Talk:Bačka

20th century history

Maybe it could be interesting how Hungarians think about the events on this territory. Here is the translation of the 20th century history of Bačka, from the Hungarian Wikipedia. This is the Hungarian point of view.

On 4th June, 1920 the most part of the Bácska, and a smaller part of Bánság were attached to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from Hungary, which was a looser in the first world war. Then begin a violent serbization, and only between 1920-1931 26 Hungarian villages turned into Serbian majority.

During the second Wolrd War the whole territory of the region got back for a shorter period to Hungary. Then székelys from Bukovina were settled to several villages (Hadikkisfalu, Velebit), who were later expelled by the Serbian state. Beginning of January, 1942 the local Hungarian authority started retaliatory actions, as a reaction of the growing number of partisan sabotage actions in the southern parts, which was called "cold days of Újvidék". Later it received a very great ethnic complexion, since among the 3309 victims 2550 were Serbs, and most of them were communists. The retaliation was stopped by the Hungarian government, and they paid compensation for the victims' families.

After loosing the second world war, Hungary had to resign again from the newly regained territories, and Bácska got back to Yugoslavia. Then a genocide was taken place in 1944-1945, and there were several ten tousands of Hungarian civil victims. The German popuilation was settled out or expelled by the Serbian government, and the Serbization of Bácska started again.

1950 the northern part of Bácska, belonging to Hungary became part of the newly created Bács-Kiskun county.

During the wars in 1991 and 1996, and later several thousands of Serbian settlers and exiles were settled by the Yugoslav government. This colonization process exists up to the present day. The left houses are bought by the state from the ex-residents, and then exiles are settled there.

Currently the sourthern part of Bačka, and one part of Srem and Banat form the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in Serbia. The cultural center of Vojvodina and Bačka is Novi Sad, which is located near the Danube.

I don't say this is the absolute and unattackable truth, but it contradicts a bit with the Serbian version. (This description wasn't written by me. I've just translated it.) That's a good example why I think this article is unbalanced, and I think not only the Serbian version can be written. Fcsaba 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not "Hungarian point of view", but "irredentist point of view". Of course, there is no surprise that this text does not speak about violent magyarizations and genocides that Hungarian troops commited against Serb civilians in 1703-1711 and in 1848-1849. (Panonian)

Of course, not, since this is only the 20th century chapter:-) Fcsaba 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But we can also ask why it is only 20th century chapter. Hungarian nationalists often avoid to talk about events and demographics from 19th and 18th century because number of Hungarians was much smaller and the ways how number of Hungarians increased in some areas are really not something of what Hungary or Hungarians should be proud of. PANONIAN 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear PANONIAN, the only one reason why this is the 20 century is that I've translated this. The former history of Bačka is also described, mentioning the 97%, too. Fcsaba 07:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but why you translated only this? PANONIAN 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To demonstrate that other people think it otherwise. The difference are obvious. If you want, I can translate the other parts, but I don't think it is important for my original, demonstration purposes. Fcsaba 07:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The fascists think that Jews or Africans are minor races, but that does not mean that we should to spread their "opinion" everywhere. Same thing is with "opinion" about Bačka that you translated. Wikipedia is a place where normal different opinions should be presented, but not "opinions" whose aims are to insult or to fulfil evil political goals. PANONIAN 23:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also false number of killed civilians in WW2, which was not 3,000, but 19,000 and claim that "retaliation was stopped by the Hungarian government" is simply ridiculous, because government started this "retaliation". And claim that it "paid compensation for the victims' families" is an outrage lie, because neither my family neither my cousins gained anything from that fascist government - they just were lucky to stay live until war came to end and Bačka was liberated from fascism. The lie is also that most victims were communists. Also, there is no mention that these "26 Hungarian villages turned into Serbian majority" in fact had Serb majority before 19th century. In another words, the text that you translated is just a political pamphlet written by Greater Hungarian irredentists, most likely the members of pro-fascist "64 counties movement" - you really should not read this kind of literature that aim to spread hate and start new wars. There are many reliable and respected Hungarian historians whose works you can read. I suggest that you read these Hungarian authors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Vojvodina#References Their works are not full of fascist ideology. And by the way, not to mention that this article on Hungarian Wikipedia is mostly written by user Outesticide who is well known Greater Hungarian nationalist. PANONIAN 10:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Outesticide and his political views, and I haven't said I agree with this text. I just wanted to show you that there are another viewpoints, and I refer to the NPOV again... Fcsaba 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But I know very well this user and his political views. Regarding other viewpoints, there is no problem with such viewpoints if they come from respected or reliable sources. In my work in Wikipedia I also used Hungarian sources, for example http://www.talmamedia.com/ is very good Hungarian web site with data from 1910 census, etc, etc. The problem appear if you use viewpoints of small marginalized groups that have clear political agenda. In another words, I have no problem with any facts - the only problem is the question where exactly we will present such facts. There are many ethnic groups living in Bačka and it would not be appropriate to use this article (which is about one geographical region) for writting history of Hungarian ethnic group. There is article named Hungarians in Vojvodina where all these things are already mentioned and I see no reason to mention them here. For example, if we start to write here about histories of all ethnic groups that live in the area, then we would also have to writte about history of Slovaks and I have very good data about all places in Vojvodina where Slovaks settled in the 18th century and were magyarized in the 19th century, thus their descendants now consider themselves Hungarians, but most still have Slovak surnames (for example, the mayor of Subotica, Geza Kučera, have also Slovak surname), etc, etc. Same apply to histories of Rusyns, Jews, Roma, etc. Therefore, there are separate articles that mention these things. PANONIAN 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why have you written what you've written, I'm just talking about different viewpoint and Wikipedia principle. And don't forget that even the fascist's viewpoint is a viewpoint, too. Fcsaba 07:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I written that to show you that there are 26 ethnic groups in Vojvodina and your attempts to writte here only about history of your own group is not fair towards other ethnic groups. I know that history of your ethnic group is most important for you, but it is not most important for Slovaks, Rusyns, Roma and other who also live here and have their ethnic histories. PANONIAN 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how your answer is related to my statement above. I am talking about viewpoints, and you are talking about the ethnic groups. (Of course for me my ethnic group is the most important, but I support the fair introduction of all the others.) Fcsaba 07:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But you do not talk only about viewpoints - some of your proposals were about question whether history of Hungarian ethnicity should be further elaborated here. PANONIAN 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because not 1 serious international source support PANONIAN he is starting old story about obscure books. Really sad. Fcsaba if you want to see something interesting you must to look article Borders before and after Yugoslavia, PANONIAN map of Serbia in 1918 and our discussion about this map. Discussion is on discussion page of article for which I have given you link. In last week I am fighting with PANONIAN that this fantasy map in which even Pecs is Serbian territory be deleted on wiki. ---Rjecina 19:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Story about "obscure books" is your old story, not mine. Also, I showed you many of what you would call "international source", so, I do not understand what exactly you speak about??? Regarding map, I explained issues about that map on the proper talk page and I have no reason to explain them here as well. PANONIAN 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I will write all problems with article Demographic history of Bačka:

• 1 speaking about magyarization during period 10 - 16 century in overview section. If you write that you must write about assimilation of local population in slavs during 6 - IX century. Do you think maybe that in time of Slavs coming Bačka has been desert ?
  • There is source that say that most of Romanized population left to south during barbarian invasions, but if we find source that mention romanized population that was assimilated into Slavs in this time, we can include that, of course. PANONIAN 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• 2 Census 1715, 1720 and 1820. This is old problem. Only Serb historians are having good census data for that period.
  • That is ridiculous. 1715 census data is taken from here and that is Croatian source, mister Rjecina: Andrija Bognar, Položaj Mađara u Vojvodini od 1918. do 1995., Međunarodni znanstveni skup "Jugoistočna Europa 1918.- 1995.", Zadar, 28.-30. rujna 1995. PANONIAN 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• 3 I do not see in this article census data for 1880, 1890, 1900. It is really interesting to see in article questionable census data, but in other side there is no real census data which everybody neutral can confirm !!
  • I have no source for censuses from 1880, 1890, and 1900, but I would also like to find such data because it would very well illustrate ethnic changes, i.e. decrease in the percent of Slavs and increase in the percent of Hungarians. PANONIAN 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• 4 Comment about magyarization in 1910 census. This comment together with failure to show census 1880, 1890, 1890 is creating misleading situation in which neutral user think that 1910 census is false.
  • I do not see how can somebody conclude that census is false when magyarization issue only explain how demographics has changed in this time (however, we have 1820 data, so the reader can compare the two). PANONIAN 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• 5 There is nowhere comment about assimilation of hungarians in Serbs but there is again question about hungary census data of 1941.
  • There was no assimilation of Hungarians into Serbs. Number of Hungarians decreased because of two reasons: 1. emigration, and 2. low birthrates. Regarding 1941 census, it was conducted during fascist occupation and is generally considered unreliable, i.e. as part of fascist propaganda. According to historian Zvonimir Golubović, results of this census are "not for public usage", but if we already presented them, we have to explain their nature. PANONIAN 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of all this reasons article is 100 % POV. ---Rjecina 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How can it be 100% POV when you objected only to 5% things in this article and you did not objected to rest 95%??? Regarding your objections, we both know that you do not care for this article, but you only came here tracking my contributions with aim to harassing me and spread false statements about my good faith work on Wikipedia attempting to discredit me. PANONIAN 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have come hear in july to show Fcsaba that he is your only victim. Many users after discussions with you have become afraid and stop editing anything which can make you angree or they have been become enough mad to broke rules of wiki and become blocked forever. Simply I have come on this page in 12 july to show Fcsaba that he is not alone. About article and census data my point is that not 1 data is OK before 1948 (maybe even 1953) ---Rjecina 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am real victim here (and Wikipedia project is a victim as well): I wrotte or edited many articles and draw many maps for Wikipedia in good faith and few users like you and Fcsaba comming here with aims that are completelly opposite to goals of Wikipedia (such aims include provocations, trolling, vandalism, disruption, making a point, making a politikal point, etc, etc). Therefore if users who came with such aims stopped editing after meetting me, that just mean that I done something good for Wikipedia. However, the main problem is large number of good faith users that left Wikipedia because of trolls like you and in the future something definitelly should be done about it. Until then, I can only promise that you will have very hard time with me if you do not decide to become useful editor. Regarding your claim about pre-1848 census data, can you explain reasons why you claim that this data is not ok? PANONIAN 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not fair saying that my goals are completely opposite of the goals of Wikipedia. Everything what I wrote was based on a certain Wikipedia principle, based with a link. I haven't made any vandalism, except the only time when I modified the article to be neutral. I just wanted to show you that a part of an article is not neutral, I've given a based description why, because I want Wikipedia to become a higher quality. The reason: maybe there are neutrality problems with articles dealing with another parts of the world, but if I don't see the POV tag, then I accpet what I read. Who else can attack the neutrality than somebody who knows the facts? If an article is not attacked as POV, that is considered to be neutral.

