Talk:Hungarians in Serbia

Hungarian settlements

There might be few more villages with absolute or relative Hungarian majority, but since I did not had exact information about ethnic composition of these villages, I did not listed them. The villages which also might have a Hungarian majority are:

• Nova Crnja village (Nova Crnja municipality)
• Banatski Dvor (Žitište municipality)
• Novi Itebej (Žitište municipality)
• Svetozar Miletić (Sombor municipality)
• Ivanovo (Pančevo municipality)
• Konak (Sečanj municipality)
• Šumarak (Kovin municipality)

I know that some of these places (like Nova Crnja) had a Hungarian majority in previous censuses, but I do not know was that a case with 2002 census too, since some ethnic changes occured in the region between the last few censuses. It would be nice if somebody know does these places have a Hungarian majority according to the last 2002 census. PANONIAN (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Actually, I just found answer to my question: all these places except Banatski Dvor and Konak have a Hungarian majority. PANONIAN (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Colonising

You should check the meaning of these words in an English dictionary: to colonise/colonize, coloniser etc. It refers to people setting in a country other than their own. Your pechant for referring to internal Hungarian migration and policies of resettlement in Vojvodina as colonising misuses the word, given that these areas were under Hungarian administration.

Lev123

They did settled in the country which was not their - the name of the country was Habsburg Monarchy. But anyway, the term colonization is used for different things while term "internal migration" is completelly new term invented by you. So, why we should use it? And of course, these areas were not under Hungarian administration before 1867 and most of these colonizations mentioned here occured before that year. PANONIAN (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"They did settled in the country which was not their - the name of the country was Habsburg Monarchy." -PANNONIAN. Those lands were not foreign to Hungarians. They lived there before the Ottoman occupation, so it was not colonization in imperialistic terms. And your statement is somewhat offensive. Or do I need to remind you, Serbian lands were once called "Ottoman Empire"? I ask you, who colonised Ottoman lands? ▪ radonX €  09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Although "colonisation" by its definition is applicable to Hungarians migrating back to Vojvodina after the withdrawal of the Ottomans, I agree with Lev123, this is a too harsh word to use, implying that colonisation was totally without historical claims. Even the article states, there was Hungarian presence in the area before the Ottoman occupation. Therefore, "migration" or "settling" would be more appropriate terms in my opinion.  ▪ radonX €  09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "colonization" is also widely used for Serbs who migrated from Bosnia to Vojvodina after World War II, so why the Hungarian case would be different? See for example Lazarevo article which mention that Serbs were colonized there after the war. Furthermore, the book from which I translated most of the text in this article is named "Colonization of Vojvodina in the 18th and 19th century", so whether it was their country or not or whether some other Hungarians lived there in the past or not are really not relevant questions for the usage of the term. Serbs that were colonized from Bosnia to Vojvodina in 1945 also were colonized in their own country and they were colonized in the area where Serbs already lived before them, but that is not the point - point is that term "colonization" apply to INDIVIDUALS, and NOT TO ethnic groups in general, that settling in some land where THEY (i.e. those individuals) did not lived before that colonization. PANONIAN (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Article expansion - history section

I think the article should be expanded because currently it only covers the history of the Hungarians in Vojvodina up until the early 20th century. To be more relevant, the history section should cover the history of Hungarians after Triannon, during the interwar years, during WW2 (Hungarian occupation), aftermath of WW2 (revenge killings), Tito years, Milosevic regime (mass exodus of Hungarians), revival of autonomy, and the present. I know some of these topics are articles on their own, but this article should touch upon these more recent topics.  ▪ radonX €  09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have extended the history section. I was trying to be as impartial and neutral as possible and I hope nobody has serious objections. I would also appreciate if someone could extend the section with more information about Hungarians during the 1st Yugoslavia. I don't know much about the interwar years.  ▪ radonX € 

