Talk:Kruševlje

Problems

Well, let discuss problems with the current version of the article one by one:

Problem 1: whether to use term "Southern Hungary" or "southern parts of the Pannonian Plain" in two places. First, the term "Hungary" is historically incorrect here and if we use this word, we would use historically correct term "Kingdom of Hungary", but not "Hungary". Second, term "Southern Hungary" imply that some province named like this existed in this area and province with that name never existed, so the correct term used would be "southern parts of the Kingdom of Hungary". Third, even term "southern parts of the Kingdom of Hungary" is not correct because we, in the first case, speak about time when area was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, so in that time we do not speak about Kingdom of Hungary at all, but about Ottoman Empire, and, in the second case, the name of the country to which this area belonged was Habsburg Monarchy, so I do not see relevance of usage of word "Hungary" there. It is clear that only problem here is that user Bendeguz want to write word "Hungary" in as many places as he can. PANONIAN (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true! Southern Hungary as a term is often used by various authors. Panonian simply pushes his POV everywhere. User:Carl Logan a Swede also wrote "Hungary" which Panonian revised to Pannonian Plain. In the same article Panonian pushed his POV oppositely of everything and everybody. User:Cinik a Czech posted this, and User:Carl Logan called this dispute idiotic, which part Panonian easily deleted. Why not? At Kruševlje article User:Berbermilos a Serb used also this term but without avail. Bendeguz

I do not dispute that term "Southern Hungary" is used by some authors but the term is POV and wrong because territory with such name never existed. In modern times, the term is used by Greater Hungarian nationalists who want with this term to describe their territorial pretensions. Therefore, such term is not acceptable. This is not my POV but simply my correction of wrong usage of the term. It is not important who used that term where, but whether term is appropriate for usage in this article or not, and as I said, we speak about times when region was not part of the Kingdom of Hungary, so usage of this word here is not appropriate. Also, Bendeguz, you should decide whether you trying to prove validity of usage of term "Southern Hungary" or term "Hungary" - you totally mixed the two in your post. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant for you, because both of them make you see red. Bendeguz

Ok Bendeguz, now see some logic: The article speak about Kruševlje and if we want to mention wider area of which Kruševlje was part of in the 18th century, we can mention all of those: Habsburg Monarchy, Kingdom of Hungary, Bač County, Pannonian Plain, Bačka region. So, we can mention any of those 5 territories, so tell me Bendeguz, why you insist that exactly Hungary is mentioned here instead other 4? I do not insist that we mention Pannonian Plain, we can mention Bač county or Bačka region instead, or we should not mention any of those 5, but only thing that we should mention is the village itself. I am really open to any compromise that anybody could propose about usage of those terms. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the Hungarian and a lot of Serb population of all Southern Hungary fled to the North before the Turks. Here is not necessary the word Southern Hungary. Southern counties or Bodrog county (because it was Bodrog county) is also good.
came up with the German colonization of the Southern Hungary It is fact and it is OK for me.

Bendeguz, did you read my previous post at all? Kingdom of Hungary was just a province of the Habsburg Monarchy, therefore to avoid any dispute about this, we should mention that "it was German colonization of southern parts of the Habsburg Monarchy". I hope it is not disputed that name of the country should be mentioned because if we do not mention name of the country, then we indeed would have a dispute which of the "smaller" terms we would mention - Kingdom of Hungary, Pannonian Plain, Bač county, Bačka region. Kingdom of Hungary simply was not a country, and importance of this name compared with name Habsburg Monarchy is much smaller. Regarding first thing, if they left area before Turks arrived, the we can use term Kingdom of Hungary there of course, but not term "Southern Hungary", because Hungary (Mađarska) is a name of the state that was created in 1918 and before that there was only Ugarska (Kingdom of Hungary), but not Mađarska (Hungary). PANONIAN (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your smallness is really hard to explain. Probably this is not enough for you even now. Read again.

