Talk:Demographic history of Bačka

Fcaba

See page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ba%C4%8Dka#Observations_on_the_Demographics_section Fcsaba 12:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Modifications

I've made a few modifications, and I think the result adequates the Wikipedia's NPOV principles. As summarization, the modifications are the following:

• That is disputed by many people is not considered as absolute truth anymore.

• There are some other disputed issues, and due to Undue Weight these has to be represented.

• Due to some "explanations", further explanations had to be taken place, see Undue Weight.

Fcsaba 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We already discussed these things on talk:Bačka and you did not proved your point so please refrain from unilateral changes. Thank you. PANONIAN 08:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Panonian, it is not fair that you just set the content back, but you don't put on the NPOV tag. I think in a discussion 2 real partners are needed, but you think your Serbian viewpoint is the absolute truth, and you haven't reacted normally on any arguments. I tell you that the Hungarian viewpoint is even radical, but I wanted a fair representation of the viewpoints. That's why I haven't rewritten the whole article. Maybe you have noticed that I ledt in the article parts whith which I (with accompany of many Hungarians) don't agree, but I know that this is commonly accepted within Serbs, and every relevant viewpoints has to be respected. I just want the same thing from you. (Maybe it would worth to rename this article as Demographic history of Bačka - Serbian viewpoint, and it will be as you want, and to create another article with title Demographic history of Bačka - Hungarian viewpoint, and there will be written what maybe you don't like.) You even deny that viewpoints exist differing from the Serbian. So I set the article back to NPOV, but I don't want to argue with you anymore, because I don't think it is worthwhile to argue with a person who simply cannot accept that there are other people whose opinions differ from his.

You removed NPOV tag from the article, not me, so to what exactly you object? I do not consider article POV, so why would I return this tag? (you posted this tag and you removed it, end of story). Also, I do not have "Serbian viewpoint" - I only present the work of reliable historians and valid sources (you will notice that every single part of this article is sourced). Contrary to this, you presented only your personal viewpoint and one scientific project is not a place where we would writte opinions of just everybody. Also, calling your personal viewpoint by the name "Hungarian viewpoint" could be found insulting by Hungarians who do not agree with you. And again: when you present any reliable source on this talk page then we can speak about data presented in that source, but until you presenting only "YOUR OWN OPINION" or "OPINION OF MOST HUNGARIANS" (No matter that we can discuss much whose that opinion really is), I do not see what about we can talk here. And yes I certainly deny that two opposite Serbian-Hungarian viewpoints exist - there are two viewpoints about it of course, one of them generally accepted as truth (by reliable Hungarian historians as well) and another one invented as fascist propaganda between two World Wars and during World War II. For example, when Hungary attacked Yugoslavia in 1941, Hungarian prime minister Pal Teleki commited suicide saying that "there is no single word of truth" in that fascist propaganda that Hungary used against Yugoslavia. Also there is already another article describing that viewpoint: Greater Hungary (political concept), so I do not see why would we writte its twin article. PANONIAN 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag because the modified context I considered to be neutral. You set back everything except the POV. What kind of behaviour is that?! The previous (and current) context I consider not to be neutral, of course. (The facts could be neutral, but the comments not.) You would have known this, that's why it was a very bad deal to set back the whole content except that! Fcsaba 12:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I told you: I do not consider article POV, but until discussion about it on the talk page is live, I should not remove it. However, if you removed the tag, then I have no reason to move it back, it is simple as that. PANONIAN 18:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you don't consider it POV. But if you redo the corrections after which I consider it not to be POV, it would be a moral duty to set back _everything_. Fcsaba 20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean everything before you came here? But I done exactly that... PANONIAN 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing, offtopic from this article: maybe if Serbian people had accepted 20 years ago that there are other people living on this planet than Serbs and they would at least played with the thought that maybe they thought things somehow else, then many wars could had been avoided. Let't say an example: Kosovo had autonomy within Serbia before 1989, but no republic status. As we know, Kosovo have approximatelly 2 million inhabitants, and about 90% of them are Albanians. They thought that it is unfair that they have just an autonomy, while for example Montenegro with its 0,5 million inhabitants had a republic status. They wanted to become a republic within Yugoslavia. Maybe not everybody accepted their opinion, but we must admit that it was a logical one. But what was the Serbian answer? Even that small autonomy was reduced to symbolic. What was the Albanian answer? They wanted even more: independence. Logical, isn't it? You just have to think with an Albanian brain for a while. And what was the result? We know... Maybe if Serbia would have been able to recognize that there are other viewpoints than theirs, then they could be able to arrange in a greater autonomy within Serbia, and now everybody would have been happier. This is just an example how viewpoints can be crucial.

The examples are not related to this issue, both Kosovo and Montenegro are very different cases from Bačka, which is part of Serbia with Serb majority, thus I do not see how it can be compared with areas where Serbs are not majority. Also we speak here about historical data from various censuses, so how that data could be related to political viewpoints what should be status of some other territories (Of course, perhaps your true aim here is to propagate for certain political status of Bačka, but one scientific project is not a place for that - you have stormfront forum and other similar web sites where you can present your political viewpoints). PANONIAN 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Kosovo example was just an example of the importance of the viewpoints. I could have written an example of the non-existing countries Singalesia and Ingalesia, it doesn't matter. If you read my comments again, you will note that there is no connection between the example and the article. See: "offtopic from this article". Fcsaba 12:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But Kosovo is an disputed territory whose final status is not determined yet and therefore such different opinions about this status exist - once final status of Kosovo is defined, there will be no relevant opposite viewpoints about it. Same thing with Bačka: its final status is defined long time ago and thus there are no relevant opposite viewpoints about it. PANONIAN 18:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not about the final status of any territory but still viewpoints and not stickly related examples. (In fact, the Bačka's status in 1910 was considered to be final, then in 1920 also final, after 1941 many Hungarians thought its status is final (despite of the fact that according to some international law it wasn't), and since 1947 its status is also final. What is final? (Its a poetry question, you don't need to answer it.) Apropos, Kosovo: I don't see any solutions which will be considered by everybody final: if it will be independent, that wouldn't be accepted by Serbs, and if it won't be independent, what wouldn't be accepted by Albanians.) Fcsaba 20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what somebody thought about final status of Bačka in 1910 or in 1941 - this is 2006 now and in this year status of every territory populated by majority nation of every country is final status and it is also case with Bačka (territory in Serbia with Serb majority). Contrary to this, final status of territories in the countries inhabited mainly by minorities is not so clear. PANONIAN 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally: I've noted that on my discussion page the user Rjecnica has written something, which is in fact his opinion. And you have deleted one of his sentence! What kind of behaviour is this?! Other people cannot tell their opinions if it is not acceptable by you? You are free to answer that, but let other people's right to say their opinions. I don't say Rjecnica has right (I not even say not), but I say Rjecnica has right to tell what he thinks, and if he subscribes that sentence, that means that is his opinion (and if it is stupidity then this grades him and not you). Fcsaba 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted his personal insult (it is not allowed to insult or provoke other users by Wikipedia policy) - all users here have to behave civil and not to insult others or spread lies about them (insulting and procative comments could be removed from talk pages in any time). PANONIAN 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rjecnica has signatured what he wrote, so what he wrote is a grading of him and not you. If someone would have written provocative text from an anonymous IP address, then it is all right to delete it, but in a case when somebody signatures, that is other case. Yes, Panonian, it is a possiblility that he thinks so, and he is allowed to think anything. And you are allowed to react to his apoinion. So if somebody would have written you "You stupid git, you have stolen my money!" with signature, then the most acceptable reaction would have been an "I have't stolen money from anybody, and please don't use such ugly words." answer, but not deleting it. You have written many things that I don't accept, but I haven't deleted from your text on the talkpages even a single letter (except some restructuring due to the answer). Fcsaba 12:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He is not Rjecnica, but Rjecina ("big word"). Regarding his "opinion": there is clear Wiki rule that say that users should not react to insults or trolling - instead of it, insults and trolling should be simply deleted from Wikipedia. PANONIAN 18:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Now I clarify something: you often write "wrotte" with double t. In fact, it is written with single t: "wrote". Fcsaba 20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Slobodna Vojvodina

It is time that we speak about something more important. Look this article published on 28 october 1944 in Slobodna Vojvodina which has been newspaper of People's Liberation Front:

"Although we destroyed the occupying German and Hungarian hordes and drove them back to the west, we have not yet eradicated the roots of the poisonous weeds planted by them... The hundreds of thousands of foreigners who were settled on the territories where our ancestors had cleared the forests, drained the swamps, and created the conditions necessary for civilized life. These foreigners still kept shooting at our soldiers and the Soviet soldiers from the dark. They do everything they can to prevent the return to normal life, preparing, in the midst of this difficult situation, to stab us in the back again at the appropriate moment... The people feel that determined, energetic steps are needed to ensure the Yugoslavian character of Bacska." [1]

This is my small comment about ethnic cleansing in Vojvodina :)) Yes PANONIAN you will say that this is from Hungary nationalistic site but my points are words in this article. We are having link and everything other needed so this need to be in article Demographic history of Bačka.

If you do not believe in that read obscure book "The Birth of the Autonomous Voivodina" Veselinov Zharko. Bye Rjecina 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this text, but: 1. it is opinion of one man, and 2. I do not see that this text mention "ethnic cleansing against civilians" - it in fact mention those "who still kept shooting at our soldiers and the Soviet soldiers from the dark", which cannot be quite seen as "peaceful civilians" (why would peaceful civilians shoot at somebody?). Also, why you claim that this book is "obscure"? PANONIAN 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1. It seemed not to be an opinion of a single man, since if it had been so, then maybe 95% of Germans wouldn't had been exiled and several tens of thousands of Hungarians wouldn't had been killed. 2. The problem is that it was not true. It was just a kind of moral basis why everything what was done with the mentioned minorities was acceptable. To kill innocent people seems not to be morally acceptable even for Serbs, so something had to be found. "They were shooting us!" That's great! (That was the "basis" of the genocide in Srebrenica and Račak, too.) It is very hard to believe that every single Hungarian person if a few villages (e.g. Žabalj) were shooting at Partizans and Soviet soldiers from the dark. It is nonsense to do that against the superior troops. And who decides which person was shooting "from the dark"? No evidence, since they are in the "dark"! Partizans decide it, of course! And yes, Panonian, peacaful civilians were treated as war criminals by Serbs after the war - according to such obscure basis like "shooting to us from the dark". Fcsaba 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Germans were expelled because of the political reasons - most of them were members of pro-fascist "Culturbund" organization and were expelled because of that. Same apply to Hungarians who collaborated with Axis authorities. However, the basic fact that those Hungarians who did not collaborated with Axis authorities were not expelled, and not only that but they gained large rights within newly autonomus Vojvodina, show that ethnic cleansing was not an aim of the communist authorities, especially if we know that they killed even more Serbs who were Chetniks or in Nedićs forces than Hungarians who collaborated with fascists. In another words, it cannot be proved that aim was ethnic and not political cleansing. PANONIAN 22:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For me is never important what writer of book think. Only important are sources for his book and his sources about situation in Vojvodina are good. Look this:

"The eradication of the Hungarian race is the foremost task of the Slavs awakened after the war. In the course of a few decades, the tiny Hungarian oasis must be occupied with a systematic and aggressive Slav imperialist policy. Hungary must vanish from the map of Europe. The fate of minorities should not be a problem for Europe, because Europe can be consolidated only by the strengthening of national majorities, thus it is her duty to assimilate minorities." --newspaper Princip 22 september 1922.