I have made a minor edit, putting back the references to Anti-Hungarian sentiment, although I've expressed myself more eloquently. I think it's relevant for the current history of Hungarians. If anyone has objections about this, please discuss it here first. Otherwise I'm happy with the history section.  ▪ radonX €  21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that article (Anti-Hungarian sentiment) is highly POV and full of unsorced and controversial subjects. I do not think that Anti-Hungarian sentiment article should be used as a source for Hungarians in Vojvodina article. This story about ethnic incidents in Vojvodina was more a story used for elections (in both, Hungary and Vojvodina), than a story that reflect real events. I will give you one example - if in one multiethnic town young men belonging to different ethnic groups become drank and start fight, the one who want to see ethnic incidents will claim that it was ethnic incident, but was it? They could start a fight because of girl or any other reason that is not ethnic. That is a real controversy about those events because those mentioned "ethnic incidents" were in fact all incidents that involved people belonging to different ethnic groups, but whether these incidents really had ethnic background or not is another question. PANONIAN (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to downplay incidents of the last few years. Yes, it's true some have exploited this situation for political gains, and in some individual cases, ethnic motivation is unfounded, but Hungarians and other minorities do have legitimate complaints. This is what I would consider ethnic incidents:

• Harassing someone with no previous affiliation, for speaking Hungarian, practicing Hungarian culture, even explicitly stating not to speak Hungarian, or implicitly implying it.
• Harassing someone for whatever reason, BUT throwing in anti-Hungarian slurs.

Well, I hope that you probably agree with the first point, since Hungarian is an official language of Vojvodina, and as far as I know, Hungarians and other minorities are free to practice their culture by Serbian laws. The second point, in my opinion is just as legitimate. The reason, is because not just the cause but the effects are equally as important. Whatever the cause of disagreement, it's very disconcerting, if a conflict between two groups manifest itself into ethnic hatred. For example, Arabs have some legitimate complaints against the Israeli government and their policies ONLY. Nevertheless, some of them I've met have a hate against Jews in general. I can understand that a refugee in Vojvodina doesn't like secession movements, but that is NO legitimate reason to hate minorities. Even if the cause of a fight is personal, (like over a girl, or whatnot) when ethnic slurs, and threats are issued, it becomes a case of ethnic incident regardless.

Even if some physical attacks are not really ethnic incidents, you can't deny there were many verbal threats over the years:

Check these pictures: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. There were slogans like "Okay, okay Hungarians -- a deep mass grave awaits you.", "Let's Slaughter Hungarians", or ["We will kill you, Hungarians"]. (source: [[4]]) Wouldn't you call these ethnic threats? I mean what will it take to recognize the problem for what it is? There are other verbal harassments like:

• "A bus driver insulted an ethnic Hungarian teacher and her class of 6-7 year-old primary school students on the No. 1 Klisa-Telep bus line in Újvidék/Novi Sad. The teacher, and her students from the local József Attila Elementary School, were returning from a play. However, as soon as the children started talking in Hungarian, the bus driver turned to the teacher and told her that she should teach her pupils the "proper culture and language." In response, the teacher called on the bus driver not to say such incorrect things before the children. The bus driver then began to shout and curse loudly, insulting the teacher and the students.

• "In Szabadka/Subotica, three to four Serbian high school students assaulted an ethnic Hungarian college student approximately 200 meters from the main post office at 10.00 p.m. The victim had been speaking in Hungarian and the incident occurred after he said goodbye to his friends at the post office and started walking home alone. Suddenly, a group of Serbian teenagers grabbed him from behind and started to pummel him. The assailants asked what his name was. After it turned out that the victim's last name was Serbian, the assailants said they would not hurt one of their own people and left the scene. The student had to be hospitalized.

• "At the Gynecological Clinic in Újvidék/Novi Sad, personnel insulted an expectant mother, B.B., for speaking in Hungarian. The young woman was sent to the clinic for examinations and escorted by her husband, because she doesn't speak Serbian well. The required examination was high-risk, to be performed only in the 16th week of pregnancy. First, the receptionist at the clinic objected to the husband speaking for his wife and later started yelling at him that "he should have taught her Serbian." The treatment the young mother received from three examining nurses was the same. They admonished her that "we will teach you Serbian!".

(source: [[5]])

Now if you question the veracity, of the Hungarian Human Rights Foundation (there were a few incidents listed, which even I wouldn't call ethnically motivated), Amnesty International, touches briefly upon this subject: "There was a rise in attacks against minorities in the multi-ethnic Vojvodina region. In June the non-governmental Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia reported that there had been 40 such attacks since the nationalist Serbian Radical Party won the most seats in Serbian general elections in December 2003." (source: [[6]]).