What exactly you want that I read there? I really do not understand what that page have to do with my previous post - the only thing that I see there is that the page you mentioned also use variant "Kingdom of Hungary" instead of "Hungary", so what is problem here really. Why you want to use word "Hungary" instead of "Kingdom of Hungary"? PANONIAN (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your fear! I don't see that in every sentence write, Kingdom of France, Republic of France, French Empire, but just France.The situation is the same with Spain, or with Germany.When somebody speaks about East-Germany, everybody knows that it was not the same part in 1914, in 1928 or in 1946 of the present-day Germany. Distinction between Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary (Ugarska-Mađarska)is in use just in Serbian and Slovak historiography and nowhere else.

But the exact problem is that we speak here about part of Serbia and therefore the view of the Serbian historiography must be respected here. Kingdom of Hungary is simply compromise version between usage of word Hungary and Serbian word Ugarska. PANONIAN (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, but this is the English Wikipedia, so English-language conventions should be observed, even if they offend delicate Serbian sensibilities. See WP:ENGLISH.K. Lásztocska 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name Kingdom of Hungary is also English-language convention used in Wikipedia, so I do not understand your comment. PANONIAN (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies--I misread your comment. ooops. K. Lásztocska 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the Pannonian Plain are Semberija, Macva, Kolubara River basin, Great Morava basin which were not parts of Hungary {except Macva for a short period), nor had significant Hungarian population, nor was German colonization efforts in these regions, but in Southern Hungary. Let we see the maps. We can see here more than 300 maps about Hungary from various periods and from various authors, and we can see on every map the term "Hungary". Is everybody stupid except you Panonian? Bendeguz

I explained this already and Hungarian web site cannot be relevant source about this - in the times when Central Europe was ruled by Ottoman Empire, area was divided into eyalets and no single of those eyalets did not had name Hungary, but no matter of that, some Hungarian sources used term "Hungary" for those lands simply because of their own nationalism and their point of view that it was Hungary and not Ottoman Empire - it is same POV that you want to push here, Bendeguz, and such POV is not acceptable since we know that it was Ottoman Empire and not Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord. Again with the "Hungarians cannot be relevant or reliable." Can anyone but a Serb be trusted, in your mind? K. Lásztocska 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we speak about Serbia here it is clear that Serbian sources are more trustful than Hungarian, Croatian, etc. It is because Serbs do not have territorial pretensions towards their own country and therefore Serbian sources could afford to be objective, while Hungarian or Croatian sources are much influenced with nationalistic politics - even the basic wish of one Hungarian or Croatian author to writte about territory in Serbia is in most cases influenced by expansionistic pretensions towards that territory. PANONIAN (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In "most cases"? Cripes, Panonian, I'm Hungarian and I haven't noticed any massive widespread irredentist bias among my countrymen, on wiki or off. K. Lásztocska 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You did not noticed that? I just wonder why... PANONIAN (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy--because I see the world as it is and you see it as you think it should be. Like it or not, the vast majority of Hungarians (and everybody else) are just nice normal folks, not irredentists and not extremists. K. Lásztocska 14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way how I see the world is a question for long discussion. Regarding Hungarians, I never spoke about "all Hungarians" or even not about "most Hungarians" - I only speak about certain individuals that either edit Wikipedia in bad faith or writte other bad faith things in other places... PANONIAN (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vince B wrote an admirable manual for you or about you, I don't know. Bendeguz

actually I think it was for Tankred, and the Polish version is funnier anyway... :) K. Lásztocska 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have no time to read stupidities written by Vince B. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you like to read your own.

Please refrain from personal insults. PANONIAN (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you find time to read it.It's very awakening.

I do not want to damage my brain, I would need my brain healthy in the following years. PANONIAN (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being open to consider others' (even "enemies") points of view is a good way to keep your brain healthy. It works for me, I recommend it to anyone. :) K. Lásztocska 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that point of view first time many years ago and nothing has changed in it - and not only during my life, but nothing has changed in that point of view in the last 150 years, so how can somebody be open to it? It is an defeated idea not acceptable in the 21st century and I do not understand that some people still speak about it. PANONIAN (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant just in general, not about whatever specific issue you guys are fighting over today. K. Lásztocska 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am always open to new progressive ideas, I only have problem with certain "specific issues" that are neither progressive neither new. PANONIAN (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 2: the question whether soldiers in World War I were Hungarian or Austro-Hungarian. Everybody who knows history know that there was no separate Hungarian army in World War I, but only Austro-Hungarian army, and I can only imagine reasons why user Bendeguz want to change this. PANONIAN (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were Austrian units (Austrian Landwehr) with German as command language, Hungarian units (Magyar Királyi Honvédség) with Hungarian as command language, and mixed units (K.und K.) with German as command language, so it is very possible that they were Hungarian soldiers (honvédek) in Austro-Hungarian Army. Bendeguz

