Talk:Hajduk

Untitled

I removed these hajduks added by User:151.205.9.162, since they fail the google test.

• Milan Mileusnic (living legend)
• Damir Arnautovic (living legend)
• Vlado Brnecic (living legend)
• Rajko Pupavac (living legend)
• Vlado Magas (living legend)
• Germano Nefat (living legend)
• Damir Susanj (living legend)
• Edo Demark (living legend)
• Petar Popic (living legend)
• Damir Matesevac (living legend)

bogdan | ^Talk 16:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Avram Iancu

How does he qualify as a haiduk? he was one of the leaders of an organised, national resistance movement with clear aims. He was a lawyer for God's sake! You might as easily say that George Washington was a haiduk since he too was a well educated commander of irregular troops, fighting against what he perceived were national opressors. Avram Iancu clearly does not qualify as a haiduk, i have heard this term describing only local guerrilas/bandits with a limited goal. Not a revolutionary leader! And also... I believe this article should not be linked to the WikiProjectSerbia since haiducs are part of the national myth of several other European countries. Serbia doesn't have a copyright on them. 89.35.62.12 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Error in spelling

Hello,

Rewrite Hajduk to Haiduk.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/haiduk

Thank you Marino 08:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Losangelessloth and I also am here to propose and promote changing the erroneous spelling of the title of this Wikipedia Entry.

Specifically, from Hajduk to Haiduk.

I have here five (5) sources which all contain a singular, uniform spelling of this word. All five (5) sources choose to spell the title of this Wikipedia entry as: haiduk.

[1] There is the spelling from Dictionary.com already sourced by Marino around a year ago. .

[2] Secondly, there is the spelling from Merriam-Webster.com (apparently a company/publisher since 1823) .

[3] Thirdly, Britannica.com agrees with the previous two sources' spelling .

[4] Fourthly, I have a less renowned source which most likely obtains their content from more well established publishers, but, nevertheless, still displays the consistency/uniformity apparent across all other sources. The reference is from: Collins.com .

[5] Lastly, a similar source (in terms of lack of prestige) to [4] is thefreedictionary.com -- which follows the same characteristic pattern of spelling the word in question as: Haiduk .

Would anyone wish to discuss what more is necessary to push a change in the title of the Wikipedia entry?

I feel as though this collection of references should be quite sufficient, no?

If not, what more is required so that such a change can be made un-contested?

 Is it possible to change the title myself? I < 3 you. 

Losangelessloth (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Contradiction

The opening sentence claims that hajdúk is the plural for hajdú. The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lede claims hajdúk is singular for hajduci. These two statements contradict one another. Please provide sources for these claims and edit as needed to resolve the contradiction. 2603:9001:4500:1C09:B195:F1C5:7920:6AD3 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I dont know what is the "hajduci" (as this is not Hungarian) but I know sure as native speaker this: simple Hungarian: "hajdú" (simple) and "hajdúk" (plural) OrionNimrod (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)