Although, this serious issue has been exploited, and yes in a few cases, the violence was based upon provocation, what is documented is real. Those photos are not staged, those bruises sustained by those people are real. Furthermore, this wouldn't happen in Canada for instance. I live in a town where immigrants have outnumbered the Canadians, and none of this happens. There are no death threats against minorities, no graffities, no assaults. Even ethnic slurs, are heavily cracked down upon in Canada, and if this crap would happen on weekly, monthly basis, I would assure you, police wouldn't turn a blind eye, and a deaf ear. I think Vojvodina is similar to Canada in that it's a MULTI_CULTURAL, MULTI-ETHNIC society. Furthermore, Vojvodina is not like Kosovo. We're not talking about a minority (ie. Serbs) being rioted against, chased by villagers, RPG-ed, having thrown grenades into their homes. Vojvodina is supposed to be a very cultured and civilized place, so hate crimes, like the ones mentioned above, are serious stuff, and deserve to be mentioned.

Furthermore, if you noticed, I didn't even mention in my edit, that Serbs are behind ethnic incidents. I'm not trying to vilify, or demonize the Serbian public, but ethnic incidents happen anyhow, whether, committed by Serbs gangs, or others, or even Hungarian provocateurs, as happened in a few cases, regarding graffiti. Nevertheless, if a Hungarian doesn't know the "Death to Hungarians" graffiti has been written by a Hungarian, he/she will feel threatened, so the end result is the same. Not just the cause, the effect is important too.

Now maybe the Anti-Hungarian sentiment article shouldn't be mentioned, but attacks against Hungarians and other minorities happened in Vojvodina, nevertheless, so it doesn't do justice not to write one sentence about it.  ▪ radonX €  11:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that there are not incidents at all, but the sentencde that you added claimed that Hungarians are harassed by "ultra-nationalist, xenophobic groups", and there are really no proofs that such groups exist. If (drank?) bus driver insult somebody who speak Hungarin, how can we claim that he was part of any organized ultra-nationalist group? I am not against that we mention these incidents, but we must separate real events from propaganda. For example, regarding anti-Hungarian graffiti, it was proved that sometimes the Hungarians themselves write those anti-Hungarian graffiti and then claim that Serbs wrote them. And it is nice that you showed me these graffiti pictures, because one of the pictures that you posted is a good example of anti-Hungarian graffiti written by ethnic Hungarian in incorrect Serbian Cyrillic: http://www.hhrf.org/hhrf/images/vr43.gif The graffiti on that picture say "чркнућете маћари" (črknućete maćari) instead of "цркнућете мађари" (crknućete mađari). The second (correct) sentence would mean something like "the Hungarians will die", but the first (incorrect) one neither have correctly written word "Hungarians" neither word "die". I saw that graffiti before, and it is nice that you posted its picture here. So, the point is, that incident with bus driver is something that we can use as valid example of anti-Hungarian sentiment (I heard for that incident too), but graffiti issue is much more complicated issue because we do not know exactly whether Serbs or Hungarians wrote them (Or perhaps it was some Albanian who wanted to make incidents here). So, to conclude, we can mention incidents, but we should not mention that they are act of organized groups and that they are something what happen all the time (they are rather exception than a rule). PANONIAN (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, let's try to reach some compromise. What about adding this sentence?

In recent years, Hungarians have sometimes been the targets of anti-Hungarian, nationalist sentiments.