We do not speak about units, but about army - there simply was no Hungarian army in that time. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must read first what you wrote: "soldiers in World War I were Hungarian or Austro-Hungarian"? They were Hungarian soldiers. Bendeguz

Bendeguz, I cannot believe that you want to twist even this simple historical fact. Did you ever read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Army It is time for you to read it now. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice, Panonian, you twist your own words, and accuse me for twisting. In WWI one of my ancestors served as Hungarian Hussar (magyar huszár) in Galicia, another in Hungatrian Infantry (magyar baka) as Maxim gunner near Isonzo, while another as K. und K. (közös baka) logistics soldier in Cattaro.

The simple fact that you obviously cannot understand is that Hungarian Hussars were not Hungarian army, but a COMPONENT of Austro-Hungarian army. PANONIAN (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you talk about soldiers and just later about armies and not me! "soldiers in World War I were Hungarian or Austro-Hungarian"?

Bendeguz, I cannot believe that we speak about this - soldiers are just members of the army and army was Austro-Hungarian. Why I have to explain all those simple things to you? PANONIAN (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must read first the news from the neighborhood. Czech soldiers in KFOR, Slovak soldiers in KFOR, German soldiers in KFOR...etc. KFOR is probably the army.

No, KFOR is not army - it is peace-keeping force. PANONIAN (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 3: Term "occupation" that Bendeguz want to use for establishing of Serbian rule is POV because we speak about village in Serbia and therefore this word have negative attitude towards Serbia which is far from neutral point of view. PANONIAN (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are also words of Berbermilos, but I do not understand what is negative in word "occupied". Serbian army didn't come with flowers and candy bars, but they came with arms, and it was de jure Southern Hungary until June 4, 1920. Bendeguz

You are not advocate of Berbermilos to speak in his name - he probably copied entire text from somewhere not knowning every word from it. Also, the word "occupied" is insulting for local inhabitants of the village and their view is that Serbian army LIBERATED the village from Austro-Hungarian occupation. If you like, I can insist that we use word "liberated" instead, but as gesture of good faith I insist that we use only neutral word "entered". PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is it Panonian, everybody is stupid except you. And when occupied Austro-Hungarians the village? Crazy wind blows from crazy hole. Bendeguz

I am just trying to explain to you how POV word "occupied" really is and if I follow your own logic I could also to insist on POV words such is "liberated", but I do not insist on that, no matter that majority of people in Serbia, in Vojvodina, and in the village of Kruševlje itself consider that word "liberated" is proper word for usage here. I chalenge you to explain why word "entered" is bad or POV compared with words "liberated" and "occupied". PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1918 (or 1920, what you want) Kruševlje became a part of the newly established Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians. This sentence is enough, I think.

Now we see some progress... PANONIAN (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 4: The sentence that Bendeguz deleting that "new state gave to Germans and other ethnic groups more opportunity for development of their language and culture, which they did not had during the Hungarian administration that pursued aggressive Magyarization policy" is very correct because new state indeed gave more opportunities to all ethnic groups for development of their language and they did not had such opportunities during Hungarian administration. PANONIAN (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new state gave higher taxes for "ethnic groups" as opportunity in the region and nothing else. The Germans were the most oppressed "group" after Hungarians in this region. And what about Macedonians, Albanians, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, they were also under cultural and linguistic oppression in the "new state". Bendeguz

The linguistic opportunities about which I speak are for example those in court where new state proclaimed that language of the parties is also language of the trial comparing to that that during Hungarian rule, the only language of the trial was Hungarian, but in the new state Germans could have trial in their own language. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this remained on the proclamation level, as other disposals of Treaty of Trianon. Bendeguz