Now I am interested to hear what will be your comment ? Rjecina 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I will give you my comment when you say who said that, where and when and where you read this... PANONIAN 22:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

About this statement you have everything needed. Newspaper Princip of 22 september 1922 is minimal enough good source like you books, because of which it can enter article.

You did not answered my question who said that and where... PANONIAN 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

About this statement you have everything needed. Newspaper Princip of 22 september 1922 is minimal enough good source like you books, because of which it can enter article.

PANONIAN you are really fantastic. Your again, again deleting of statement with sources is really "neutral thinking". Do you really want that I, Fcsaba or somebody else write something similar about census 1910 or any other ? This story which you have writen today will not stay. You are having possibility to write historical census data without comment or with comment but then all censuses will have similar number of words in comments. Anything other is nothing but propaganda which you do not want to understand. My questions about yours new fantasy part of article are:

• How many Serbs, Jews and Roma have been killed by Hungarians between 1941 - 44 ? When you write that people is killed without numbers confirmed with sources this is propaganda.
• How many Germans and Hungarians have collaborated with Axis or have been political threat for the new communist regime ? Again writing about people without numbers and sources is propaganda
• How many has been good Hungarians ?
• How many people has come to Bačka from Bosnia, Croatia and Montenegro.
• Your statement: "Serbian population was almost decimated during the war". How many have been killed. Where is number confirmed with sources which everybody can look on internet. This is again Serbian propaganda and nothing else.

You have given minimal 5 statement without sources withou anything because of what this all is propaganda and nothing else. Rjecina 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

PANONIAN you are really fantastic. Your again, again deleting of statement with sources is really "neutral thinking". Do you really want that I, Fcsaba or somebody else write something similar about census 1910 or any other ? This story which you have writen today will not stay. You are having possibility to write historical census data without comment or with comment but then all censuses will have similar number of words in comments. Anything other is nothing but propaganda which you do not want to understand. My questions about yours new fantasy part of article are:

I did not deleted "statement with sources", but I included that statement in the new paragraph (in the modified form, of course). And if you insist that we explain 1948 census results then this paragraph simply have to stay. Of course, if you insist I can explain all censuses with similar info. PANONIAN 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• How many Serbs, Jews and Roma have been killed by Hungarians between 1941 - 44 ? When you write that people is killed without numbers confirmed with sources this is propaganda.
  • I added number of killed or expelled Serbs in 1941 - read it again. I will also provide a source for it, if you insist. PANONIAN 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• How many Germans and Hungarians have collaborated with Axis or have been political threat for the new communist regime ? Again writing about people without numbers and sources is propaganda
  • 95% of Vojvodina Germans were members of Culturbund and hence were seen as colaborationists, while number of Hungarians is estimated between several thousands and tens of thousands. PANONIAN 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• How many has been good Hungarians ?
  • All those that were not persecuted by partisans, of course... PANONIAN 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• How many people has come to Bačka from Bosnia, Croatia and Montenegro.
  • I believe I have the info somewhere, but I do not remember where, thus I would need some time to find it. PANONIAN 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Your statement: "Serbian population was almost decimated during the war". How many have been killed. Where is number confirmed with sources which everybody can look on internet. This is again Serbian propaganda and nothing else.
  • There are books, but I will look for Internet sources too. And why you claim that it is "Serbian propaganda"? PANONIAN 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You have given minimal 5 statement without sources withou anything because of what this all is propaganda and nothing else. Rjecina 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tell me which they are and I will provide sources... PANONIAN 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes by Panonian

According to the recent changes mainly made by Panonian this article gets further and further from neutrality. Now I think it even cannot be treated as "it will be neutral if you modify this, that or those", but it has to be totally rewritten. I think in such a case noone from us (involved in the dispute) should be allowed to write even a single letter on it. This is especially true for user Panonian, whose contributions lead this article far-far away from the neutrality, and I think many offensive contributions are provocated by his work.

I don't want to take part in the undo-redo war anymore. But I find very ugly that I was asked to provide source and after I've found one and translated it - it wasn't a 2 minutes work! - someone (a sockpuppet of Pannonian?) deleted it soon with a single click, without any explanation! Now I am asking the question: it is worth to do any work where Panonian is present, who simply destroys other people's work with a single click?

Panonian, do you see my signature below? Everything I've written are my opinion, I am taking the responsibility for them, and I ask you not to delete from the above sencences even a single letter.

Fcsaba 11:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss any specific question, I just created section below where you can discuss it. Also, if you think that I have a sockpuppet, please ask for checkuser. PANONIAN 11:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Serious discussion?

Ok people, if you want to stop disruptive revert wars and want serious discussion, this is the place. Let discuss problems one by one - those are mainly questions for user Hobartimus. PANONIAN 11:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Magyarization

Why you removed sentence "The native Slavic population was mostly magyarized during Hungarian rule"? - the sentence is very correct and it is very important for demographic history of Slavs in Bačka, and it also was sourced. PANONIAN 11:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Magyarization refers to 19th century and early 20th century policies. It cannot be used in the 9th century and 10th century. By this silly logic I could say that the Slav population was Serbionized (they were all Slavs and some of them became Serbs, others Croats, who hate serbs etc etc) This is of course is nonsense. This is completely bogus to use a 20th and 19th century term to the 9-10th century. This cannot be allowed in the article. The fact that was a Slav(see SLAV, not SERB) population there is already mentioned. Hobartimus 11:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, magyarization indeed refer to 19th century official policy of the KOH, but term is also used to describe what happened to Slavs in the KOH before 16th century, no matter that it was not official policy in this time. Regarding Serbs and Slavs, the case is very different because Serbs are subgroup of Slavs (the very name "Slav" means "the one who speak the language"), and since Serbs speak this language, they are Slavs (I consider myself both, Serb and Slav). Contrary to this, the Slav who become Hungarian is not Slav anymore because he do not speak his language. PANONIAN

Serbs

Why you replaced sentence "since then, the region was mainly populated by Serbs" with "and Serb colonists occupied the territory"? - it is provocative and insulting to say that Serbs "occupied" territory of their own country - why you insist on such insulting statements? PANONIAN 11:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, "Since then" is outright false, a simple lie that can be seen even from the numbers, so it had to be deleted. Occupation has many meanings and its already clear from the sentence that it's not military occupation in this case. You can change it to "Serb colonists moved in" or whatever if you are bothered by the word "occupation", but please do not try to deny the historical fact of Serb colonization which was organized. By the way at the time of the sentence (17th century) it was not the "Serbs country" and by implying such you do a disfavour to historical accuracy. Hobartimus 11:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is not false: since the establishment of Ottoman rule, the region was indeed was mainly populated by Serbs, which is proved by Ottoman defters. And yes, the word "occupation" indeed have many meanings and exactly because of that we should not use it since somebody could read it in the wrong meaning. However, the fact is that Serb migrations to Vojvodina started in the 14th century, while 16th century is only time when they became majority. Regarding Habsburg colonization of Serbs, of course, we can mention this. Regarding "Serb country", it is Serb country today and therefore, you cannot writte about it with words insulting for Serbs (by the way, geographically speaking, it was Serb country in the 17th century too, no matter that it was ruled by Habsburgs - numerous sources mention this land as "Rascia", "srpska zemlja" ("Serbian land/country"), etc). PANONIAN 12:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WWII

Why you insist that we only writte about ethnic cleansing of Hungarians, but you constantly deleting paragraph that speak about persecutions of Serbs and Jews? - do you think that Serbs and Jews are "minor races" so that we should not speak about things what happened to them. Please tell me why you removing the whole paragraph that speak about all persecutions before 1948 census? PANONIAN 11:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just lol. When you delete the sourced information of the ethnic cleansing of Hungarians done by serbs, and the small reference to the 40 000 massacred Hungarians, butchered by Serbs, which is not even mentioned properly, you leave me no choice but to revert. You inserted a lengthy paragraph of original research that was unsourced. This article is about census information, commentary should be minimal. When you have SOURCED information (english languege sources) that would be a different story. And if you want to write something about Jewish people why don't you start by the Yugoslav census number that YOU posted, it only lists "others", a good start would be the actual number of Jews that lived in Bacska, if it can be known from the census, so they would no longer be listed as "others". Hobartimus 12:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not "deleted the sourced information", but I included that information into new paragraph. Also the number of killed Hungarians after WW2 is very disputed - 40,000 is just largest estimation and the smallest one is 4,000. And they were not "butchered by Serbs" - they were killed by Yugoslav partisans and there were Hungarians among partisans as well. And you have always other choice than to revert - you can try to improve new paragraph, right? Also, paragraph is not original research - it is data from various sources and I did sourced it now, so I do not understand why you deleted it again after it was sourced? (If you think that anything else there need source, just tell me what). Also, there is no Wiki rule that say that "English language sources only" should be used for the articles and this article is not "about census information" (Do you see there a title "Census information"?) - title of this article is "Demographic history of Bačka" and therefore anything related to this subject could be written here, including census data and text. Regarding Jews, I will post info about their number when I find it, but the fact that we do not have this number now does not mean that we should not writte anything about Jews. PANONIAN 12:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Answers of a Hungarian historian

I've asked a well famous Hungarian Historian, Ignác Romsics (http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romsics_Ign%C3%A1c) about our discussion. Here are his statements:

• Nationalism. The Hungarian state nationalism was similar to other state nationalisms. In hands of the other nations living within the Monarchia were so such tools like in hands of Hungarians and Austrians. The assimilation of the nationalities according to the Hungarian censuses is a fact. This was partly a natural process, partly the consequence of the Hungarian state-, especially school politics. The latter one indeed made efforts for spread of the Hungarian culture and language.