I don't see how can you dispute even this. Now you've just said, the bus driver incident is a valid example of anti-Hungarian sentiments, and if someone says "speak Serbian, this is Serbia" that's nationalist as well, since Vojvodina,while part of the Serbian nation state, the province itself is multi-cultural, and multi-ethnic. Saying something like the bus driver did, goes against the diverse cultural spirit of Vojvodina. And as you can clearly see, "sometimes", specifies these incidents don't happen all the time. I don't see what can you find even questionable on this statement, and if you have no objection, it should be added to the article.  ▪ radonX €  23:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I improved that sentence a little, but it could be included. PANONIAN (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to improve your "improvements" more, since it is becoming less and less neutral. You're belittling an apparent issue into a mere ambiguous cases of incidents where ethnicity plays no role. For example, why is it necessary to add "some" before Hungarians? Xenophobic statements target the Hungarian community as whole, not just the specific person it is said or written to, and not only autonomy leaders have been receiving threats. Your apologist stance is based on typical denial, that seem to be rooted in nationalism. Combined with the excessively negative media Serbia got (occasionally still gets), I can see why you are biased to represent Serbia in an undeserving positive light, on Wikipedia. Since you have been acting so autocratic, why not let Hungarians write their history also? I don't see what's your issue with that sentence. Perhaps you're worried it will damage Serbia's reputation? I wouldn't be worried about that, since it's as low as it can get. I'm trying to resolve our disputes in a civil manner, but you're unwilling to give up any control on the development of this article. ▪ radonX € 09:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a question of "leting somebody to writte HIS history", but is a question of writting correct, reliable, neutral and encyclopaedic story. Your claim that I am "biased to represent Serbia in an undeserving positive light" is clear example of your BAD FAITH here, which imply that it is you who are "biased to REPRESENT Serbia in an undeserving NEGATIVE light". So, if you did not noticed, this article is about citizens of Serbia and if some articles about Croatia and Bosnia are full of nationalistic crap that speak negative about Serbia that does not mean that this one should be same. The whole story about anti-Hungarian sentiment in Serbia is highly controversial and unreliable and used mostly for propagandist purposes of Greater Hungarian nationalists or advocates of Hungarian autonomy in northern Vojvodina, so something that have clear political and propagandist purpose cannot be seen as a valid source for an serious encyclopaedia. Of course, I am not wholy against including that sentence into article, but if it is included then it should be as neutral as possible. For example, the Serb-Hungarian relations in Vojvodina are characterised not only by Serbian nationalism, but also by Hungarian one (and it would be question for long debate to discuss which one is larger), so if Hungarian nationalism is not mentioned here, why Serbian should be? The word "nationalism" is often used with the purpose to represent somebody in negative light (and you just said that exactly this is your aim here), thus, since this is article about Hungarians in Serbia, I do not think that it should be either anti-Hungarian either anti-Serbian, therefore usage of word "nationalism" for any of the two is a wrong thing to do here. PANONIAN (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to present Serbia in an undeserving negative light. Don't think so much in terms of black and white. Only because I am against ignoring anti-Hungarian sentiments, it doesn't mean I am trying to present Serbia in a negative light as you say. Actually my edits were in good faith, because, unlike you, I am willing to write about the negative issues facing Hungarians. It's true that there is both Serbian and Hungarian nationalism in Vojvodina, but since Hungarians never fired a shot during Milosevic days (unlike Serbs), we both know who is more nationalist. ▪ radonX € 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What fired shots you talk about? In the time of Milošević, ALL citizens of Serbia (includind Serbs, Hungarians and others) were sent to front line by the regime to "fire shots" there, so I do not understand your comment that "Serbs fired shots and Hungarians not". PANONIAN (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that Hungarians never rebelled, whereas your Serbian compatriots in RS and Krajina did.