Ok, you might be right about this or might not be right, I admit that I do not know was it only proclamation or was implemented in practice too, therefore, I do not insist that this sentence remain here. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 5: I think that previous 4 problems are main reasons why Bendeguz reverted this, but problem number 5 is that Bendeguz also reverted all my improvments, grammatical and other corrections in this article because of previous four points with which he do not agree. If he have any specific reason why he reverting my improvments that are not connected with first 4 problems, I would like to know what this reason is. PANONIAN (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 5 is the dispute prison camp-death camp. Panonian also revised the words of Berbermilos. I asked Panonian why was the 96 years old grandam Emilia Bauer enemy? Here is his answer. "And do not shit about innocent, killed Germans, these Germans were members of Kulturbund and voted for Hitler and Horthy, whose are responsible for the death of my great-grandfather. (I nemoj mi srati o nedužnim ubijenim Nemcima, jer ti isti Nemci su bili članovi Kulturbunda i glasali za Hitlera i Hortija, koji su odgovorni za smrt mog pradede.} Really nice answer!--Bendeguz 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you: You are not advocate of Berbermilos and please do not speak in his name - you should only explain why YOU reverting my edits, I do not see that Berbermilos reverted any of my edits. Regarding term "death camp", what exactly "death camp" is? It was a prison camp and question whether somebody died there or not is another story. And do not extract my answer on your talk page out of content - it was answer to your insults and attempts to "explain to me" that all Serbs are guilty, evil, barbarians, culturally inferior, etc - I can translate your own posts in Serbian on the talk pages as well, but that will damage brain of the people who read it. Anyway, my basic point there was that crimes of the fascists during the war in Vojvodina were so large that things done by the partisans after the war are nothing comparing to that. The basic problem here is that you want to present here that partisans made larger crimes than fascists and that is simply not true. Yes, my family indeed was victim of fascists during World War II and therefore I am so insulted with some things that user Bendeguz told me on some talk pages. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the advocate of Berbermilos, but we use the same terms for the events in opposite to you. You are probably an advocate but the devil's. I do not care which crime was larger, but the methods were very similar, in some cases the methods of partisans were crueler than of fascists. Here is an article from Magyar Szó "Haláltáborok Vajdaságban" (Death camps in Vojvodina). The problem is also, when we talk about fascists they were Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Croats, but when we talk about partisans they were all communists. Did they speak any language or they barked? My family was victim of the so called partisans, but how interesting they did not bark but spoke Serbian language. And I don't extract your answer out of content, because only this sentence was about this problem and nothing else.--Bendeguz 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: there is no proof that Berbermilos is original author of this text - he could to find this text on any web site or in any book. Second: Berbermilos did not reverted my edits (perhaps because he agree with them), but you reverted them. Since we know those facts it is clear that you should not speak in the name of Berbermilos, but only in your own name. Regarding term "death camp", first read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_camp Now, when you read it, you will notice that this term "specifically refer to the camps whose primary function was genocide". There is no proof that primary function of the prison camps established by partisans was genocide and therefore usage of this word is not appropriate, no matter if some other web site used this term by mistake (or by suspicious purpose). Regarding fascists and partisans, we speak about them regarding the name of their countries, fascists were German, Hungarian, Italian or Croat because names of their countries were Germany, Hungary, Italy or Croatia, while partisans were Yugoslav because name of their country was Yugoslavia. Also, Yugoslav partisans spoke many languages, not only Serbian. Regarding my answer, you did extracted it out of content because it was not only about that one sentence but about many other your posts on many talk pages. PANONIAN (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An extracted detail from "Magyar Szó" article. There are documents about 457 children from Bulkes (Maglić today) who were interned in Jarek camp. 195 died of them in 1945, and until 1948 (dissolution of Jarek camp) nobody of them survived. We can say, that the entire German childpopulation of the village was exterminated.(Feljegyzések bizonyítják, hogy Bulkeszből, a mai Maglićból 457 gyereket vittek el Járekre. Az első évben 195 meghalt, 1948-ig a tábor felszámolásáig pedig mind elhaláloztak. Azt is mondhatnánk a falu teljes német gyermeklakosságát kiirtották). And Jarek is just one of these camps.