Would you deny that your basic aims in Wikipedia are political ones? (support for autonomy of Hungarians). It is not question whether you use Wiki principles to achieve your aims, but question is what is your aim. Regarding your history in Wikipedia, let just say that you know little too much about Wiki rules for new user (as you claim you are), thus we cannot know are you a sockpuppet of banned user VinceB who is known sockpuppeter (I will not claim that you are without hard proof, but I have right to suspect). Regarding neutrality of this article, I already answered you to your proposals and there is no reason for you to repeat same questions over and over when you already have answers for them. And if you want "Wikipedia to become a higher quality" then why you do not edit other articles as well? (your only edits on Wikipedia are discussions on talk pages with user PANONIAN). The "normal" Wiki users usually edit many articles about subjects that interest them and they do not have very good knowledge about Wiki rules, but not you - therefore I have every reason to suspect that you are sockpuppet created with one single purpose - to argue with user PANONIAN about Bačka (and not to mention that your knowledge about Wiki rules can indicate that you are here for very long time). In another words, you did not proved so far that article is not neutral (of course, I should not remove neutrality tag until the end of this discussion), and the only things that you presented as support for your claims are your personal opinions, not based in any reliable literature. PANONIAN 07:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I categorically deny that I want to use Wikipedia just for promote my political views. And I don't know what does it mean sockpuppet, but I think I am not that, I am a "real" person, a real user. I am not the banned user VinceB. You are right claiming that I haven't written any single article in Wikipedia, and that's true also for the Hungarian Wikipedia. (I have the same username there.) I'm just reading the articles, I correct the misspellings and some basic grammatical mistakes. And if something is not clear or I find not to be neutral, I write it on the discussion page. I've found many errors and POV things on Hungarian Wikipedia regarding to the Yugoslav wars. I have never modified even a single word which I consider not to be neutral - except the one you know. I think the quality can be enhanced not only by writing things, but also correcting them. I have recently moved and I have got a newborn baby, so now I don't have enough time to look for sources, but I have many of them. You can believe me that everything what I wrote is not my personal opinion, but these are widely accepted opinions among many Hungarians. Fcsaba 10:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not saw that you even "correct the misspellings and some basic grammatical mistakes" in English Wikipedia - the whole your "work" here is based on provocative hate-speech discussion about history of Bačka and from your contributions many people can assume that you are an sockpuppet created with one single purpose. The problem is that it is not easy to see if you are sockpuppet or not, so since I cannot prove that you are and since you cannot prove that you are not, let leave this question for now. As for "widely accepted opinions among many Hungarians", please tell me how exactly Hungarian baker and butcher could be relevant to say their "opinion" about history when history is the subject of historians? PANONIAN 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not about the bakers and butchers, but about the historian profession. If at least 9 of 10 books written by historians say the same, and at least 9 of the 10 journals say the same, then it can be a common opinion. This means if a baker of a butcher is interested in history, then they will read articlas saying that, and it is very probable that they accept that viewpoint. (And I'm not a sockpuppet.) Fcsaba 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But I was the one who presented here "common opinion" from various books including Serbian and Hungarian authors, while you presented only your own personal opinion without quoting reliable authors that would support it - that is what I spoke about. Regarding sockpuppetry, can you prove that you are not sockpuppet? PANONIAN 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the main problem with you is the dual standard: you want to explain the census data 1910, but you don't want to explain the census data 1948. You write for 1941 census data "not for public usage", but you cannot accept that the Hungarian think the same for censuses 1921 and 1931 as you think on the census 1941. (If the only problem is that you miss sources, I am going to provide as many as you wish, but I don't have enough energy to translate all of them.) And I think the dual standard is a kind of Serbian "sport": 10 years ago Serbia wanted freedom for Serbs in Bosnia, but denied even the autonomy from the