• Kingdom of SCS. After 1920 the situation changed. The descendant states - including SCS Kingdom - lead basically the same nationalist politics, as formerly did the Hungarian state. The Serb nationalism was as inconsistent as Hungarian, sometimes they used political sometimes cultural argument system. That was true for Plish, Greek, ... Source: Nemzet, nemzetiség és állam Kelet-Közép- és Délkelet-Európában a 19-20. században, Bp., 1998, Napvilág, second ed. 2004. (My add-on: according to the Wikipedia neutrality, if the situation was very similar in Serbia after 1920 as it was in Hungary before, and we speak about the Hungarian nationalism, then we must speak about the same Serb nationalism after 1920.)
  • One issue does not correspond to another - every census and events between two censuses are specific and need unic approach. PANONIAN 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia, undue weight, you know... Fcsaba 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want to say. PANONIAN 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Think it over! Fcsaba 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is no place for word game playing, you know... PANONIAN 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You really don't understand this simple logic?! Let's imagin 2 politicioans, A and B, and both steal 1 million $. A newspaper writes 10 pages about A, but no even a single word about B. A says this is not fair, if the newspaper writes so much about himself, then he expects that the same amout has to be written about B, too. The newspaper's aswer is that the two cases need unique aproach. Please don't aswer this, just think it over... Fcsaba 14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to think: every census was conducted in different socio-political circumstances and therefore there cannot be unique approach for them - each of them should be analized in accordance with these socio-political circumstances. PANONIAN 22:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Census. The censues are prejudiced indeed, but there were no huge differences. The truth must be between the 1941 Hungarian and the former Yugoslav censuses. Therefore usually he publishes the results of the both cenuses. (My add-on: according to this we cannot claim that the census 1941 was unreliable as absolute truth, since according to serious Hungarian historians there were no big difference between the censuses.)
  • I showed to you book of Hungarian historians that provide same data about 1941 population of Bačka as Serbian historians - this mean that this data is generally accepted as valid. On the other hand, we have "census" conducted by fascist (how on Earth any data provided by fascists could be reliable?). These Hungarian historians that you mentioned who support this fascist census are Greater Hungarian nationalists and their political affiliation might seriously damage their judgement in this case - they defend this data only because they like what this data show without serious criticism of this data. In another words, please tell me how on Earth 1941 fascist census could be so different from 1910 Hungarian census? What explanation your "historians" provide for this huge difference? PANONIAN 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Hungarians were not fascist up to end of 1944, many sources. 2. In spite of the fact the fascist were evil, that doesn't mean that _everything_ they did was false. Nobody is perfectly good and nobody is perfectly bad. 3. I haven't mentioned any Hungarian histroians except Ignác Romsics, who is not a Greater Hungarian nationalist, this is well-known about him in Hungary. He claims that the Treaty of trianon was unfair, and every normal Hungarian historians think so, but that doesn't mean they want to restore it. But let's speak about the article. You see, you are the preson who don't speak about what is written, but somehow you come with "fascism" , "Greater Hungarian nationalists", furthermore, the "future genocide agains Serbs". Fcsaba 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not speak about «Hungarians», but about regime that ruled over Hungary during this time (can you at least try to understand difference between people and regime that was in fact enemy of this people). I really do not understand why you want to defend this regime that brought nothing but suffer to Hungarian people. Also, if one Hungarian historian think that treaty of Trianon was not rightful and criticizing neighbouring states then he is nationalist. PANONIAN 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are a bit "magotty". When the word "Hungarian" is used, it turns out from the context whether it is about the Hungarian native speakers, the Hungarian state, the Hungarian government, the people living in Hungary or whatever. Yes, in this case this is the Hungarian regime, of course! But this is a talk page, not the main article! About the Treaty of Trianon, I quote: "Trianon egy magyar történész számára mindig igazságtalan marad, míg a nyertesek számára történelmi jóvátétel." ("Trianon for a Hungarian historian will remain unfair forever, but for the winners it is historical reparation.") It is a common consesus among Hungarians that thr Treaty of Trianon was unfair, only the tone differs. Maybe a radical would say "this was the greates unfairness ever in the history of the whole world", and a moderate would say (e.g. Ferenc Gyurcsány, the current prime minister, who really cannot be accused by nationalism) "9 out of 10 Hungarian think that the Treaty of Trianon was unfair. But 9 out of 10 Hungarian acquiesce (= don't like it but accept) that the borders cannot be changed." (The ceratin topic was Transylvania, but the point remains.) Fcsaba 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not read those "historians" who gave themselves right to speak in the name of all Hungarian historians or in the name of the whole nation because they do not have such right, believe me - the only right they have is the right to speak in their own name, but not in the name of others. I will give you some opposite examples of Hungarian historians who do not share this oppinion: for example Ekhart Ferenc in his book named Magyaror tortenete (1935) claimed that Trianon was not an unjustice for Hungarians and that it only scotched Hungarians into their natural ethnographic borders. He also said that Hungarians never were so large nation to fulfil area of 325,000 square kilometers, and that trianon treaty only "removed one 1000 years old illusion". Another Hungarian historian Makai Janos in his book named a haboru utani Magyarorsag (1934) wrote that trianon treaty left to Hungary these parts of Kingdom of Hungary where Hungarians were "nationally homogenuos". Would you say that these Hungarian historians are "national traitors"? - I would say that they are greatest Hungarian patriots. Hungary need a peace and prosperity, not a constant wars with its neighbours and criticizing of the treaty is a first step towards war and before say such critics against the treaty every Hungarian should ask himself: "Am I ready to give my life in a war for Greater Hungary?" - what will be your answer, mister Fcsaba? If you do not know what is war, just ask me because I lived in Serbia during 1990s and I know very well about the war. PANONIAN 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This historian doesn't speak in the name of all the Hungarian historians, he just feels that this is a common opinion. He teaches on the university, he has got many professional connections, he is a well-known person. I don't beleive that a Hungarian person wrote in 1935 hat the Treaty of Trianon was fair, and furthermore, if we are speaking about a specific age, then source from that time is not the best. I am talking about the current situation, and not during the communism and before that. You asked a question: I don't want to start war in order to change the borders, my goals are removing the borders + giving autonomy for minorities living outside the mother country. Fcsaba 14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact you "don't believe that a Hungarian person wrote in 1935 hat the Treaty of Trianon was fair" does not mean that he did not wrote what he wrote (why the fact that somebody is Hungarian should also mean that he is nationalist?). Regarding your goals: let say that you too much trying to "prove" that Serb-populated region is "rightfully Hungarian", which imply that you have very different goals than you said. PANONIAN 22:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Occupation. Both term occupation and liberation has a "value" meaning. The Hungarian historians use the neutral term "entry" ("bevonulás"). (This is my opinion: since now we are speaking about a state and not the change, we could use the term neutral administration instead of the prejudiced term occupation.)
  • We should use official terms used by international community. Why you all the time want to writte that Hungarian rule was so "good"? (I mean, why you want to write that if you do not support Greater Hungary, so you want to show how Hungary was "good" and "great" hoping that it will be "restored" in the future?). Here, we speak about fascists and they occupied entire Europe, thus Bačka was not outside of this Europe. PANONIAN 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to say that Hungarian rule was good. I don't want to say that Hungarian rule was bad. I even don't want to say anything similar about Serbian rule. I want the neutral composition. Terms "good", "bad", "occupation", "liberation" have value meaning, which cannot be treated as neutral. It is tempted to use expression "Bačka was eliberated by the Hungarians in 1941" by the Hungarian historians, but they don't use it because they know that this wasn't an eliberation from Serbs point of view. Wikipedia, neutrality, you know... Fcsaba 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not about Hungarian vs Serb rule but about fascism vs anti-fascism. You will notice that I did not used word «occupation» to describe pre-1918 Hungarian rule – the word is used only for fascist occupation, no matter if fascists were Hungarian, German, Croatian or what ever. PANONIAN 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your sources tell it was fascism, my sources say it wasn't. Who are you qho decides which source is reliable? This is Wikipedia, and we shouldn't write something if it is disputed, but "according to source X this, that and those". Fcsaba 14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no "my" sources, just make a simpla google search with key words "horthy" and "fascist" and you will find plenty sources that say that he was fascist: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=horthy+fascist&btnG=Google+Search However, I do not see why we discuss this anyway because I do not see that this article speak about nature of Horthy regime. PANONIAN 22:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Germans. It is fact that the most part of the Germans were exiled by partizans. This was done by the Czechs and Polish, too, and a bit more ordered by the Hungarians. [...] About the genocide against Hungarians: this is accepted even by the Serb historians, but the number of the victims is disputed. They recognize only a few tousand victims, but according to the available sources we should count with 10-20 thousand victims, or even more. (My remark regarding to the topmost estimation of the victims: it is not 40.000 but 50.000.) Source: Az 1947-es párizsi békeszerződés, Bp., 2006, Osiris.
  • It is not fact. Most Germans left together with German army before partisans came. Regarding Hungarians, the article already mention that partisans persecuted them, so to what exactly you object? PANONIAN 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but that source claims that. According to your source the Germans left their homes on their own. According to my source they were exiled. Neutrality, undue weight, articles are written according to sources, not you claim something but the source, Wikipedia, you know... Fcsaba 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No. My source claim that there were 350,000 Germans in Vojvodina of whom 200,000 left together with German army before partisans and Red army came, while 150,000 that remained in the region were imprisoned and exiled. This does not contradict to «your» source – «your» source mentioned only one part of the story aiming to present partisans more «evil». PANONIAN 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fascism. (This is not strongly related to this topic, but during the discussion it was a question if Horthy was fascist or not. Here is the answer of a real Hungarian historian.) It is true that after 1945 the "marxist Hungarian history" spoke about Horthy-fascism, and every leader from that era was considered to be fascist. The international historians didn't accept this viewpoint, and in the 1970s the most Hungarian historians took a more realistic viewpoint. According to this Horthy was a conservative politician, a type of the XIX. century, and his system was an authoriter type limited parlamentarism. Such a dictature without parliament as it was in Yugoslavia from 1929, there wasn't in Hungary up to 1944. Today there is a consesus about this between the Hungarian and the serious non-Hungarian historians. (My add-on: according to this, the book by Panonian, which treats Hungary as a fascist state, cannot be treated as a serious one. With the phrase used by Rječica: it is obscure.)