Is this correctly written?--Bendeguz 22:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bendeguz, it is correctly written, but that is not yet proof that ethnic Serb wrote that - the author still could be Hungarian or Albanian with little better knowledge of Serbian. PANONIAN (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But neither there is proof, that a Hungarian or an Albanian wrote that. The author still could be an ethnic Serb with a native knowledge of Serbian. You're telling me there is no proof for this or that, but you're speculating as much as I. At any rate, a Hungarian person passing by and reading it, would get offended, perhaps scared, especially not knowing who wrote it. ▪ radonX € 09:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You just said that you speculating here, and exact question here is whether an unproved speculation is a good thing that should be mentioned in Wikipedia. I certainly do not think so. You are right that ordinary Hungarian who see that might be scared, but the real question is who want that this Hungarian is scared? Perhaps his self-proclaimed "saviours" (Kasa, Orban, Torockai...) are those who want that Hungarians are scared so that they can "save" them. You should keep open mind, mister RadonX, and not believe in everything that somebody tell you - the most easy thing to do is to see a graffiti and to say that an ethnic Serb wrote them, but is life an easy thing? No, not at all. PANONIAN (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I may have been speculating, but so are you apparently. I don't like the Hungarian right wing, but I do beleive there are some problems to be adressed. Furthermore, Hungarian politicians wouldn't have any credibility for these allegations of ethnic hatred, if it weren't for the bus driver shouting nationalist sentiments against a Hungarian class, or person x throwing in some xenophobic slurs when beating up person y, who is Hungarian. At least, Serbians are contributing to this problem as much as Hungarians, if not probably more. The Hungarian minority is in your country, so that means you're government has responsibility over them; over their safety, language use, culture, education... If Serbia isn't willing to live up fully to this responsibility, than don't be surprised at Hungarian self-determination. ▪ radonX € 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What self-determination? From 9 municipalities that Kasa want, Novi Kneževac have Serb majority, Subotica have Serb/Bunjevac/Croat majority, Bečej probably have Serb majority too by now, and Čoka by now probably have only relative Hungarian majority (i.e. most of the citizens of this municipality are non-Hungarians). So, in the case of democratic voting, you would have only 5 Hungarian-majority municipalities that would vote in favor of self-determination, and the greatest problem with that would be that most of the Vojvodinian Hungarians live OUTSIDE of these 5 municipalities. PANONIAN (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Szabadka have Hungarian/Bunjevac/Croat majority!!!!!!!Croations hates serbs.I think,You know why.Óbecse have relative Hungarian majority.Csóka have Hungarian majority.Törökkanizsa have serb majority.165732 hungarian lives in North-bacska and North-banat.It's 57% of "Vojvodinian" Hungarians.--Nekromanta 16:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The majority I talk about is majority of voters. If you organize referendum in one municipality with question whether citizens of municipality will support that their municipality become part of Hungarian autonomous region, do not expect that Croats vote for it - if you ask one Croat would he rather live in multiethnic Vojvodina or in the ethnically designated autonomy for Hungarians, I have no doubt that he would vote for first option. Therefore, relative Hungarian majority in some municipalities does not mean absolute majority (50% + 1) of voters, which is required for any decision regarding municipality status. Also, data about population of Bečej and Čoka that you presented are data from 2002 census, but you forgeting that today is 2007 and that number of Hungarians in those areas further decreased due to low birth rate and emigration - just check Bečej and Čoka articles and you will see that presidents of both municipalities are Serbs (just imagine why). PANONIAN (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiethnic Vajdaság?Go to Szabadka.You wont hear Hungarian- or Croation speaking!Why? Hungarians and Croations will vote to autonomy for Vajdaság!Now,it's a dream,because Kosovo is independent and Serbia dont want to lose Hungarian minority of Vajdaság!Therefore Csóka and Óbecse have serb minority now.Therefore Hungarians will fight for autonomy.--Nekromanta 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