Albanians in Kosovo. Now, as Kosovo is becoming independent, Serbia wants rights for the Serbs living in Kosovo, but denies the same rights from let's say Hungarians in Vojvodina. Fcsaba 12:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Every census was different, so there must be different standards for each of them - each of them was conducted in specific circumstances and therefore each need specific approach. The question how we would explain census from 1910 is not connected to the question how we would explain census from 1948 (and the thing that I really cannot understand is why you claim that 1948 census that show that Hungarians were largest ethnic group in the area is forged - would you claim that Yugoslav authorities forged the census to show Hungarians as largest ethnic group? I am sorry, but that is totally ridiculous). Also, I quoted a reliable historian who said that 1941 census data is "not for public usage", while you mentioned only your personal opinion, which is simply not enough, not to mention that you said that 1921 and 1931 censuses "recorded Hungarians as Serbs", and the very known fact is that these censuses recorded only language and religion, but not nationality (So, should we base changes in the article on claims of this kind?). Finally, accusing ME for politics of Serbian government (which I never supported, by the way) is something that is not worthy of commenting. When you replace your collectivistic consciousness with individualistic one and when you start to see people as PERSONS, not as members of this or that ethnicity, then we can have normal converzation. PANONIAN 07:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that you we will agree in first part of my statement. During Austro-Hungarian Empire Hungarians has wanted to show how great is number of Hungarians and Germans in today Vojvodina so in census of 1910 there will be little playing with numbers. Similar to that this will happen when Vojvodina will be part of Yugoslavia only now will be raised number of Serbs and lower of 2 other nationality (census 1921 and 1931). About census 1941 there will not be needed to say anything. Problem with census 1948 is that short time ago has been Ethnic cleansing so people have been afraid. All this census playing has created difference of 5 - 10 % but there is difference. For end I will only say that this is my personal thinking which is not possible to confirm with facts (census data), but many of your comment in article is personal thinking or in best way saying Serbian thinking (which is for example against Hungarian thinking). Last comment for today. To make data of 1921 census better it will be very good to add data from that year census of Hungarian Bačka so it will be possible to look this and 1910 census for population changes in that period ---Rjecina 23:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hungarians never wanted to show that number of Germans was larger - it was quite opposite. Regarding problems with 1910 census, the numbers there are not problem, but interpretations of these numbers - the main problem is that 1910 census did not recorded data about ethnicity, but only data about language and therefore we have problem if we want to exctract data about ethnicity from data about language. The Hungarian nationalists claim that everybody who spoke Hungarian language in 1910 was a Hungarian. However, that claim simply ignore the fact that there were many ethnic Jews who spoke Hungarian or other bilingual people, for example Bunjevci in Subotica, who spoke two languages, Hungarian and their native Slavic language. The basic fact that Jews and Bunjevci were not Hungarians (no matter that they spoke the language), show that we cannot see all speakers of Hungarian language from 1910 census as "ethnic Hungarians" - that is real problem, not the numbers itself. Regarding 1921 and 1931 censuses, I do not see how similar issue could exist there when all speakers of Serbo-Croatian language from that time were of South Slavic origin (If bilingual people who spoke both, Serbo-Croatian and Hungarian, were recorded only as Serbo-Croatian speakers that is no mistake because they were Slavs by origin, no matter that they were half-magyarized). Regarding 1948 census, please tell me how and why Yugoslav authorities would forge results of one census only to show there that Hungarians are largest ethnic group? - that have no any sense at all. Finally: 1, it is nice that you admitted that "this is your personal thinking which is not possible to confirm with facts", 2. please say which of my statements you claim to be "my personal thinking", 3. I am a person (or individual) and my words, comments and opinions are only mine, not "Serbian" (it is wrong to generalize things like this), and the opinions and comments of user:Fcsaba are only his own, not "Hungarian". Regarding 1921 census for Hungarian part of Bačka, I do not have such data. PANONIAN 07:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Observations on the Demographics section