--Bendeguz 12:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bendeguz, people in those camps died of "hunger, disease, and cold" (see the monument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rudolfsgnad.jpg ). That cannot be described as "death camp" because there was no clear intention of killing of those people like in Nazi extermination camps. In another words, it is not question whether those people died but whether there was primary intention of partisans to kill them. If this intention did not existed then we cannot use term "death camp". PANONIAN (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean, these events were described with these words in Sindelfingen too? These momuments were just first steps in Serbia after 50 years of denying. And it will be continue...--Bendeguz 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what word "Sindelfingen" mean, but as I said, "death camp" is a camp where people where brought with the purpose of killing them, not where they died of "hunger, disease, and cold". You simply cannot claim that Nazi death camps where thousands of Jews and Roma were killed in gas chambers are same as prison camps of partisans where people died of "hunger, disease, and cold". PANONIAN (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Sindelfingen is the centre of Danube Swabians... In these camps were mainly children, women and old persons, so tell us what was the goal of partisans with them? They were unfit to work, they were too young or too old, than why were they interned in these camps almost three years? --Bendeguz 11:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no literature describing exact reasons for imprisonment, but the fact that they were just held there and not killed in mass prove that it was not "death camp". PANONIAN (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panonian, do you really believe that "hunger, disease and cold" disqualifies a camp from being called a death camp, even when half the prisoners die? (and these were children!) "Hunger, disease and cold" have been used by perpetrators of genocide (Turk, Nazi, Serb) uniformly. "Lack of intention to kill them" - do you mean "lack of explicitly declared intent to kill" such as has never existed? Please! István 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article about death camp clearly say that there must be INTENTION of killing in that camp. There is simply not proof that intentions of partisans was killing. PANONIAN (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord, Panonian, that's rather frightening. People died of "hunger, disease and cold" in the gulags too, by the millions. You would call those death camps, wouldn't you? For heaven's sake, look your country in the eye and admit to its crimes! Everybody's country has dark days in its past, the true patriots are the ones who face them straight on and do not try to hide from them under piles of twisted pseudo-logic. K. Lásztocska 23:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there is no proof that killings was intention of the partisans - there is even no proof that there was intention that those people die of hunger, disease and cold - it were post-war times, the whole country was poor, the ordinary cititens also did not had what to eat, not to mention those in camps. The simple historical fact is that it was a prison camp (with no proven intention for killing of prisoners) and we can written that some people died in this camp, but we cannot writte that it was death camp. PANONIAN (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia is the last country in Europe, who did not open the archives of this gloomy period, I think. I do not expect a sensational discovery, because we have good reason to think that these papers were decimated, but who knows...There were more victims of the so called partisans in first three months of "peace", than of so called fascists for 42 months of war. What is it, if not clear intention?--Bendeguz 22:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No proof for that. Victims of the fascists were well documented while victims of the partisans are still in the domain of unproved new-composed version of the history that is not generally accepted among historians. I do not think that you should read books of such newly-composed historians who rather have goal to make a sensation (as you said) and not to writte reliable story about the events. PANONIAN (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting book, published in 2004 in Belgrade by Society of German-Serbian Cooperation "Genocide against German minority in Yugoslavia 1944-1948" (Herbert Prokle–Georg Vildman i drugi: Genocid nad nemačkom manjinom u Jugoslaviji 1944-1948. Društvo za srpsko-nemačku saradnju, Beograd, 2004.) I didn't read the book, but the rewiew, According to this book the main planners and executers of the crimes against Germans were: Jovan Beljanski-Lala, Ivan Rukavina, Moša Pijade, Aleksandar Ranković, Tito, Edvard Kardelj, Ivan Ribar, Toma Granfil, Jovan Veselinov Žarko and Vid Dodik. The number of victims was cca. 64,000 of whom 40,000 with names and surnames. There are no exact numbers for Vojvodina, but probably 50-60% of the victims were from Vojvodina.