--Fcsaba 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • It is not correct that "international historians didn't accept viewpoint that every leader from that era was considered to be fascist". Just see this: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/194145fc.gif Title of map is "Fascist Europe". And man: I dot understand how you can defend fascist? - I do not understand how somebody can so much hate democratic values of post-WW2 free World and defend the greatest evil that ever walked on Earth. PANONIAN 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This map just claims that the whole Europe was somehow under control of the fascist. Second: this is only a title of a map. One source. I don't deny the democratic value, but I think the communism after WW2 was morally as bad as fascism - not worse and not better. I don't defend fascism, don't insult me. But I really don't want to start a dispute about that. Some source claims this, another one claims that. Neutrality; Wikipedia; you know... Fcsaba 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed something else! The title of the map is "fascist Europe". But what does light blue mean? I quote: "Allied countries with Germany and Nationalist Regimes". This doesn't claim that these countries were fascist, this just claim that these were allied with Germany, which was obviously fascist and/or the regimes were nationalists. About the nationalist regime: somehow every state was nationalist at that time - I think this is true for Hungary. But the most important in this case: Hungary was allied country with the natzi Germany. This is what this map claims, nothing more! It claims nothing about if that specific country was fascist indeed, or not! Italy was fascist - it was the first fascist country all over the world, and the word fascism comes from an Italian expression. But this map doesn't even tell this! And this map doesn't tell that Hungary was fascist! It doesn't tell it wasn's, indeed. Maybe yes, maybe no! Please give me another internatinal source (international in this case: not Serbian, not Hungarian, not Croatian, not Romanian, not Czechoslovakian/Slovakian and not from a communist country, so let's exclude all the affected nations, and let's find a "third party source"), which claims that Horthy was fascist! Fcsaba 20:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Description «Allied countries with Germany and Nationalist Regimes” does not mean that these countries were not fascist countries, i.e. terms “Nationalist Regimes” and “fascist regimes” do not contradict one to another and could be both used to describe these countries. Also, how exactly I insulting you? – I just noticed the fact that you indeed defending fascist regime that ruled Hungary during WW2 and how exactly this could be an insult? Regarding sources, here you can see one "international" source that claim that Horthy was fascist: http://libcom.org/library/Hungary563 Quote: "For the Hungarian people the following years under Horthy's fascist tyranny were full of dread and suffering. Some people have claimed that Horthy's regime was not truly fascist. But we must remember that fascism in power may take a variety of forms. Although basically similar, the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar also differed in several particulars. Perhaps Horthy's regime could best be called 'rule by aristocratic fascists'. Whatever its name, its sickening bestiality, as far as the ordinary people were concerned, remains as a scar on the body of humanity." PANONIAN 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Panonian some of your views above concerning history are unacceptable fringe views and theories (similarly to the "flat earth" theory) and they are not accepted and allowed material in wikipedia articles. Your also attempting to cover up and bellitle mass murder committed against Hungarians and that is unacceptable behaviour on wikipedia. Hobartimus 20:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Flat Earth theory? What you talk about? And by the way, it is you who constantly deleting part that speak about mass murder of Serbs and Jews. What is your reason to delete the whole paragraph. PANONIAN 21:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That was as example of a theory or view that is only accepted by a very small minority. You constantly bring here views and theories that are only accepted by some Serbians and nobody else. Hobartimus 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A small minority??? I cannot believe that you trying to deny WWII holocaust. Im sorry, but I think that you should read this: Holocaust denial - that is not acceptable opinion in modern World. PANONIAN 11:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia about Horthy is speaking different:"Horthy personally disfavoured the Fascist movement of Hungary,furthermore, Ferenc Szálasi, later the "Leader of the Hungarian Nation", was imprisoned at Horthy's personal command....His government was more of conservative authoritarian government rather than a fascist one". I know PANONIAN that you will not agree but he has been dictator and nothing else. About mass murder of Hungarians in Vojvodina if I do not make mistake this has ended when friends (communists) has come in power in Budapest. Number of killed has been very "interesting" because Hungarian number has fallen (50 000 is we add to this number persons which has come to Bačka in 1941 ....). ---Rjecina 14:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You very well know that anybody could edit Wikipedia and anybody can write that about Horthy. Here is one external source about him: http://libcom.org/library/Hungary563 Quote: "For the Hungarian people the following years under Horthy's fascist tyranny were full of dread and suffering. Some people have claimed that Horthy's regime was not truly fascist. But we must remember that fascism in power may take a variety of forms. Although basically similar, the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar also differed in several particulars. Perhaps Horthy's regime could best be called 'rule by aristocratic fascists'. Whatever its name, its sickening bestiality, as far as the ordinary people were concerned, remains as a scar on the body of humanity." I am sorry, but this has gone too far - this Holocaust denials and defense of fascist have to stop - it is not appropriate discussion for this web site. PANONIAN 11:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Let speak about genocide, ethnic cleansing and holocaust. In Hungary it is has been killed 50 % of Jews. In Serbia more of 90 % ! It is interesting to know that Jews in Hungary have been killed only after Horthy fall (1944). Hurthy question is closed ?? On other side it is interesting to see how you dear PANONIAN support ethnic cleansing of Germans and Hungarians in Vojvodina. This is very clear shown when you try to explain why have been needed ethnic cleansing. I think that you really need to read books about ethnic cleansing, holocaust and genocide so that you will maybe, maybe (but I do not believe that) understand that it is not possible to explain this crimes. ---Rjecina 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We do not speak here about Jews in Serbia or Jews after Horthy: we speak here about one simple fact that under rule of Horthy many Jews were killed (especially in the 1942 raid in southern Bačka). So, why you deleting this part of the article? Is that not example of Holocaust denial? Regarding allegations about "ethnic cleansing" of Hungarians, if you claim that it was ethnic and not political cleansing, then please explain two things: if aim of partisans was ethnic cleansing, why they did not "cleansed" all Hungarians in Vojvodina, but only let say between 1-10% of them, and 2. why partisans killed much more Serbs than Hungarians. These two facts do not fit at all in ethnic cleansing theory. PANONIAN 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hobartimus

Hobartimus, please stop disruptive revert war and please say why delwting whole paragraph. Thank you. PANONIAN 15:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your paragraph is original research and therefore unacceptable in the article. Hobartimus 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I named various sources from where I took the data, so it is clear that it is not original research. Can you mention any concrete problem with any part of this paragraph or any source that I quoted? PANONIAN 21:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's original research just because you have a source for something doesn't mean you can put it into the article or tie things together. For example I could bring countless sources that state that George Bush is an "idiot" but that still won't fly in the wikipedia article about him. Also what shows that the paragraph is a prime example of original research is sentences like this "for example, the 15th Vojvodinian partisan brigade" noone cares about the 15th brigade in an article about "demographic history" pure original research. Your aim here is to try to bellitle or deny the mass murder of Hungarians and the ethnic cleansing done by Serbs which is sourced to an english language source.Hobartimus 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WW2 holocaust IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH but generally accepted event of World history. You have no right to claim that holocaust did not happened and you have no right to delete mention of innocent Jewish/Serb/Roma victims killed by fascists. And claim that I want to "deny the mass murder of Hungarians and the ethnic cleansing done by Serbs" is ridiculous because: 1. partisans were not only Serbs, but members of other nations as well including Hungarians (is that a reason why you deleting mention of 15th Vojvodinian partisan brigade?), 2. it was not ethnic, but political cleansing, as I already explained - partisans killed much more Serbs than Hungarians, 3. if you do not agree only with this, then why you deleting mention about WW2 holocaust? PANONIAN 12:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also the problem is you always revert everything so smaller changes cannot be discussed. You started this whole thing creating a big paragraph along with other changes and then you put it all at once. You want to make a 2000 character worth of change and then always just revert to your version. Remember the original version, the original status quo never had any of your edit. Hobartimus 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I revert everything??? YOU SIMPLY DELETING THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH!!!! - is this a joke or something like that??? PLEASE STOP DELETING THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH AND TRY TO SAY WITH WHICH PART OF IT YOU DO NOT AGREE. PANONIAN 12:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is to root of the problem you want to make 2000 caracther worth of changes so you write a big paragraph make 15 other changes at the same time and this makes it impossible to work out things one by one. Hobartimus 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is problem for you, I will open new section here where we can discuss problems one by one. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems

Problem 1

Why you deleting "The native Slavic population was mostly magyarized during Hungarian rule."? - this sentence is correct and sourced. What you object here? PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We already talked about this, magyarization is a 19th/20th century term it is outright "stupid" to try to use it in 10th century context. The native Slavic population is one of the main ancestors of today's Hungarians. I guess the local Slav population was Serbized the same way to the point where they developed a Serb identity? It's called developing a national identity. Hobartimus 00:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We talked about this and I said that term "magyarization" is also used to describe medieval assimilation of Slavs into Hungarians. Second: Slavs cannot be "Serbized" because Serbs are subgroup of Slavs - this have nothing to do with national identity, but with cultural one. In another words: you have no single reason to delete this sentence. PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Those slavs who assimilated are ancestors of Hungarians, all Hungarians have possible ancestry to those people, they were not magyarized they ARE the Hungarians (a large part of it). I cannot accept your position here. Hobartimus 01:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They are Hungarians today, but they were not Hungarians before their magyarization. If you accept that they are ancestors of Hungarians, why you refuse that we write this here? PANONIAN 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hobartimus on this one, the same thing cannot be applied; one was standard practice and unnecessary for mentioning and the other is harsh brutal assimilation conducted on an organized footage. --PaxEquilibrium 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 2

Why you replaced "and since then, the region was mainly populated by Serbs" with "and Serb colonists occupied the territory" - Serb migrations to Vojvodina started in the 14th century and Ottoman rule only marked a time when they became ethnic majority in the area. Also, word "occupied" is POV because it have negative meaning. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok remove occupied, because it's negative meaning and replace it with "Serb colonists arrived to the territory". Is that acceptable to you? Hobartimus 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only if mention that Serb migrations started in the 14th century and continued during Otrtoman and Habsburg rule. PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any english sources about the 14th century statement? This is the first time I hear this but it's possible. Belgrade was part of Hungary during that time? Hobartimus 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You have one source here: http://www.vojvodina.com/html/history_ii.htm I have no time to search for more on google, but I can quote for you texts from books. PANONIAN 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So, Panonian, you think that word "occupied" has negative meaning. That's great! I accept. But I ask you - please - to accept that this word has negative meaning not in this context but in other contexts, too. I hope you know what I want to say. Fcsaba 20:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 3

You cannot mention in "Overview" section killings conducted by partisans after World War II if you do not mention fascist genocide from WW2 since fasvist genocide is more known event and is generally accepted event of World history, while partisans post-ww2 killings are very disputed and controversial question. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean the Holocaust? It's mentioned already. Propose a different mention below if you have a suggestion.Post war massacres of Hungarians are a well known fact, the mass graves are there even today. Why are you trying to deny these mass murders? Hobartimus 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I deny only motives behind this and number of killed Hungarians is ačso controversial question. And if you say that fascist cromes are "mentioned already", then you will notice that killed Hungarians are also "mentioned already", so what are your reasons to mention here ONLY killed Hungarians, but not killed Serbs and Jews. PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Panonian, how do you feel when something is mentioned what is negatove for Serbs and something is not mentioned which is negative for Hungrians? The same thing I wrote to you several times! Fcsaba 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 4

Why you deleted "Census from 1931 recorded in Yugoslav Bačka larger percent of South Slavs (Serbs and Croats) than that of the Hungarians." - it is correct sentence. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are already there for anyone who can read. Hobartimus 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This section explain major demographic changes and census that recorded "larger percent of South Slavs (Serbs and Croats) than that of the Hungarians# is an major demographic change because previous census showed different data. PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The data is already there, also South Slavs is an invented category as the recent Balkan wars clearly showed, can we agree on this? Hobartimus 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In the time of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, South Slavs were not "invented category" since it was their common state and they are not even today (no matter that politicians want to divide them, but they are still same in ethnographic meaning). Also, the data is not already there (i.e. in the "Overwiev" section), so you have no reason to delete it. PANONIAN 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 5

Why you deleted sentence that 1941 fascist census was unreliable? - it is correct and sourced sentence. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, everyone can decide for themselves wheter to beleive a census or not. You simply cannot put unreliable there as per wikipedia basic rules. Also it's your personal POV that it was a "fascist census". Hobartimus 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I sourced the statement with reliable source. And how exactly can readers know was that reliable or not if they do not know circumstances that lie behind this census? PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find your source reliable, but it's still a basic thing in wikipedia that you cannot do. You cannot write that George Bush is an idiot even if you find a source, you have to write about the acts of George Bush and then the reader can decide for himself what conclusion to draw, this is really basic stuff on Wiki right? Hobartimus 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why you say that my source is not reliable? - what is a reason for you to think that? PANONIAN 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Panonian, why don't you write "according to Hunagrian census 1941 blablabla, which is considered to be fascist and unreliable according to source XYZ. (However, this source is considered to be obscure and unreliable by source ABC.)" You can't say that this was ureliable if it is disputed. You even can't say that Hitler was a bad man, despite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of all people living on the Earth think so. Fcsaba 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just rephrase why is it unreliable and all will be OK. --PaxEquilibrium 18:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 6

Why you deleted "During the occupation (1941-1944), Hungarian Axis authorities killed or expelled numerous Serbs, Jews and Roma"? - it is correct sentence and removal of it would be example of Holocaist denial. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually my version directly mentions the Holocaust and in a more informative way so removing that mention ,as you did could be considered Holocaust Denial(and its not "Holocaist" at least learn to spell the name correctly, if you want to use it). Hobartimus

