Ivan Štambuk 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can understand that person which is not honest is always making questions about honesty of others but this is starting to be too much. This second time in 40 days (first time on wiki) that this user which support chetniks ideology, this PANONIAN question my honesty. Can please somebody block this misleading editor of commons and wiki. Be good PANONIAN and please do not question why I have writen misleading. -- Rjecina 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map need to be deleted. Greatserbian propaganda. --Flopy 09:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the accuracy of the de facto borders in 1918, the caption of the picture is obviously POV: It says "unification" with Banat and Backa, while, clearly, it would be more accurate to say that Timisoara and Pecs were "occupied" at the time. Fossa 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map is great Serbian propaganda, made by a very dangerous Great Serbian Propagandist, Panonian. It shows occupied Croatian Territory as already part of Serbia in 1918, this is falsify of history, this land was stolen from Croatia by Serbs, and this was lawful Croat land in 1918 even if Serbian radicals gained control of the land in an illegal way. Illegal occupation is not the same as lands being lawfully part of one country. 78.3.29.49 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Entente recognized the existence of the independent Hungary in the Belgrade Armistice. Of course you are right that they didn't recognize the 1914 borders with this act, this was never their intention. But similarly they didn't recognize the occupation lines as final borders of Serbia. The legal situation was the same for both countries: their existence was recognized but their desired borders were not. This map shows the Serb dream of Greater Serbia. You simply allotted the disputed territory to Serbia not taking into consideration that its status remained unresolved until 1920 when the real borders were only laid out and the Entente divided the disputed territory into three between the aspirant countries. Zello
  • I can only repeat the words of my honourable predecessor... V79benno 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why the above is relevant is because it clearly proves the intent and actions of PANONIAN. Please refer to the above opinion of a great multitude of users to determine the true intent of PANONIAN in editing wikimedia commons. VízPart (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

page edited by panonian is more balanced. user vizpart is madar nationalist

Answer[edit]

You copy-pasted here selected statements and personal opinions from an closed deletion discussion about one of my maps that ended with KEEP conclusion, meaning that your „friends“ that posted their „opinions“ there did not proved their point. For the full picture here is the link to the entire discussion from that page, including my answers and opinions of other users that voted that image is kept: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Serbia1918.png Also, users whose opinions about me or about my work you quoted are mostly not established or neutral editors of Wiki projects and almost half of your quotes came from sockpuppets that were created only for voting purpose. Here I made a full list of these users and sockpuppets, describing who or what they are: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serbia1918.png#Users_which_posted_their_.E2.80.9Eopinions.E2.80.9C_about_my_work However, since this map is not used in this article, I do not see a point to discuss about its accuracy on this page. If somebody is further interested in this subject, I elaborated historical events in 1918-1920 time period here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serbia1918.png#Elaboration_of_1918-1920_history So, if you tried to present a "negative picture" about me or nature of my work in general you obviously failed since selected quotes of statements given by sockpuppets in an deletion discussion whose result was that my map is kept is certainly not a proof for anything. So, if you finally decide to discuss about each image that you removed from this article I posted some questions for you in the discussion above - note that only part of the maps that you removed were made by me, so if you have an negative attitude towards me or my work, you still did not explained why you removed maps made by other users. PANONIAN (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atlas_of_Hungary&oldid=708013354"