Hi. I've been invited to comment on this issue and I would just like to make a few observations:

1. The demographics section is essentially filled with "Demographic history". This should be moved to a separate article, Demographic history of Bačka, with the Demographics section only reflecting current demographics, as well as a one- or two-sentence summary about historical demographics.

Ok, I moved most of the content to Demographic history of Bačka. PANONIAN 06:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1. There is controversy with regard to the censuses of 1921, 1931 and 1941 and their reliability. In order to maintain a NPOV, I suggest that Wikipedia first introduces the results of the census neutrally and without any value judgements, and then inserts sourced commentaries on the census. So, instead of writing "According to unreliable Hungarian census from 1941", it should just be "According to the 1941 census conducted under Hungarian occupation..." This should of course be followed by a sourced statement such as "This census is often considered unreliable, however, insert reason, insert source". The POV of Hungarian historians should also be presented: "On the other hand, source XYZ claims that the census was reliable" or whatever.

Or, even phrase "Hungarian occupation" has a negative meaning. If we use term "Hungarian occupation" for 1941-1944, then we could use Serbian occupation for the rest, according to the neutrality. Occupation from one hand is liberation on the onther hand and vice versa. I would suggest using Hungarian governance. Fcsaba 12:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What negative meaning? Occupation and partition of Yugoslavia was not recognized by international community and therefore it is correctly called occupation, no matter if those who supported such occupation like it or not. And what "Serbian occupation" you speak about when this territory was internationally recognized as Yugoslav/Serbian? Seems that you do not understand what neutrality issue is about. Therefore, we cannot use term "Hungarian governance" because it was officially regarded as occupation by whole free World. PANONIAN 09:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding censuses, there is certain controversy about reliability of census from 1910 as well, but point is that censuses from 1910, 1921 and 1931 are seen as more-less correct, while census from 1941 is seen simply as fascist forgery that differ not only from Yugoslav censuses but from older Hungarian censuses as well. I also inserted source for this (source is never a problem but presentation is - we cannot present census conducted during fascist occupation same as data from other censuses conducted in normal circumstances). Regarding Hungarian sources, I would not object that we include opinions or reliable Hungarian historians. In fact I have one right here (Source: Istorija Mađara, Beograd 2002, written by Peter Rokai, Aleksandar Kasaš, Tibor Pal and Zoltan Đere): according to data presented in their book, Yugoslav territory occupied by Hungary (not only Bačka, but Bačka-Baranja-Međimurje-Prekmurje) had in 1941 a population composed of 301,000 Hungarians, 243,000 Serbs, 220,000 Croats, 197,000 Germans, 80,000 Slovenians, etc, etc, while 1941 fascist census recorded only in Bačka 358,531 Hungarians and 151,269 Serbs. PANONIAN 06:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My dear Panonian;-) This dispute is not about the facts, but how the facts has to be presented. You cannot claim something as absolute truth what is disputed by the others. You think censuses 1910, 1921 and 1931 more or less correct, but 1941 not. I say the census 1941 was more or less correct, too, but there are problems with censuses 1921 and 1931. That's my opinion, but I don't claim it as a general truth which must be accepted by everybody. I agree with the commentator's opinion. Fcsaba 12:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very important who is the one who dispute something - I just showed to you data presented by reliable Hungarian historians and therefore if Serbian, Slovak, Hungarian and international historians agree about something then that would be close to "absolute truth", no matter of the view of few minority historians which are not generally accepted as valid (There are for example also claims that aliens visited Earth in the past or that ancient Christian civilzation lived in America 2000 years ago, but these views are not generally accepted as valid. Of course, there are Wikipedia articles where such views could be presented, but there are also articles where such views do not belong because of its controversy). And again: it is not what "I think" or what "you think" about these censuses, but what historians think about them - if you want to prove your point, then please stop saying what YOU think or YOU say, but try to quote opinion of any reliable historian. PANONIAN 09:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The same should be applied to the 1921 and 1931 censuses which, according to User:Fcsaba are considered unreliable by Hungarian sources. Similar to the example above, the results should be presented neutrally, and then followed by a sourced commentary about why the results are considered unreliable by some (i.e. "Source ABC claims, however, that the censuses undercounted the number of ethnic Hungarians", or whatever").

As I said, 1910 census is also considered unreliable, but it is not mentioned here. You will ask why not. Because censuses from 1910, 1921, and 1931 were in most part reliable and certain mistakes that could be founded in certain parts of them does not mean that we should mention them here as "generally unreliable". These censuses were generally reliable, with certain mistakes in their methodology, but opposite to this 1941 census was generally unreliable. PANONIAN 06:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1. If there are allegations that the censuses are unreliable, it should be explained why. Consider questions like: In what way are they unreliable? Do they undercount certain groups? Were they boycotted by certain groups? Were the results falsified for political reasons? In short, what the reasons that your source provides for its assertion of unreliability?

It was conducted during occupation in the time when somebody who said that he is Serb could be killed because of that. Is that enough for explanation of census methodology? Numerous Serbs stated in census that their language is Hungarian simply because of fear for their lives. PANONIAN 06:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you want to say, but in 1921 and 1931 for example Hungarian people who had Serbian origin family name were registered as South Slaves, even if they didn't speak a word in Serbian. Just a contorversary example... Fcsaba 12:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Provide a proof for this please. However, even if there were few cases of what you say, that still was not general practice in the census, thus you cannot claim that whole census is not reliable because of few minor mistakes (such minor mistakes could be found in every single census in this World). PANONIAN 09:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

By following the above, I think the dispute can be resolved quite easily. It's simply a matter of presenting data to the reader and then neutrally explaining why there might be some reliability issues with that data. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But data from 1941 census cannot be presented in same way as data from other censuses. I explained why. PANONIAN 06:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You think, and you are free to think so. But there are other people on the planet, who may not think as you... Fcsaba 12:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. I think nothing. I just say what I read in history books. I will repeat: it is irrelevant what me or you think about that, the only important thing is what relevant historians think and you so far did not presented opinion of any relevant historians to back your claims. PANONIAN 09:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted small part of section which speak about magyarization in 1910. Reason for deleting is POV statement without any source which speak about effects of magyarization. About PANONIAN last comments I can only say that greatest problems are this "history" books from war time period. Rjecina 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I added few sources there (if that is your only objection) - magyarization is very known issue from end of 19th and beginning of 20th century. And history books that I mention are mostly not published during "war time period" neither they speak about war disputes (these books speak about history of Vojvodina which was not related to any war). PANONIAN 19:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest changes

The new statements would have to be justified if somebody (User:92.60.225.220 ) wanted bigger changes in this article. There are too many statements without reference. It is not working on wikipedia. Moreover the editing looks like a sort of nationalist point of view.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your revert looks as nationalist edit to me. If previous edits are unreferenced then please post "citation needed tag" and somebody will provide reference. I can provide reference for most these things since I have many history books about Vojvodina, just tell me what you want to be referenced and it will be done. PANONIAN 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not right, you can not alter entire articles without justification. The new editing does not have sources. This article is just a mess.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please post "citation needed" tag to each statement that should be referenced by your opinion. However, I do not understand what problem you have with info that Bačka is a typical Slavic name form, that Serbs subsequently migrated from this region to Balkans, that first župan of Bačka was Vid, etc. These are correct and well known things and you have no single reason to blank that info. PANONIAN 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of different theories about that. What you are saying is just one of the possibilities.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