But just do not try to tell me that Croats will fight for Hungarian autonomy. Some Croats maybe do not like Serbs, but statue of ban Josip Jelačić in Zagreb pointing its sword towards Budapest, not towards Belgrade (that can tell you how large Croatian love for Hungarians is). PANONIAN (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Panonian, did somebody allow you, to write stupidities?--Bendeguz 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from insults. I simply read outdated information. It could happen to everybody. PANONIAN (talk)</ font> 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your style is arrogant Panonian, but the arrogance hardly assorts with the wrong facts.--Bendeguz 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem, mister Bendeguz? PANONIAN (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Croatia has been part of Hungary for 800 years.Hungarian King was Croatian king too.We fought together aganist our enemies.Except in 1848,when we (hun) defeated Jellasics,governor of Croatia.We know each other very well.I think,autonomy for Hungarians is better than Multiethnic Vajdaság for croats.Why?Answer the first part of my last comment!--Nekromanta 15:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to believe that Croats will reduce their own rights only to help to Hungarians to increase their, then by all means... PANONIAN (talk)</ font> 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We dont want assimilate them like serbs."Go to Szabadka.You wont hear Hungarian- and Croatian speaking!Why?"Answer!--Nekromanta 17:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And why would Serbs want to assimilate them? Croatian is one of official languages of Vojvodina and Croats have equal rights as other peoples in Vojvodina. But, I do not see what rights Croats would have in ethnically designated autonomy ONLY for Hungarians. I really do not see how they could vote for that. And regarding the question about language spoken in Subotica, 53% of population there are South Slavs who speak same language no matter if they call it Serbian or Croatian. PANONIAN (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"And why would Serbs want to assimilate them?"You thought seriously this question? If you go to Szabadka,You wont hear Hungarian- and Croatian speaking on the streets!They fear! "equal rights"Hahaha.Magyarkanizsa,Ada and Zenta have Hungarian majority (above 80%).Almost all policeman are serb.A serb man killed a Hungarian man in Magyarkanizsa.Judgment:6 years in prison.He killed a man with 5 bullets!Five Hungarian people beated a serb in Temerin,judgment:61 years in prison. Exactly:Máriás István (15 years), Illés Zsolt (13 years), Szakál Zoltán (11 years 6 months), Uracs József ( 11 years 6 months ), Horváth Árpád ( 10 years).These are the "equal rights" in Vajdaság?--Nekromanta 12:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I already told you that Serbs and Croats speak SAME language no matter how they call it, so Croats in Subotica speak their own language, not Serbian. Also, regarding rights, rights are for people, not for criminals, so I do not see what is a relevance to what punishment criminals were sent? PANONIAN (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"I already told you that Serbs and Croats speak SAME language no matter how they call it, so Croats in Subotica speak their own language, not Serbian.".Now same or similar?Hungarians?They speak their language?"not for criminals"6 years for a murder versus 15 years for a beat and You do not see what is a relevance to what punishment criminals were sent?It is a joke?--Nekromanta 12:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The language is same, of course. However, the Ikavian dialect of the common language originally spoken by Croats in Subotica was never standard language either in Croatia or Serbia, therefore you cannot expect that they speak Ijekavian dialect which is standard in Croatia because they never spoke that dialect. The sentences: the juristical system is much more complicated than this, thus before judge judge to somebody, he have to think about many things such as the circumstances in which crime was performed, state of mind of the criminal, motives for the crime, etc, etc... You cannot simply compare the two cases like this if you do not know all those things about both cases. PANONIAN (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"complicated"No,the reasons of this judgments are outrageous.Because the killed man were Hungarian,and murderer is serb,therefor the punishment was light.On the other side,the sacrifice were serb and the perpetrators was Hungarians-->brutal judgments.I think,You know exactly that things!--Nekromanta 12:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just your own personal interpretation of the event. The juristical system does not care whether criminal is Serb or Hungarian by nationality. PANONIAN (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit!"The juristical system does not care whether criminal is Serb or Hungarian by nationality."In a normal country.Serbia one of the most nationalist country in the word.Other sample:two serb soldiers beated a hungarian soldier in Zenta.The judgment:half year.Read this page:[7].

Graffiti

Panonian, this is a homework for you, because you grew up probably with the movie "Balkanski špijun" (Balkan spy).

Case Subotica

a) Serbs wrote this Anti-Hungarian graffiti

b) Hungarians wrote this Anti-Hungarian graffiti in incorrect Serbian, and then claimed that Serbs wrote them.

c) Serbs wrote this Anti-Hungarian graffiti in incorrect Serbian and then claimed that Hungarians wrote them, because of incorrect Serbian.

d) Your turn Panonian...

Case Sombor

a) Serbs wrote this anti-minority graffiti

b) Hungarians or Albanians with little better knowledge of Serbian wrote this anti-minority graffiti in correct Serbian, and then claimed that Serbs wrote them.

c) Serbs wrote this anti-minority graffiti in correct Serbian and then claimed that Hungarians or Albanians with little better knowledge of Serbian wrote them, because of correct Serbian.

d) Your turn Panonian...