"Your" version do not mention main killings of Jews in Bačka that happened in 1942. By the way, I included your 1944 data into original article version. PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1942 killings can be mentioned with proper numbers(at least an estimate) and/or sources, I think you there again comitted the "killed or expelled" category which cannot be done. Hobartimus 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will add numbers. And why "killed or expelled" cannot be together? What is the difference? PANONIAN 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 7

Why you deleted that fascist had "aim to magyarize Bačka and change its ethnically mixed character"? - it is correct sentence. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What ultimately changed this character was the ethnic cleansing and mass murder done by Serbs. You are trying everything here to cover up that fact.Hobartimus 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There were to changes of ethnic structure of the region, one during the war, and another after the war. We speak here about one during the war, so tell me is sentence that you deleted correct or not by your opinion? PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 8

Why you deleted "Only in 1941, Hungarian authorities killed or expelled about 75,000 Serbs."? - it is correct sentence as well. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such category as "killed or expelled", someone is either killed or expelled it cannot be counted together. Hobartimus 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "killed OR expelled", which means that number include both, people who were killed and people who were expelled. Why you say that it cannot be counted together? Both things were war crimes against local population. PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be done anywhere. You can include data about the killed and another about the expelled, but there is no such category as "killed or expelled" this is entirely your invention. Hobartimus 01:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My invention? Man, both words refer to victims of fascists, so I see no valid reason not to count them together. If you have valid reason, please say which one it is. PANONIAN 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 9

Why you deleted "After defeat of the Axis powers, Bačka came under control of Soviet Red army and Yugoslav partisans, who applied reprisal measures against ethnic Germans and part of ethnic Hungarians who either collaborated with Axis aurhorities or were seen as political threat for the new communist regime. Other part of the Hungarian population that was not seen as political threat for the new regime was not only treated well by the regime, but gained extensive national and cultural rights and also participated in administration and army (for example, the 15th Vojvodinian partisan brigade that was founded in 1944 was composed entirely of Vojvodinian Hungarians)."? - all what is mentioned here is correct.

Maybe because of bad spelling. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that they tried reconciling with the Hungarians, but there was no such thing with the German case I bid... --PaxEquilibrium 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If spelling is bad then other users should to correct it, not just to delete whole paragraph. By the way, I do not see why user Hobartimus deleting what happened to Germans. I think that we even should include what happened to Roma people during fascist occupation. PANONIAN 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It had to be rewritten becuse it was too POV (also contained prim example of original research like the 15th partisan brigade). Hobartimus 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what you consider POV and also 15th partisan brigade is not an original reaserch - it is data from Hungarians authors. Why you think that it is original source? PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It is original research because the article is not about "list of partisan brigades in ww2", it is about demographic history of this state, you really need to study the rules about original research, you cannot bring any random factiod here, that you think supports your POV, even if you can source it. Hobartimus 01:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not support "my POV", but illustrate historical fact related to the event described here. But what ever, we do not have to mention "partisan brigade", so is paragraph acceptable for you without this brigade? PANONIAN 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 10

Why you deleted "Most of the ethnic Germans left from Bačka in the end of the war together with German army, while those who remained in the area were declared collectivelly guitly for supporting Axis authorities during the war and hence were sent to prison camps and later expelled."? - all of this is correct. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But wait, majority left with the Axis? Wasn't the majority actually expelled by the Communists under Tito? --PaxEquilibrium 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There were 350,000 Germans in Vojvodina of whom 200,000 left with German army and rest 150,000 was killed or expelled by partisans, so "majority" is indeed correct description, but if you more like we can say "one part of Germans" instead "majority". PANONIAN 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? In all my books and all history sources everywhere just German expulsion of Partisans is shown. --PaxEquilibrium 23:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Source: Dimitrije Boarov, Politička istorija Vojvodine, Novi Sad, 2001. Quote from page 182: "Pošto se veći deo Nemaca već bio povukao sa nemačkom vojskom (oko 200,.000), tokom vojne uprave (na osnovu odluke od 18. oktobra 1944) logorisano je oko 140.000 Nemaca." What your sources say about this issue? PANONIAN 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just was wrong about number of Germans, it is not 150,000, but 140,000 (I spoke from my memory, but now I checked source which say 140,000). PANONIAN 23:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just that the Germans were expelled under the sentence of collective guilt and that a small number of them naturalized to hide their identity, like occurred with 7,000 deciding to be Hungarians (who were recognized and constituent). --PaxEquilibrium 23:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But if your source claim that "Germans were expelled" that does not contradict with fact that part of Germans left by their own will - your source just mention only one half of the story. PANONIAN 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Stating that some "Germans left by their own will" is extremist POV try "they were forced to flee for their lives", If I'm forced to flee from somewhere during wartime that's a different story, than leaving by free will. Hobartimus 00:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They were not "forced to flee" - they supported German army that commited many war crimes during the war, and therefore they escaped because they were affraid of revenge because of these crimes. PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Point is you cannot write that they left by their own will as that is not true. We don't need to bring any POV into this to see the case clearly.Hobartimus 01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not write that "they left by their own will" - I writte that "Most of the ethnic Germans left from Bačka in the end of the war together with German army", which is correct, so why you again deleting it? PANONIAN 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If Germans has left Vojvodina by their own will in 1944/45 then we will all agree that Serbs has left Croatia by their own will in 1995, so Croats are not guilty!! Let speak serious Germans has escaped afraid what will happen when Red Army and Partisans take province. Real problem are numbers ! How many have escaped before "liberation", how many have been killed after liberation and how many has been sent out of Yugoslavia after red torture. We need numbers confirmed with internet sources. .Rjecina 02:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most Serbs too left Croatia by their own will in 1995, so what is your point? Where I said that Croats are guilty for that? I believe you visited wrong talk page to discuss about events in Croatia. In another words, if you agree that "Germans has escaped afraid what will happen when Red Army and Partisans take province", then we have no reason to delete this sentence, right? And numbers are not problem, since I provided them for you. PANONIAN 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the Jews left Germany willingly too. --PaxEquilibrium 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 11

Why you deleted "Instead of these Germans, new communist authorities settled in Bačka Serb and Montenegrin colonists from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Montenegro, and thus 1948 census recorded larger number of Serbs than in 1931, despite the fact that Serbian population was almost decimated during the war."? - all of this is correct. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 214,078 colonists. 73.5% were Serbs and 10.5% were Montenegrins. I, however, do not think that the Serbian population was almost decimated (it's a bit too POV). --PaxEquilibrium 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we can say something like this: "despite the fact that large part of Serbian population was killed or expelled during the war." PANONIAN 23:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK, but I'm more in favor of directly putting the 1914 and 1915 massacres of thousands of southern Vojvodinians by the Austro-Hungarian forces. Rudolph Archibald Reiss made direct researches for the Allied Commission and I can view the source if you will. It's much better than just speculating that a lot were "killed or expelled" during the war. --PaxEquilibrium 23:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about this: events described by Rudolph Archibald Reiss did not happened in Vojvodina, but in Mačva and Podrinje. Unlike in WW2, there were no large killings or expulsions of Vojvodinians during WW1. PANONIAN 00:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is only mentioned in a different way but I didn't delete it, "instead of these Germans" and "almost decimated" is POV and unsourced, if you can bring census data that shows how much the Serb population was "decimated" than it is acceptable othervies just write the number of colonists. Hobartimus 00:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted main part of it. Amd if you see, I already agreed not to use word "decimated", so to what else you object here? PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem 12

You added this: "This together with the Yugoslav/Serbian mass murder and ethnic cleansing was intended to change the ethnic composition of the territory." - this is not correct because partisans were internationalists and their official policy was "brotherhood and unity of Yugoslav nations and nationalities", thus it is ridiculous to claim that their aim was "ethnic cleansing" - I agree that they aimed "cleansing" of population, but it had political, not ethnic character. Their aim was to have "politically correct" population. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Second. --PaxEquilibrium 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The source provided by Rjecina clearly says "ethnic cleansing" your own POV analysis cannot override it. Why are you trying to deny the fact of ethnic cleansing of Hungarians and Germans? Hobartimus 00:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the author of "source provided by Rjecina" claim that it was "ethnic cleansing" by his opinion, but we have to establish here is this correct or not. Can he suppoort his claim with facts? No, he cannot. If you trust to this source then tell me what is a base for this claim? Nobody can claim something without proof. How one internationalist army can perform "ethnic cleansing"? PANONIAN 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Brigadier General Ivan Rukovina was appointed commander of the military administration. He was in constant and direct contact with Tito, the supreme commander. In his first decree, he ordered his troops to "protect the national future and the Southern Slavic character of the territories". This sentence was meant to encourage the alteration of the existing ethnic proportions, in today's terms, ethnic cleansing." Military order was given for ethnic cleansing by a high ranking military official Ivan Rukovina a subordinate of Tito. And if you just look at the number it's the text book definition of ethnic cleansing, Germans 1941, 162 000- 1948 10 000, How do you explain that Germans were completely wiped out from this territory? Not to mention the mass murder commited against Hungarians. Hobartimus 01:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if Rukavina said that, then there might be ethnic reason behind that as well, but that still does not change fact that main reason was political. I will see to change article accordingly to that. PANONIAN 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I having source about Germans !! In 1943 on territory of Yugoslavia has lived 500 000 Germans. 240 000 has escaped with German army and 200 000 has "fallen" to Yugoslav hands. In Yugoslav prisoner camps has been 170 000 Germans (civilians). Today it is known name of 48 687 persons which has been killed or 70 % of all Germans killed. Must of survivors after leaving camps has left Yugoslavia. Source is Glas Koncila which is newspaper of Catholic Church in Croatia [2] --Rjecina 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposition

Can we come to agreement so that everybody is happy. For me best solution will be something similar to this: 1910

• According to Austro-Hungarian census of 1910, the Bačka region (Bačka-Bodrog county) had 812,385 inhabitants. Population by language :
• Hungarian = 363,518 (44.75%)
• German = 190,697 (23.47%)
• Serbian = 145,063 (17.86%) (*)
• Slovak = 30,137
• Russniak = 10,760
• Croatian = 1,279 (*)
• Romanian = 386
• other languages = 70,545 (for the most part Bunjevac and Šokac) (*)

1948

According to Yugoslav census of 1948, the Bačka region has population of 807,122, including:

• 307,343 (38.07%) Hungarians
• 303,664 (37.62%) Serbs (*)
• 88,491 (10.96%) Croats (*)
• 36,041 (4.44%) Slovaks
• 17,269 (2.18%) Rusyns
• 10,638 (1.32%) Germans

Can somebody please say what is wrong with this census data without any comment ?? Rjecina 07:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree if we remove comments from census 1941, comments from 17xx etc. I support either abolutely no comments or comments with appropriate weights. Fcsaba 18:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK we will write that first modern census has been Austrian census of 1860. With that will everything be OK ? Rjecina 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If we want to do this then we must lay out a very clear proposition, that also covers the intro and everything and then vote on it, so later it can only be changed by another bigger consensus of editors (wikipedia works on consensus). Until the vote starts feel free to modify the proposal, I just tried to collect what was talked about above.Hobartimus 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSAL A. The intro is only 1 sentence (suggested by Rjecina) "The first modern census with reliable data was the 1860 Austrian census." After this comes all the census data as now but without ANY commentary, the first census will be the 1860 census if we find it's data and after that every census comes, with no other comments. These include the following censuses (more can be added if found) 1910, 1921, 1931, 1941, 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001.