About what exactly? Perhaps Slavic homeland was in Balkans and Slavs migrated from Balkans to Ukraine and Poland? We can discuss each info from the article here if you want. Just be more specific and say what things are problematic by your opinion? PANONIAN 17:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And speaking about your own behavior, Fakirbakir, can you explain why you added this false data into Syrmia article claiming that Muhammad al-Idrisi mentioned that "entire region of Srem was inhabited by Hungarians", while from this source that you provided is undoubtedly clear that Idrisi only mentioned "nomadic way of life of people in Franca Villa" and that sentence that speaks about Hungarians in Syrmia does not come from him. I really do not know why you twisted data from this source like that, but if that was your intention then you are last person which have right to object to unsourced edits of other users. PANONIAN 18:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I mentioned written sources about Syrmia from the middle ages. Al-Idrisi, Ioannes Kinnamos, Niketas Choniates, Patriarch Michael. I could provide more sources if you required that. Historians states, Al- Idrisi (and the recited authors) confirmed Hungarian presence. There is no just one historical possibility of course. We have to mention everything what we know about the subject.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Man, the only thing that Idrisi mentioned according to this source was "nomadic way of life of people in Franca Villa". He did not said a word about Hungarians as far as this source is concerned. Sentence about "Hungarians in entire Srem" clearly came from modern authors of that book (i.e. Derek Keene, Balázs Nagy, Katalin Szende), while it is not quite clear from the text whether Ioannes Kinnamos, Niketas Choniates and Patriarch Michael are confirming that "Hungarians lived in entire Srem" or that "they were stock-breeders". That is all that we can read from that source. Sentence that you included into Syrmia article (that Idrizi mention Hungarians in entire Srem) is simply not supported by this source. That is whole point. PANONIAN 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I included few references into article, so please tell me what else should be referenced? PANONIAN 23:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Outesticide

Ok, Wiki rules are to be respected and if someone conduct revert warring talk page is a place where this kind of disruption should be elaborated. Man can feed his soul from two sources: love or hate. It really amuse me how much of their own free time are some people ready to spend to feed their hate and to spread it around. It amuse me how some Greater Hungarian nationalists are still dreaming that borders will be changed and that they again will rule over "minor races". Justice for Hungary was served in Trianon. In modern free and democratic World it is not acceptable that an local minority rule over local majority. Bačka is majority Slavic, so attempts of asserting an aggressive Hungarism in article about Bačka cannot have other interpretation but one that the person who trying to assert that thinks that in some close or distant future Bačka will be attached to Greater Hungary in which local Hungarian minority will rule over local Slavic majority. Nationalism, ethnic oppression and genocide are examples of poisonous legacy that Hungarian rule left in Bačka. So, justice for Bačka was served in Trianon. 1921 census clearly showed that 3 largest cities of Bačka (Novi Sad, Sombor and Subotica) were mainly inhabited by Slavs. 1910 census also does not deny that. Correct interpretation of 1910 census can show that many bilingual local Slavs were listed as "speakers of Hungarian language" in 1910 census. Nothing else cannot explain difference between 1910 and 1921 census data in Subotica. Correct interpretation of 1921 census data show that population of Bačka included about 40% Slavs, about 35% Hungarians and about 23% Germans. Due to the fact that Germans are Indo-Europeans linguistically and ethnically very close to Slavs they could be rather associated with Yugoslavia than with Hungary. Indeed, some local Germans have sent a notes to the Paris Peace Conference that their settlements should be assigned to Yugoslavia and not to Hungary. Clearly, southern and western Bačka was mainly inhabited by Slavs and Germans. North-eastern part was mainly inhabited by Hungarians, but this area was just a surroundings of Subotica, an city with Slavic majority. Same situation in north-eastern Bačka is valid today. Subotica has clear Slavic-speaking majority, but Hungarian nationalists are claiming that it is "Hungarian" city and that its local Hungarian minority should rule over its local Slavic majority. There is no Great World power of today that can support this and most Hungarians are aware of that fact. Some individuals who are thinking otherwise are in a great delusion. All military and political interventions of Great World Powers in some parts of the World in recent times were conducted with a goal of protecting oppressed local majorities. They never supported an local minority in their aspiration to rule over local majority. Democracy simply does not work like that. The problem is that some people who supporting backward anti-democratic ideas are trying to use Wikipedia articles for their propaganda, thinking that presidents Obama and Sarkozy will read that and will start military intervention due to the things that they read in some Wikipedia articles. Completely ridiculous thinking. Let now examine some concrete problems one-by-one in separate sub-sections. PANONIAN 10:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Dear PANONIAN. I'm glad to finally not revert edits and discuss these problems. The other things what you write I don't answer because I feel like you provoke me. Outesticide (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Please, you are the one who reverting without discussion. I can always discuss anything with anybody. Of course, "discussion" with you is usually an waste of time because most of your edits in Wikipedia are nonconstructive and nationalistic and I do not see that person like you is able to accept reasonable arguments. However, I have to respect Wikipedia rules and I have to inform other users why your edits are wrong and disruptive. As for provoking issue, clearly, you are the one who came here to provoke Serbs from Bačka and to insult their ethnic feelings. I am by myself personally insulted by your general behavior in Wikipedia and your constant attacks against my people, my language, my culture and my country. PANONIAN 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Outesticide (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I just elaborated the nature of your "work" here. I did not used insulting words. PANONIAN 11:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Serbs "adopted" Hungarian name