And who is responsible for this unproved new-composed version of the history that is not generally accepted among historians? The butcher, and always the butcher. The massive denial among Serbs and Serb historians, and the inaccessible archives.--Bendeguz 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such books might exist, but the main question is: can we also find the content of such books in history books for school? No, we cannot find it there, which mean that content of those books is not generally accepted among reliable historians. Anybody can writte such book and find some society which will publish the book, but this does not mean that this book provide reliable information, especially if its content cannot be confirmed by other authors. I can give you good example about this: there are many authors in Serbia that writte about ancient past of the Serbs claiming that Serbs lived in ancient India, Illyria, Egypt, etc, but content of such books is not accepted by the reliable historians and cannot be found in the history books for school - same thing with your "genocide historians". PANONIAN (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In schoolbook you wouldn't read the sentence "I crap myself !". These events need an admission like this.--Bendeguz 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the point? PANONIAN (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Version

Believe it or not, but the protected version of this page seems the more correct one. István 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. However, I propose that some Wikipedia administrator who is neither Hungarian or Serb propose compromise here. PANONIAN (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admirable! Let's go for neutrality. Although, if we use your own principle that you have stated many times, nobody with any negative feelings toward Serbia should ever be allowed to contribute to Serbia-related articles. And in the aftermath of this, you might find it hard to find people with not even the slightest negative feeling toward Serbia! K. Lásztocska 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But exact purpose of Wikipedia is objectivity - it is not place for people to express their frustrations and their negative opinions about Serbia especially in this article which speak just about one small village. Even article about Adolph Hitler is written with no negative attitude towards him, and if article about him does not have it, why article about village in Serbia should have negative attitude towards Serbia? In fact, if we start to writte negative attitudes here, then it is not only Serbia about which we can say something negative - the negative attitude could be also used towards Habsburgs who destroyed Serb village of Kruševlje and colonized it with Germans! So, you see, negative attitudes can go in both directions, but if we use standards of Wikipedia, we should not use negative attitude towards anything here, that is a basic principle of NPOV article. PANONIAN (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A careful reading of the article reveals that it is written objectively and not with a "negative attitude". It is not the most stylistic piece on the Wiki, but it does not present the topic unfairly. István 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is not about whole article but about certain parts of it which are not written objectively and which are indeded written with negative attitude - read this whole talk page and you will see detailed explanations about this. PANONIAN (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

Now, I will edit article trying to make compromise version of it, incorporating few things about which we agreed on the talk page. If Bendeguz or any other user does not agree with anything in my proposed version of the article, I am asking him not to revert my entire edit (as Bendeguz done before), but to revert ONLY THOSE PARTS IN "MY" PROPOSED VERSION THAT HE DO NOT AGREE WITH, so that we can concentrate further discussion to solve only those problems that are still disputed. PANONIAN (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the phrasing: All the Hungarian and a lot of Serb population of all southern parts of the Pannonian Plain that were administered by the Kingdom of Hungary fled to the north before the Turks. Poor readers, they know nothing about compromise. The new page in the history of Kruševlje came up with the German colonization of the southern Pannonian Plain administered by the Habsburg Monarchy. It was well planed and organized by the state officials in Vienna court. The newly conquered country had to be populated, this time by German colonists. Tell me which was this "newly conquered country"? Pannonian Plain?

I do not agree with the word "prison camp", it is pointless. Dachau, Buchenwald are labelled as "concentration camps". Concentration camp is the minimum of our compromise.

I do not agree with you about soldiers, but doesn't matter.--Bendeguz 22:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least try this time to concentrate only on things that you do not agree with, not just to revert article to an outdated version deleting all my changes including those that you agree with. Regarding things that you do not agree with, let discuss it one by one:

since the dispute was whether to use words "Pannonian Plain" of "Hungary", I tried to make a sentence that would include both: "southern parts of the Pannonian Plain that were administered by the Kingdom of Hungary". What exactly is wrong with this sentence?
in the second case when we speak about German colonization, I used similar sentence, but I used word "Habsburg Monarchy" because that was name of the country. What is wrong with that?
regarding term "The newly conquered country", the term is in fact not correct because official terms used for the lands that Habsburgs conquered from the Ottomans was "newly conquered lands", not "country", so this certainly should be changed.
regarding term "prison camp", the whole "evil partisans story" is still part of newly-composed (novo-komponovano) and largelly unproved version of the history, so until such stories are not generally accepted by all relevant historians the usage of the terms like "concentration camps" or "death camps" in this case is very controversial and disputed. Attemp of this new-composed history to create equality sign between Nazis and anti-fascists will not lead us to good direction at all.
regarding soldiers, why you do not agree with this? PANONIAN (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if it is administered by the Kingdom of Hungary then probably "southern parts (counties) of the Kingdom of Hungary" is passable good.
- I still do not see why Pannonian Plain cannot be mentioned too? PANONIAN (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in prehistory.--Bendeguz 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pannonian Plain exist today too as it is existed in history and prehistory as well - its existence is not limited by time, like existence of various kingdoms and empires (what ever their names were...). PANONIAN (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, which were these "newly conquered lands"?
- All lands that Habsburgs conquered from the Ottoman Empire were officially called "newly conquered lands" by the Habsburgs. PANONIAN (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, which lands conquered Habsburgs "newly" from the Ottoman Empire?--Bendeguz 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All lands that Habsburgs conquered from the Ottoman Empire were newly conquered because they never before that time were not ruled by Habsburgs and those lands were officially regarded as such. PANONIAN (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They foul deeds put equality sign between them, and not me or you or someone else.

Zlatoje Martinov classified the after WW2 camps in Vojvodina. Bačka Palanka-labor, Stari Futog-labor, Novi Sad-labor, Ruma-labor, Zemun-labor, Pančevo-labor, Kovin-labor, Bela Crkva-labor, Vršac-labor, Ečka-labor, Banatski Despotovac-labor, Srbobran-labor, Šove-labor, Zrenjanin-labor, Elemir-labor, Jaša Tomić-labor, Bačka Topola-labor, Banatski Karlovac-sick persons, Debeljača-children's, Kikinda-concentration, Gakovo-concentration, Bački Jarak-concentration, Sombor-labor, Crvenka-labor, Kula-labor, Sremska Mitrovica- concentration and labor, Vrbas-labor, Pašićevo-labor, Parabuć-labor, Apatin-labor, Banatsko Novo Selo-children's, Torža-labor, Molin-concentration, Knićanin (Rudolfsgnad)-concentration, Sečanj-labor, Sarča-labor, Nova Crnja-labor, Čestereg-labor, Jabuka-children's, Katarina- camp for sick persons. (Bačka Palanka-radni, Stari Futog-radni, Novi Sad-radni, Ruma-radni, Zemun-radni, Pančevo-radni, Kovin-radni, Bela Crkva-radni, Vršac-radni, Ečka- radni, Banatski Despotovac- radni, Srbobran-radni, Šove-radni, Zrenjanin-radni, Elemir-radni, Jaša Tomić-radni, Bačka Topola-radni, Banatski Karlovac-bolnički, Debeljača-dečiji, Kikinda-koncentracioni, Gakovo-koncentracioni, Bački Jarak-koncentracioni, Sombor-radni, Crvenka-radni, Kula-radni, Sremska Mitrovica- centralni sabirni i radni logor, Vrbas-radni, Pašićevo-radni, Parabuć-radni, Apatin-radni, Banatsko Novo Selo-dečiji, Torža-radni, Molin-koncentracioni, Knićanin (Rudolfsgnad)-koncentracioni, Sečanj-radni, Sarča-radni, Nova Crnja-radni, Čestereg-radni, Jabuka-dečiji, Katarina-bolnički logor.)

Yes, Kruševlje is not mentioned, probably because of vicinity of Gakovo, but all of the sisters (Molin, Knićanin, Jarek, Mitrovica) are present.--Bendeguz 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The important thing is that we cannot see word "death camp" here, can we? PANONIAN (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Concentration camp is the minimum of our compromise."--Bendeguz 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that word "prison camp" is a compromise too instead of "alleged prison camp", "prison" or "camp", what ever... Also remember one thing: this is article about village, not about camp itself, so I am even thinking that most of the content that speak about camp could be moved to new separate article about camp itself, while only few general sentences about it could be left here. PANONIAN (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]