Well, if no one else opposes, I'll support this solution - despite it's not standard practice at all. See Demographic history of Montenegro, Demographic history of Vojvodina, Demographic history of Serbia, etc... --PaxEquilibrium 14:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As already several times mentioned, I support 2 types of proposals:

• Facts without any comment. This would be a simple solution, but not the best. Let's say 3 out of 5. (Or, if every available data is transmitted, then let's say 4, but never 5.)
• Fact with some comments, BUT:
  • The facts themselves shouldn't be overstressed. (I.e. to explain what x% exactly means. Wikipedia readers souldn't be considered as stupid.)
  • If we mention something, and something else with is essentially the same as before, and the only difference is the "prefix", then that other thing has to be mentioned, too.
  • Sentences which are not true or at least very disputed, shouldn't be written as facts.

The second solution could be better (theoretical chance for 5 out of 5, which is the final goal of the Wikipedia's articles quality), but could be worse (1 (or at most 2) out of 5, as it was written originally, mostly by Pannonian).

The reason why I am writing so much here it that I was the person who started to dispute the neutrality of some certain points of the original article.

One final thing: I am ready to participate in a normal discussion with open-minded, clever and kind partners. But I have to say that I don't consider user Panonian to be such an editor. A person who cannot accept that there are other viewpoint than his, a person who simpy can't make difference between arguments and semblances, a person who is "able" to deduce that somebody wants to perform genocide against a nation from nothing - I don't think that such a person can be a real discussion partner. (This is what I've learnt in this discussion, which is in fact my first contribution on the English Wikipedia.)

Many thanks for editors who also have taken part in this discussion, helped me and helped Wikipedia to be improved!

Fcsaba 07:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• support Hobartimus 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  support Rjecina 8:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  support Fcsaba 07:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for comments

As result of a very long discussion currently there are no comments at the cesus data at all, which is in fact neutral but not a perfect solution. The result of the voting is 3:0, but the user Panonian, who a consider a key person regarding to this topic, haven't voted.

Going further, I have a proposal regarding to some comments. I agree with Panonian that some data has to be explained. My proposal is the following (as a whole, so I don't agree that some of them will be inserted and some not; I've tried to collect the fact to be as neutral as possible).

• XVIII. century: we can mention the results of the 171x censuses, without any comment.
• XIX. century: we can mention the colonization, as many nations were settled there (especially Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks etc.) I don't agree to emphasize that it was basically a Hungarian colonization, because not only Hungarians were settled, and even the migration wasn't conducted by the Hungarian government.
• Magyarization up to WW1: it is a question of fact, then the assimilation was stronger than a natural one. I agree to mention this fact. Don't use phrases like "Hungarian nationalism", jut mention the facts.
• Slavization between the 2 WWs: it is a question of fact, that the same happened after WW1 as before WW2, only the sign was inversed: then the Serbian (Yugoslav) power tried to Slavize the non-slav population. Many Hungarians were expelled and Serbs were settled, the authorities have decided in many cases arbitrary who is Slav and who not etc. (I don't agree with Panonian who says that we shouldn't mention Slavization because there wasn't such an official Slvization politics as it was Magyarization before WW1, because the result was the same.)
• Events during WW2 and just after: we can mention that the territory was taken by the Hungarian administration (or something like this; avoid phrases like occupation and eliberation, let's stick to neutral phrases). Don't mention words like "fascist", "Axis" etc., because these are disupted, and not really important in an article about a demographic history. We can mention the Újvidék cold days, the Jews, Roma, ... victims, the ethnic relocations (Serbs out, Hungarians in). Then we can mention the massacre between Hungarians and Germans, almost the complete relocation of Germans (mentioning that some of them were escaped from the partizans and the Red Army troops, and others were relocated by the Yugoslav authorities).
• We can mention that the results of the censuses conducted by the Hungarian administration are disputed by Serbs, and vice versa, and this is especially true to censuses 1921, 1931 and 1941. (Even the results of the current censuses are disputed by many people!)
• We can refer to the slow decreasing the number of minorities, especially Hungarians, which is reasoned by the emigration, the low birth rate and the natural assimilation.

Please put your votes here!

Fcsaba 07:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

vote on what? To have any effect consensus needs to be made on exact wording down to the level of "or"s and "but"s. "We can mention ... " type stuff can be interpreted like 50 different ways. Also it was more like 4-0 with the vote of Pax Equil, and voting ran for a large amount of time. It is very much too soon to change anything here, there are lot of other important articles to work on. Hobartimus 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that this is not a precise wording; I just wanted to give a frame for the basis. Sorry, I've missed the vote of PaxEquilibrum.

Now we have a common basis which shows only the bare numbers. But PaxEquilibrum wrote: "it's not standard practice at all", Panonian wrote "some census results require further explanation", and I repeat myself "Facts without any comment. This would be a simple solution, but not the best. Let's say 3 out of 5." So I feel there is a common need for explanation. That's why I wanted to give a frame for the explanation. I tried to be as neutral as possible. I considered that this is a good algorith to agree in the main frames, and later we can discuss in wording. I think in the original article text there were huge problems with the basis, not only with the wording, and it was hard to explain why something wasn't acceptable without affecting almost the whole text.

I am ready to accept the proposal to wait a while with this topic, if also other people think so.

Fcsaba 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not open again this Pandora box. This solution is compromise and always when we have compromise situation is not perfect but everybody say something like:"I am not happy but it is OK". It is very hard to imagine that users from different states will be happy with new proposition. Let this article stay with this solution 12 months of more then try again latter to change article. If we have population data for Bačka in XIX century(1860 ?, 1880 ?) then all about colonization will be clear without need to say anything. We need this data .. Rjecina 06:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Censuses

Now, comparing current and older version of this article, we can see that results of early censuses from 1715, 1720, etc were simply deleted with exaplanation that only results of "modern demography censuses" should be listed here. the question is: who decided what "modern" census is and despite of the interpretation of the term "modern", why only results of censuses described as "modern" by somebody should be listed here? is the problem in fact that census from 1715 list that serbs are majority and somebody do not like that fact or is it something else? so, I am asking gentlemens that were involved in editing of this article to explain why results of censuses from 1715 and 1720 should not be posted and if valid explanation is not provided, this info shouls be included into article. 212.69.2.147 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding this sentence: "because first modern census is from 1860 earlier numbers are under dispute by Hungarian and Serbian historians" - which historians exactly dispute results of earlier censuses and by which words they dispute it and because of what reason? what I have here is example of exactly opposite issue: http://hic.hr/books/seeurope/011e-bognar.htm - author of this book is an Croatian (or Hungarian) historian Andrija Bognar (cannot be said for sure because of his surname), but the point is that whole text have clear anti-Serb agenda and it is full of speech of hate against Serbs, so we can assume that this author would not write something in favour of Serbs, but he wrote exactly that: in another words, writing about history of Bačka, this author also wrote this: "According to the censuses conducted by Austria in 1715 and 1720, Serbs and Croats comprised of 97.6% of the Backa population. There were only 530 or 1.9% Hungarians and 0.5% Germans (Kocsis K., 1989)." so, it is clear that this anti-Serb author accepting results of 1715 and 1720 censuses as valid (no matter that these results claim that Serbs are majority in Bačka). Furthermore, Bognar mention that his source for these census results is Kocsis K (which is in fact Kocsis Karoly - another author with anti-Serb agenda). so, if these two propagators of anti-serbism do not dispute results of 1715 and 1720 censuses, which other authors would do that? I believe that claim that "earlier numbers are under dispute by Hungarian and Serbian historians" are just unsorced claims of some Wikipedia editors and are example of POV fork and original research not supported by the sources. Any comment about this? 212.69.2.147 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear IP there were many problems relating to this article and we came to an agreement long ago that the article will contain only reliable data and no commentary. There are no reliable censuses before 1800 anywhere in the world not even England the most advanced country in the time period. If we start using unreliable data (e.g estimates) we must should gather all estimates for population in 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500 etc. Hobartimus (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Who came to agreement? 3 Croatian and Hungarian editors without any Serb or neutral editor? very interesting agreement indeed. besides, I do not see that agreement was about census from 1715, but about whether descriptions should be added for other censuses, and, as for reliable data, as I explained census from 1715 is not considered unreliable even by anti-Serb historians, so who exactly claim that this census is not reliable? you perhaps? what exactly you consider unreliable in this census? and yes, it was not estimate, it was real census, I have a whole book about this census with names and surnames of the people in every village - the name of the book: Ivan Jakšić, Iz popisa stanovništva Ugarske početkom XVIII veka, Novi Sad, 1966. I do not see a reason for your censorship attempts here. 212.69.2.147 (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

eh, and if you claim that censuses before 1800 are not reliable (which you yet have to prove by sources or quotations), why you deleted results of census from 1820? (I would be happy to hear your answer to this question). 212.69.2.147 (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

3 editors in whatever distribution is certainly more than 1 IP I don't have to prove anything to you, you need to read the previous discussion where this was agreed. And really it's not hard to understand that in 1710 they did not have the technology to conduct a reliable census anywhere in the world not just in Hungary. You seem pretty well versed in wiki rules maybe you had accounts before so you know that consensus can change but not in an 1-1 situation we have here, in this case previous consensus stands. Hobartimus (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not "1 IP", but editor like yourself and I do not see that it is against Wikipedia rules to edit articles with IP number (contrary to this, it is against rules to insult me like this). also, these other editors that you speak about are no longer active here as I see, so only two of us are here now and it is me with whom you have to make new agreement (and since Wikipedia is open for new edits and inclusion of new data, I do not see why would you be so desperate to "defend" an outdated version of this article and not allowing to other people to edit it? I read previous discussion and I do not see there an explanation why 1715 census would be unreliable. so, I asked you to provide such explanation here and I do not see why you refuse to do that. you wrote only this: "And really it's not hard to understand that in 1710 they did not have the technology to conduct a reliable census anywhere in the world not just in Hungary. " - so I asking you: 1. to which technology you refer to, 2. how exactly this technology would make census reliable or not, and 3. even if census is considered unreliable by some authors, why we should not include its results into article with proper explanation that it is not considered reliable by some authors? - Wikipedia is here to collect and present all human knowledge and all opinions about this knowledge, and I do not see why you think that only you should decide which knowledge should be presented and which should not. 212.69.2.147 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, this article should contain a new section named "Census methodology" which should contain explanation of methodology used in every census from 1715 to 2002 with all opinions about these methodologies and reliability of the censuses. what is your opinion about this proposal? 212.69.2.147 (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And finally, as I see, the consensus of 3 editors that you speak about was not at all about inclusion/exclusion of 1715 census results, but about issue whether to include or not explanations for some other censuses. 212.69.2.147 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In wiki terminology Editors refer to people with a registered account, while IP refers to IPs. For example it is possible that a Serbian editor has an account then logs out and comes here as an IP, with an IP it's always unsure who wrote a particular comment. "even if census is considered unreliable by some authors" it can be considered by reliable by noone as no reliable census existed in the world before a certain date. Debating this is meaningless do you think there was a reliable census in 1700 anywhere in the world? And also what does the census count exactly? In current Serbian census what do they count? Citizens, residents, immigrants, tourists? They count only citizens right? Not immigrants or colonizers, was this true in the 1700 census or did they count immigrants and colonizers as well together with the citizens? Hobartimus (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant who wrote a comment if this comment raise a questions that should be answered (and if you would rather speak about identity of people who raise questions instead about question itself that will led us nowhere). As for reliability of censuses, it is fact that censuses from 1910 or from 1941 are also considered unreliable by many authors and yet, their results are listed here, so why censuses from 1715 and 1720 would be different? also, even last two censuses from 2002 and 1991 were conducted with little different methodology, so using your argument we could say that census from 1991 is also not reliable because it was not conducted with methodology from 2002 census. census from 1715 recorded all citizens that lived in Bačka and that were obligated to pay taxes to Habsburg authorities, so the only objection to reliability of the census that we can raise here is the one that some citizens (those that did not had to pay taxes or those that avoided paying) were not listed in census, but this would change only total number of citizens, which would be little higher than the one presented in census results (this however would not have impact on ethnic composition of the area presented in census analysys since we know that most of the people who avoided to pay taxes were Serbs). regarding your question about immigrants, Serbian census from 2002 count all people that live in Serbia more than 5 years as permanent residents, so if you want to designate as immigrants those people that were settled in Bačka in year 1690, they lived in Bačka for 25 years in the time of 1715 census, which is more than enough to satisfy methodology used in 2002. Finally, regarding 1715 census results themselves, they did not recorded language or ethnicity of the people as such, but scientific analysys of the names and surnames of the people provided us with data about ethnic background of the people. As I said, I have entire book with results of censuses from 1715 and 1720 and I will give you an example of these results: here are some names of the people recorded in 1715 census in town Futog: Jovan Blagojevics, Radoszav Tabak, Jovan Opancsar, Osztoja Csurcsia, Csiro Futocsanin, etc, etc...so, even written with Hungarian alphabet, it is clear that those are Serbian names, and, as I already pointed out in my previous post, this analysys was also accepted by Hungarian historian Karoly Kocsis, so I see no reason not to include 1715 and 1720 census results with proper explanation of their methodology. 81.18.63.100 (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