This claim is clear example of Hungarian nationalistic crap. Exact origin of name "Bač" is disputed, and it is most probably Slavic (see places with same names in Slavic countries of Macedonia and Slovenia. Hungarians never lived in these two regions and therefore claims that these two places gained their names from Hungarians would be ridiculous). Furthermore, presented source does not claim that "Serbs adopted Hungarian name" (that is personal addition of user Outesticide who clearly trying to impose his personal opinion not supported by the sources). Sure, there are several theories about name origin (Slavic, Paleo-Balkanic, Turkic, etc), but in any of these versions we cannot say that "Serbs adopted Hungarian name". In fact, no single theory would claim that name is Hungarian by origin. "Turkic" origin could be related to Turkic peoples that lived in this area - Avars, Khazars, Kumans, etc and there is no evidence that could connect "Turkic" origin with Hungarians (who themselves are not Turkic but Finno-Ugric and the fact that their language was partly influenced by Turkic languages cannot delete the fact that real Turkic peoples completely unrelated to Hungarians lived in Bačka and that any local place names of possible Turkic origin are obviously related to these Turkic peoples and not to Hungarians. Only place names of Finno-Ugric origin could be described as undoubtly "Hungarian"). Finally, Serbs never used form "Bač" as a designation for region. In Serbian, region was always known as "Bačka" (with typical Slavic suffix "ka" that describe the "ownership of a land"). So, even if "Turkic" theory about name origin is correct one (and it is probably not), the correct description would be that "Serbs used slavicized version of the Turkic name" (but never Turkic name itself). Contrary to this, modern Hungarians are clearly using Serbian form of the name without any "hungarization" of this word. PANONIAN 10:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• What you wrote is acceptable, but it's clearly that Serbs adopted the name (second idea), even as the Hungarians adopted the Serbian name (third idea).
• See: "In the Middle Ages, Hungarians used name Bács to designate both, city and the region, but in the later period they adopted Slavic form Bačka (or Bácska in Hungarian)." - This is not a personal opinion? No one has been deleted this as yet... Perhaps should be delete both, because as you said, no source. Outesticide (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That is logical fallacy. We do not have here 2 or 3 opposite ideas. It is undisputed fact that Hungarians adopted Serbian name form Bačka (or Bácska in Hungarian). Despite usage of Hungarian leter "cs" (same as Serbian "č") name "Bácska" is not a "Hungarian name of Slavic origin" but "Slavic name used in Hungarian language". We discuss here origin of two names: 1. Bač/Bacs and 2. Bačka/Bacska. The second name (Bačka/Bacska) is undoubtedly Slavic are there are no other theories about its origin. If Hungarians are using this name then they clearly adopted it from Slavs (Serbs and Bunjevci) who lived in Bačka. It is not just name of the region, but Hungarians adopted all place names in Bačka from Slavs in the 18th century. In that time (1715 and 1720 censuses), South Slavs were almost exclusive inhabitants of Bačka and Hungarian colonists who settled there in the 18th century could hear names of these places only from local Slavs. Current, more Hungarophonic names of these places that are used in modern Hungarian were invented later by nationalistic Hungarian governments (In the 18th century, however, Hungarian language almost exclusively used Slavic names for places in Bačka). Of course, if word "adopted" is not acceptable by you, we can say this with another words. Perhaps this sentence would be more acceptable: "In the Middle Ages, Hungarians used name Bács to designate both, city and the region, but in the post-Ottoman period they are using Slavic name form Bačka (or Bácska in Hungarian)." As for the name of Bač/Bacs town, there are several theories about origin of this name, but we cannot say that Serbs "adopted" this name in any case because that would mean that Serbs used some older name before this "adoption" and that certainly was not the case. Serbs used name Bač for this town "from the beginning", no matter from where this name came, while Hungarians firstly used name "Bacs" (for the region) and then started to use Serbian name Bačka/Bacska. PANONIAN 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If 'Bac' had Turkic origin the Serbs could adopt it. It is really easy to understand. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I already proposed that word "adopted" is not used at all, for Serbs or for Hungarians. But, as far as origin is concerned, two things should be mentioned: that name "Bačka/Bacska" is undisputedly Slavic and that there are several theories about origin of name "Bač/Bacs". Every other opinion who adopted what is speculation. PANONIAN 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• We're not linguists, maybe avoid this word. Outesticide (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Serbian "occupation" in 1918