Have a good work.--Bendeguz 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bendeguz, if police caught somebody who wrote one of those graffiti and confirmed his ethnic origin, then please show as some links which contain official police reports about that. If you cannot show them, then I really do not understand what the hell we talk about here? We can assume that even aliens from another planet wrotte these graffiti if there are no official police reports about this. By the way, the most interesting thing is that the one confirmed case (not by the police, but by TV camera) of who wrotte one anti-Hungarian graffiti showed that this person was ethnic Hungarian. What to say more? PANONIAN (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And by the way Bendeguz, when somebody use sockpuppets, there is always possibility that he edit wrong article with wrong sockpuppet, dont you agree? :))) PANONIAN (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the other hundreds of anti-Hungarian graffiti?Read:[8]--Nekromanta 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Let just say that somebody who use word "Délvidék" cannot be seen as reliable source. PANONIAN (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a logical fallacy, PANONIAN. --195.56.239.91 21:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not, that word is invented by irredentists and used by irredentists, so who ever use this word have irredentist goals and hence is not an reliable source. PANONIAN (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! OMG... --195.56.239.91 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this line by you is also a logical fallacy. Prove it if not. --195.56.239.91 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The proof is your answer to this question: why somebody who is not an irredentist would use word "Délvidék"? PANONIAN (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a question, not an answer. If you were Hungarian, you would know how false is this. The word Serbia was used by Hitler sometime. So anyone who says Serbia is nazi? LOL. Of course not. This is a pure logical fallacy. --195.56.239.91 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Denying content on a word. Otherwise, you should realized, that Délvidék and Vajdaság are not the same. Délvidék means the whole present southern borderlines of Hungary, from Slovenia to Romania. --195.56.239.91 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what Delvidek means and exactly that is a point. Hungarians have their names for all these lands: Vajdaság, Bánát, Szlavónia, etc. Now the question is who and why would use word Délvidék ("south land") instead of those names? The answer is that this word is used by somebody who do not recognize that those lands are Vajdaság, Bánát, and Szlavónia, but who consider that all of them are in fact southern lands of Hungary. That was a reason why this name was invented. PANONIAN (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Vajdasag, is a term that was invented from the Serbian "Vojvodina" after it was established. Szlavonia, or Banat are historical names, but Vajdasag isn't. Before the formation of the Serbian Vojvodship, "Delvidek" was used to loosely refer to the counties of Baranya, Bacs-Bordog, Torontal, Temes and Krasso-Szoreny. The borders of Delvidek correspond to geographical landmarks: Drava and the lower section of the Danube separate Delvidek from Szlavonia. Its western borders rougly correspond to a steep mountain wall south of the Mecsek which is the border of the Baranya triangle. Its eastern boarders are defined by the end of the Western Carpathians (Havas), which is included in the Krasso-Szoreny county. Delvidek is a historical name, like Felvidek. These names like Vojvodina or Slovakia didn't exist in medieval times. Felvidek or Delvidek are the names used to name the rough geographical position. Felvidek means highlands or high country, and subsequently Delvidek means lowlands or low country. Only because today we call these territories what you want us to call them, does not give you the excuse to misappropriate yours and our history.