1715 census

Please, what is the problem with the use of the census numbers? The sources (a Prof. dr. by the way) uses them just fine. Since this is clearly a reliable source, there should be an equally reliable rebuttal of the factual accuracy of the numbers provided before they get deleted in a snap. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The accepted proposal

Since there seems to be confusion I copied here the accepted consensus proposed earlier. Everything is copied from above but some are bolded for better visibility because it was hard to find

PROPOSAL A. The intro is only 1 sentence (suggested by Rjecina) "The first modern census with reliable data was the 1860 Austrian census." After this comes all the census data as now but without ANY commentary, the first census will be the 1860 census if we find it's data and after that every census comes, with no other comments. These include the following censuses (more can be added if found) 1910, 1921, 1931, 1941, 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001.

• Well, if no one else opposes, I'll support this solution PaxEquilibrium 14:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  support Hobartimus 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  support Rjecina 8:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  support Fcsaba 07:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if these 4 users agreed about something two years ago, Wikipedia articles are open for new edits and improvements and new consensuses could be achieved after new arguments are presented. These users that you mentioned are no longer active, so, Hobartimus, it is me and user Wladthemlat with whom you have to reach new consensus here. Here are valid arguments: title of the article is not "List of modern censuses conducted in Bačka" but "Demographic history of Bačka", which mean that any data from any census and population estimation could be presented and thus 1715 and 1720 census results are valid info to be presented here (or you have any reasonable argument against this?). I also do not understand why you reverting improvement of content table or demographic maps for 1868 and 1880. Please explain yourself here. PANONIAN 10:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wladthemlat's revert was a simply wikistalking here and he has recently been riding his 4th block out in the last period of 30 days, of which the expiration time is a whole week, so if i were you i wouldn't count on his help.

I think it is understandable that you have been requiring if anybody revert your edits, give an explanation to you, why he is doing so. But you shouldn't be astonished at Hungarians mistrustful in connetion with all your edits. You have been declared your opinion about Hungarians which is not too flattering towards them / us. And it is also well-known that you often make misleading maps. I couldnt tell another one example for it, exclude yours, whose map was deleted from wikimedia commons and then i didn't even mention your message at Hobartimus' talk page. Thereafter i do not understand your aim is what with those census records. May you want to prove that Serbs have more right to live in the Bácska than that of Hungarians? Likewise, i do not know Andrija Bognar and Jovan Pejin are who. With Serbia having recently lost its wars, its historians might have been making sources from political reasons. And even if every word they have written is true, are you sure your addition

was made in proper format? Just because i do not think so. It is obvious that those census records could not have been very exact at the time. They would be better in a table format, highlighting remarking that they aren't exact. They are showing just a tendency.--Nmate (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nmate, first, would you be so kind to try to improve your English since I have problem to understand you. Second, why yo reverted just ALL my edits? - with what exactly you do not agree in my edits? if you do not agree with adition of census numbers, why you reverted improvement of content table, improvement of categorization, addition of historical ethnic maps, etc, etc? this is clear example of vandalism from your side - it is one thing if you revert something with which you do not agree, but if you revert article in the way you did, it is vandalism. Can you at least try to explain why you reverted just all my edits? other things: where exactly I "declared my opinion about Hungarians" and what that opinion might be according to you? - it would be nice that you quote where and when I "declared" such thing and if you cannot do it please refrain yourself from such accusations. Also, which of my maps is considered misleading by you and which one was deleted from commons? - if you raise those questions, you should provide detailed elaboration of your claims, so that I can give you an answer. As for my aim with census records: my aim is to improve Wiki article and to present historical data to Wiki readers. What is your aim for not allowing to readers to see that historic data? As for Andrija Bognar, he is actually Hungarian historian, and he has clear anti-Serb attitude in his work that I used as Internet source, and exactly the fact that such Serb-hating ultra-nationalist like him did not alowed to himself to lie and falsify census results is the proof that such results are correct. As for table format, it is not good idea since censuses do not show same data, i.e. some censuses show ethinicity, some show language and those are different subjetcs that could not be easy incorporated in one single table. PANONIAN 20:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My English has been improving. However, if you are getting at, i have also to tell you that your English isn't always correct even if I understand your sentences well. Because that you keep using the simple present and the simple past tenses! But it is not an issue here right now.

Is he Andrija Bognar?[3] Because if so, this source would be acceptable to me since he is an outsider member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. --Nmate (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is the source: http://hic.hr/books/seeurope/011e-bognar.htm - title is "Prof. dr. Andrija Bognar, THE STATUS OF HUNGARIANS IN VOJVODINA FROM 1918 TO 1995" and in the middle of the article there is this sentence: "According to the censuses conducted by Austria in 1715 and 1720, Serbs and Croats comprised of 97.6% of the Backa population. There were only 530 or 1.9% Hungarians and 0.5% Germans (Kocsis K., 1989)." - i.e. author of the article is Andrija Bognar and he claim that his source for these census numbers is Kocsis K, another Hungarian historian. So, is this source acceptable for you then? PANONIAN 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Until we get a new agreement, the old consensus presumably holds. If someone wants to propose something new and discuss it, go ahead but discussion happens here not in the article body. There was a lot of information that was removed after the old agreement, if consensus will change after discussion, a lot of things will be needed to added. For example material, concerning the mass murder of more than 40 000 Hungarians, committed by Serbs exactly in this area and many other topics. These will all have to be inserted if there is a new consensus that says research by Serb and other historians and commentary can be inserted. Hobartimus (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion that got completely ignored and you have not replied to the messages I left on your talk, I assumed the issue is solved.

The mass murder doesn't seem to fit into the article, it is demographic history and I think the current form of the article (i.e. listing the censuses and thus documenting the demographic and etnographic development) should be preserved, but the pre- 1860's censuses should be added. There is no reason for them to be excluded - reliable sources use them, they are presented as they are with the methodology mentioned, so no confusion can arise. I also do not understand why you bind one change to another into a package stating if something gets added, then something else must be added as well, which is a complete nonsense. Each issue gets discussed and decided upon, to pre-establish an interconnection between them is a bit dishonest. The issue I have been trying to discuss for some time now are the censuses and their inclusion has not yet been refuted. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

if something gets added, then something else must be added as well as far as I see it there is a consensus version of this article until it gets changed by a new consensus of editors. The current text (at the top of this thread) states that only reliable census data is listed and everything else is not, this means that speculation based on people's names by Serbs, commentary and other stuff is not included, all of it. This includes all information, things that could be missing from the article etc etc. If this consensus gets changed and inserting research of Serb historians is possible then obviously findings of non-Serb historians can be inserted as well. The main point of that consensus was stability and stopping constant arguing over what gets included. Hobartimus (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a consensus version, but that doesn't mean it cannot be slightly modified by a new consensus. It doesn't necessary mean, that the article will need complete overhauling. Each change that you'd like to introduce can be discussed here, they can be decided upon separately, however.

The problem is, that it is not up for this talk page to decide whether certain census data is or is not reliable. As far as I can tell, the results are listed in a reliable source (that's the criterion that should be discussed here), they do not include any commentary and are not a result of a research, they are factual data gathered in the time period. I am not insisting on including commentaries or interpretations, just the data as it is. It is relevant to the article an could be interesting to the reader. It is not an issue of Serb vs. non-Serb historians, it is an issue of pre 1860 censuses or no pre-1860 censuses, regardless of nationality, the substance and prinsciple is what we should be talking here. This moreover has nothing to do with any other change you would possibly like to make to the article.

The data can be rendered unreliable only by an expert opinion, I have not seen anything like that in here. Moreover, you still did not eplain why the data is indeed unreliable, as it does not in any way state the percentages of the ethnic groups, only the percentages of the names and lets the reader to decide. To quote yourself:

This is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, everyone can decide for themselves wheter to beleive (sic) a census or not. You simply cannot put unreliable there as per wikipedia basic rules. [...].

You are doing way more than adding a commentary stating, that the census was unreliable. You are outright censoring the data not giving the reader any chance for the decision. Wladthemlat (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Censuses pt II

Could you please explain what is the problem with censuses that, whilst not operating with exact data, are clearly labeled as such and properly sourced? Wladthemlat (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had any interest at all in really editing this article you'd already know from the discussion above that a consensus of editors agreed that there were no reliable census data from before the 1800s, and as such none will be added and also to keep the article from speculation etc. Also if estimations and such were added, then all of them would have to be added and not selectively i.e data from 1500s 1300s etc etc. Hobartimus (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have any sources on the previous estimations, go ahead and add them. And please, do not point to the previous consensus already, it bears little weight. Debate to the point.

I.e. - what's unreliable on the censuses, who declared them unreliable and what is wrong with the wording you keep deleting? Wladthemlat (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

History declared them unreliable because censuses in the modern usage of the word didn't exist before a certain date. At certain point someone came around and wrote up the people who had to pay taxes. Didn't touch anyone who didn't have to pay, didn't ask them any questions as they started doing later on, about religion nationality etc. Hobartimus (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Again - who declared the censuses unreliable? You have any source that disputes the information or the methodology of the book they are taken from? If not, I'm sorry, but your theories on the matter are irrelevant. The section also clearly includes the info about the fact, that the censuses did not gather information on the ethnicity but that it can be deduced liguistically - fair and scientific.

The source is moreover academic, from an author that's an expert in the field, thus any deletion constitutes removal of reliable sources.Wladthemlat (talk)

You seem to have a problem of understanding. No serious person ever argued here that reliable censuses existed in 1700, and it wouldn't even help you as you are not even trying to insert 1700s data. What you are trying to insert is not census data created in 1700s so you seem to be stonewalling here by pretending to not understand. As you yourself explained the data is not from the 1700 because as you say some Serbs "fairly and scientificly deduced" something in the 1900s. It's not from the 1700s its not even close, so why are we arguing about something like this? When you insert the 1700s hard data that was created in 1700 (your not trying to do this) then It would matter. Of course if you looked at that data you would realize it's not anything close to what we are calling "census" in English currently. If we start inserting estimates and other such "deductions" then all estimates and other research going back to at least 1100 should be inserted. Hobartimus (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that i do not understand, but all you present here is your personal opinions and deductions and that's irrelevat. Either you have some sources disputing the data or you don't delete it. Wladthemlat (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the term 'colonization'

That the territory of Vojvodina was 'colonized' between 1715 and 1820 is entirely false. It was resettled, repopulated by Austrian authorities whose chief concerns were to make the land productive again so they could gain revenue, both from taxes and trade, and to create a bulwark against any future Turkish attack. As such they settled whatever people they could to repopulate it, Slovaks, Hungarians and Ukrainians from Upper Hungary which was among the least devastated regions during the Turkish Wars, Hungarians from Western Hungary which was also mostly spared, Germans from Alsace, Austria, Badan, Bavaria, Lorraine and Wurttemberg, Romanians from Transylvania and Wallachia and Serbs from Serbia, then in the Ottoman Empire. Their nationality didn't matter to the authorities in Vienna, only their productivity and loyalty to the crown.

Ethnic based settlement only came into play in the 19th century, and only after Hungary both got power in 1867 and managed to both get through the cholera epidemic of 1872-73 and establish a working financial system in 1875. The cholera outbreak was so severe as to cause the population of the Kingdom of Hungary to increase from 15,240,300 in 1869 to 15,642,100 in 1880 or by only 401,800 or 2.64%, compared with the roughly 10% per decade following 1880 up until WWI (11.65% from 1880-1890, 10.25% from 1890-1900, 8.48% from 1900-1910).

If anyone wishes to speak of colonization, one had Magyarization of increasing intensity from 1880-1918 (Hungarians gaining 5.5 percentage points for Vojvodina as a whole), mild Serbianization from 1920-1941, strong Magyarization from 1941-1944 and a large wave of 80,000 Serbian colonists planted in the region from 1944-1948 (Serbs increasing from 188,809 in 1931 to 303,664 in 1948 or by 60.83%, compared with the 18.95% growth between 1921 and 1931). Prior to 1880 and after 1948, one had natural processes of assimilation and emigration take place, while the settling of Serbian war refugees is a refugee issue, not a colonization one unless they are purposely being settled in Hungarian areas. Prussia1231 (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, mister Prussia1231, I see that you moved to Wikipedia from Balkan Forums. Anyway, I cannot agree with some of your claims. Firstly, one have to take into account that land of Bačka (and entire Vojvodina) was not "empty" in the time of Habsburg conquest. Two kinds of sources should be used for data about pre-Habsburg population of Vojvodina: 1. Ottoman tax records and 2. literary sources, especially the work of famous traveler Evliya Çelebi. Ottoman tax records are only partial sources since they mention only Christians who paying taxes to Ottoman authorities. Christians who are not paying taxes (for example those who served in Ottoman army) as well as Muslims were not mentioned in the tax records. So, if one read only Ottoman tax records, he would gain the wrong impression that land did not had many inhabitants. However, work of Evliya Çelebi can show us that land was in fact very populated and that it had some sizable Muslim or mixed Muslim-Christian cities (and there is info about Muslim peasants as well). Therefore, land was obviously not "empty" or "depopulated" in the time of Habsburg conquest. The problem with depopulation emanated only during and after Habsburg conquest when entire Muslim population was "ethnically cleansed" from the region and many local Serb inhabitants were killed during Habsburg-Ottoman wars, since they were soldiers who served in both armies. Therefore, the Habsburg censuses from 1715 and 1720 showed that land had low population density, but they also showed that it was populated by 97.6% South Slavs. O course, I can agree that one of the goals of Habsburg authorities was to "make the land productive again" by settling more people there, but ethnic and religious engineering was also important Habsburg goal. According to Habsburg plans, Serbs were encouraged to resettle into Military Frontier, while lands under civilian authority were planed to be populated with mainly Catholic population (not to mention plans of forcible conversion of Serbs into Catholicism, which were not implemented because of simple fact that Habsburg Monarchy needed Serb soldiers and therefore it had to gain them religious rights). Germanization and magyarization of the land were also among political goals (depending of which administrator or landowner conducted colonization) and there is info that Hungarian noble Gražalković (himself a magyarized South Slav) aimed to magyarize Bačka by colonization in the middle of the 18th century. It was him who settled Slovaks and Rusyns in Bačka, thinking that they will be more easily assimilated into Hungarians if they are separated from their ethnic core. Therefore, claim that ethnic and religious engineering did not existed in the 18th century is simply not correct and sources that I have are claiming quite opposite. Also, Serbs who settled in the area after 1918 done that largely because of economical reasons since Vojvodina was economically more developed than southern parts of Yugoslavia and there is no evidence that they settled there mainly in the name of "serbianization". Especially note that many of 1944-1948 Serb settlers were also refugees whose homes in other parts of Yugoslavia were destroyed by German occupational forces. So, the Yugoslav authorities decided that this refugee issue could be solved by giving those refugees the houses that were taken from local Germans. As for areas where Serb refugees from Yugoslav wars settled, it is questionable what we can describe as "Hungarian area". There are no many settlements in Vojvodina which are populated almost entirely by Hungarians and some settlements which are populated by more than 50% Hungarians are also populated by sizable Serb communities that comprising 20%, 30% or 40% of population of these settlements, not to mention that some of those were cousins of those refugees who came to the region during Yugoslav wars. Every citizen of Serbia, refugee or foreign immigrant is free to chose in which part of Serbia he will live and there is no law in Serbia or in other democratic countries that could regulate this differently. PANONIAN 10:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that Backa was empty or uninhabited, I said it was depopulated, that it's population was low as a result of war, famine and disease, lower than it would have been had there been no wars. I am not disputing the 1720 census data about the number of inhabitants, I was simply setting the pretext for why the Austrian authorities wished to settle people there--to repopulate it, much as they later did in Bukovina, which like Backa was sparsely populated, though I know of no wars in its vicinity to have caused that (though that's another topic entirely).

I also know of the religious issues, of the Hungarians and Slovaks initially having converted to Calvinism during the Protestant Reformation, and how the Austrians 're-converted' the majority of them to Roman Catholicism. At the same time, the Austrians backed the founding of the Greek Catholic Church in Transylvania with regard to around half of the Romanians as well as the Ukrainians of Transcarpathia. They even went so far as converting virtually all of the Czech population to Catholicism and trying to convert the Protestant population of Silesia to Catholicism, however that was only half successful and stopped after Protestant Prussia took de-facto control in 1742 ( confirmed 1748), so the religious plight of the Serbs was not a unique one, as it effected all other nationalities of the Austrian Empire.

As for the ethnic/nationality issue, I did not say it did not exist, I said it was not a part of the imperial policy until the 19th century, after the re-settlemt had been completed. The Austrian government had no 'goal' to make Backa a Hungarian territory, especially given the 'balancing' done by the Austrians up until 1867, doing so would have eliminated one of the forces they played off each other and made the Serbs an enemy in the process. Proof of that can be seen that despite Backa's close proximity to less devastated lands which still had their Hungarian populations, the Germans were initially settled in numbers nearly as large as the Hungarians, perhaps out of a lack of trust towards the inhabitants of Hungary by the Austrians due to the Kuric Wars (inhabitants of Hungary counting Slovaks as well given their allegiance) and due to an abundance of Catholic German inhabitants on which to draw from, given that until 1806, the Austrian Empires were Holy Roman Emperors, even if in name only. Furthermore, according to the 1880 census data which I'll post below after this, the overwhelming majority of the Hungarians were Catholic (just over 10% Calvinist), moreso than if one were to take a 'random sample' of the entire Hungarian population.

Given that Hungary was basically an Austrian province during the 18th century, Hungarians had little power to do anything, only the nobility wielded any power to speak of and even that was limited, mainly to economic grievances (taxes, estates, old freedoms, serfs). Not to mention that nationalism, although having sprung up repeatedly throughout history (French in the Hundred Years War, Czech during Hussite Wars, Polish during the Deluge and so on), never lasted any length of time until the 19th century, and even then, the Hungarians had no power until 1867, were without a pro Magyariazation leadership until 1871, and had to cope with both financial ruin and the cholera epidemic as I mentioned above.

Given the level of nationalism during the interwar period, there was obviously some Serbianization that accompanied the Hungarian flight (replacing public officials, teachers, merchants and so fourth), hence the using of the term mild. It was not as pronounced the assimilation flooding of the mainly Hungarian municipalities of Slovakia with Slovaks (comparing 1921 census data with 1930 census data shows a 3 fold Slovak increase, perhaps 2.5 fold if one counts Jews listing themselves as Slovaks in 1930 who listed themselves as Hungarians in 1921), nor was it akin to how the Romanians would view the Ukrainians of Bukovina in the mid to late 30s as 'Romanians who forgot their language.' Demographically speaking, there is no major 'boost' to the Serbian population between 1921 and 1931 which again shows that there were few to no signs of colonization, unlike what happened in Kosovo.

As for colonization, I only used that term for the 1945-1948 settlement because the inhabitants were virtually wholly Serbs, despite the fact that there are refugees from any sort of despotic dictatorships and occupation (Croatia, Romania and Slovakia all being nearly on par with Nazi Germany during WWII), which surprised me that there were no Croatian or Slovenian refugees, driven from their homes who were likewise settled there.

Currently speaking, I was saying that the refugee crisis should not be counted as colonization unless there are coordinated efforts to settle Serbs in the mainly Hungarian municipalities. Since I have heard of no such actions I'm saying it is not colonization, and the only colonization I'd speak of referring to the 90s was the Croatian colonization of the Krajina (the history, location, everything that happened with the Krajina and its population reminding me of the Sudetenland and it's population) and the colonization by all three parties of Bosnia given how it's borders were not drawn according to pre-war settlement patterns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussia1231 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

1880 Census Data

According to 1880 Hungarian census data that is broken down by county, district and municipality, the population of Bacs Bodrog county broke down as follows:

• 234,352 Hungarians or 36.73%
• 177,081 Serbo-Croats or 27.75%
• 162,894 Germans or 25.53%
• 24,761 Slovaks or 3.88%
• 7,294 Ukrainians or 1.14%
• 31,681 Others or 4.97%
• 638,063 Total

• 407,033 Roman Catholics or 63.79%
• 121,982 Greek Orthodox or 19.12%
• 57,238 Lutherans or 8.97%
• 24,227 Reformists or 3.80%
• 17,141 Jews or 2.69%
• 8,552 Greek Catholics or 1.34%
• 1,890 Others or 0.29%
• 638,063 Total Prussia1231 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographic history of Bačka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.talmamedia.com/php/district/district.php?county=B%E1cs-Bodrog
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811224233/http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf to http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)