Since you've became Yugoslavs with your pan-Slavic BS, the term "Delvidek" has been redefined to include the Yugoslav parts of the Hungarian kingdom. Historically, "Delvidek" refers to the Baranya triangle, Bacska and Banat (Bansag). It's not just irredentists, but most Hungarians know the historical names of the regions within the Hungarian Kingdom. Why can't you just get over it? Your Serbian Vojvodina didn't exist before the 19th century. The name didn't exist before the 19th century. ▪ radonX € 05:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vajdasag IS an historical name dating from 1848 and Hungarians called it Szerb Vajdasag back then. Also, term Delvidek in that time was not used to refer to any specific place, but simply to land in the south from where you are (Specific territory with name "Delvidek" never existed in history). Only after 1920 this term Delvidek was introduced as irredentist term describing "south lands of Hungary". Therefore, the meaning of the term before 1920 and after 1920 is completelly different and those who use this term today use it mainly in post-1920 meaning and that is simply not acceptable because it is irredentist and fascist terminology and, if I remember correctly, the fascists lost WW2. PANONIAN (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who cares whether fascist or commies or martians used it once? The Indians are still proud to use their swastika symbol, even though Hitler used it. You Serbs are still proud to use your CCCC symbol even though it was also used by the most notorious war criminals. We refer to the Yugoslav lands as "Delvidek". Why? Because it's a lot simpler to use the term, than to say "Muravidek, Horvat-Szlavonia, Baranya, Bacska, Banat". Do you get it? Many Hungarians use it occasionally, and most of them are NOT irredentists. So if that word is fascist to you, than you could label pretty much any Hungarian a fascist or irredentist. Most of us ARE NOT. However we know those lands used to belong to Hungary, and it's no shame to admit that. ▪ radonX € 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, swastika is good example indeed because original swastika used by Indians and modified one used by Hitler are very different. In the same way, usage of term Delvidek before 1920 and after 1920 is very different too. Before 1920, the term was used very rarely by few authors to designate an undefined southern part of the Kingdom of Hungary. In its wider meaning, the term was used as a designation for all lands south of Budapest. However, as I already said, term was used very rarely and was never an official designation for anything. The post-1920 meaning of the term in which it was used to designate Yugoslav territories was given by the fascists and irredentists (not only used by them, but invented by them), and therefore usage of this word in that meaning is not appropriate in modern democratic world that is based on anti-fascist fight. I certainly would not agree that all or most Hungarians use this word today, but only those who are indoctrinated with irredentist ideology. PANONIAN (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument would carry a lot more weight if it didn't come from a hypocrite such as yourself. Maybe you could explain to me [9]. Of course you're trying to vilify Hungarians, presenting them as the evil imperialists, evidenced by your usage of the world "colonizing" or your ignorance to the anti-Hungarian sentiments. You shouldn't use words like "irredentist" lightly, because there is nothing irredentist about using "Delvidek" to conveniently refer to the Yugoslav regions of the Carpathian basin. This term was used before Trianon (although with a different meaning), and if you think not, please prove it (and no don't use a Serb source). Please stop antagonizing Hungarians. Maybe for you the truth justs hurts, that Bacska and Banat were located in a land called Hungary in the middle ages. Had it not been for the Turks, it would still be in Hungary and your people would live completely south of the Sava and the Danube. ▪ radonX € 11:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal insults. If you do not know history well, then read some books and you will learn that ancestors of the Serbs lived in Vojvodina even before Hungarians came to Europe (the ways of Slavic migrations clearly show that Slavs migrated to Balkans from the Pannonian Plain). Also, I really have no problem with the existence of the former Kingdom of Hungary and its administrative divisions, but the problem here is that name "Delvidek" was simply never used as a designation of any administrative unit in the Kingdom of Hungary. The usage of the term before 1920 was completelly negligible. It came into wide usage only after 1920 in the irredentist literature - that is very simple historical fact, and the problem with the term is that the term do not refer to the history, but it refer that those lands belong to Hungary TODAY (of course, from the point of view of those who use it, those lands are only temporarily occupied by evil neighbours, but rightfully belong to Hungary). In another words, you cannot use word "south" for areas which are located in another sides of the World in modern countries (in Serbia, it is north, in Croatia east, in Romania west, etc). Regarding my map about future of the Serbs, what exactly you do not understand there? PANONIAN (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian communists

In the interwar period it was IN to be Communist among the Hungarians, because it was a kind of resistance against the Serbian authorities. They outnumbered Serb Communists (in Vojvodina of course). The idea of Communism among Serbs in Vojvodina developed en masse only after Hitler came to power.--Bendeguz 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture section

If PANNONIAN or someone else from Vojvodina has time, please expand the culture section. I know that Hungarians have some folk festivals, dance houses, and other cultural centers. Since I don't live there, I can't really add much to that myself.  ▪ radonX €  21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

Names in different languages are not same thing - it is simply not correct to say that Hungarian name for the town is "old" and Serbian "new" because of the two reasons:

• 1. In Hungarian, name Nagybecskerek is both, old and new, i.e. Hungarian use today same name as it used in 1912.
• 2. If you write new Serbian name for the town,and if you want to write old name too, then this old name would be Bečkerek, not Nagybecskerek, which is not old name of the town, but simply name in another language. "Your" version of the article create a confusion and make impresion that "Nagybecskerek" is simply old name of the town, which is not correct because it is used today too in Hungarian. PANONIAN (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)