By opinion of most people who live in Bačka event from 1918 was an act of liberation. By using controversial word "occupation" user Outesticide is trying to insult feelings of most people who live in Bačka and to diminish the event of their historical liberation after long struggle against oppressive Hungarian authorities. Due to the sensitivity of this issue for some people, I did not used word liberation in this article. I used completelly neutral description that "region became part of the Kingdom of Serbia". Local Serbs from Bačka, Banat and Baranja formed in 1918 their autonomous state (whose name was Banat, Bačka and Baranja) and authorities of this state proclaimed its unification with the Kingdom of Serbia. That was certainly not an example of "Serbian occupation". User Outesticide is obviously trying to insult and provoke people with this edit and that is simply not acceptable in serious encyclopedia. PANONIAN 10:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• So. In 1918 only occupied by Serbs because was still officially part of Hungarian Kingdom. The region became a part of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1919 (1920). Outesticide (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• • No it was not. Firstly, there was no such thing as "Hungarian" Kingdom. There was multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary (Regnum Hungariae) and this kingdom ceased to exist in November 1918 when independent Hungarian Democratic Republic was created. in 1918, these two state entities (Kingdom of Hungary and Hungarian Democratic Republic) were not subjects of international law: Kingdom of Hungary was only first-level administrative division of Austro-Hungarian Empire that collapsed in October-November 1918, while new independent Hungarian state (whose proclaimed independence was a violation of sovereignty of Austria-Hungary) was not internationally recognized before late 1919. In another words, region of Bačka was not de jure part of any Hungarian state in November 1918. It (together with Banat and Baranja) existed as an de facto independent state under protection of Serbian army administered by local Serb administration from Novi Sad. Official proclamation of unification with Serbia was in November 25, 1918, but before that date, it was a de facto state which de jure was not part of anything. Anyway, I can expand article with more data about this time period so that any confusion is avoided. PANONIAN 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"It (together with Banat and Baranja) existed as an de facto independent state under protection of Serbian army administered by local Serb administration from Novi Sad." It is a huge lie. There was no independent state, there was no protection. This territory (Kingdom of Hungary) was occupied by -among others- the French and Serb armies and there was temporary military administration till the peace-treaties. The Southern territories of Kingdom of Hungary got to Serbia officially on 4 June, 1920. Prior to peace of Trianon, Communist Hungary (even if this government was not internationally recognized in that period) or the First Hungarian Republic 'officially' possessed the rights in connection with territory of Kingdom of Hungary, however in the reality, of course, they could not validate those. (Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic was a joke as opposed to the will of treaties, the last Serb straw to keep that territory).Fakirbakir (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand this simple thing: Kingdom of Hungary no longer existed in November 1918. Hungarians themselves proclaimed Hungarian Democratic Republic and they themselves destroyed this kingdom. An non-existing state cannot be occupied by anybody. Banat, Bačka and Baranja was an de facto independent territory (not a state because its authorities did not had aspirations to create independent state, but only an autonomous regionof Serbia or Yugoslavia) and Hungarian Democratic Republic was also an de facto independent country/territory. There was a border between the two. Administration of Banat, Bačka and Baranja regarded Serbian army as an liberational and protective force, not as "occupational one". As for official date when Banat, Bačka and Baranja were recognized as parts of Yugoslavia, it was in late 1919, before the Treaty of Trianon. If you read the text of the Treaty of Trianon, you will see that it does not contain a single word from which we can take a conclusion that any territory was "taken" from Hungary by this treaty. Contrary to this, this treaty consider that Hungary is an newly created independent state and it only describe its borders. Finally, claim that two short-lived Hungarian republics "possessed the rights in connection with territory of Kingdom of Hungary" is real example of an lie because these republics were completely unrecognized and did not possessed any rights over any territories, including rights over territories that they actually controlled. PANONIAN 19:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, "Officially" First Hungarian Republic had a rights in connection with territory of Kingdom of Hungary, because the republic was the predecessor. It is simple. The Republic could not validate those rights. That is all.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that claim? It is simply impossible that an completely unrecognized state have any rights. If other states or international organizations did not recognized these "rights" of Hungarian Republic then it did not had such rights. It was only an de facto independent state with de facto control over some territories. Everything outside of that controlled territory did not had any connection with that republic, de facto or de jure. PANONIAN 19:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, Which state lost its territory and its population in 1920? Hungary. Cited: "The treaty greatly redefined and reduced Hungary's borders. From its borders before World War I, it lost 72% of its territory, which was reduced from 325,111 square kilometres (125,526 sq mi) to 93,073 square kilometres (35,936 sq mi). It also lost 64% of its total population, which was reduced from 20.9 million to 7.6 million,[5] and 31% (3.3 out of 10.7 million) of its ethnic Hungarians,[6] who suddenly found themselves living outside the newly defined borders of Hungary.[7][8][9]" It simple. Before 1920 Hungary means territory of Kingdom of Hungary. After that, Hungary means the smaller Hungary.
• Treaty of Trianon was a peace agreement between the Allies of World War I and Hungary (a successor state to Austria-Hungary)Fakirbakir (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is where you are wrong: Treaty of Trianon considers that Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia are also successors of Austria-Hungary and of Kingdom of Hungary - it is clearly stated. Treaty was signed with Hungary because it was newly created independent state and treaty regulated its status and its borders. It would be correct to say that Treaty of Trianon recognized Hungary as an independent country after centuries of Habsburg domination over it. So, what Hungary lost by the Treaty of Trianon was its dependency to Habsburgs. In a way, new independent Hungary was the only successor of "historical Hungarian statehood", but this is just philosophical concept that has no consequences in international legality. Therefore, such "loss of territory and population" is only a philosophical idea and it is used as such by some authors. Claim that "treaty redefined and reduced Hungary's borders" certainly does not come from the text of the treaty, but only from nationalist Hungarian historians who are adherents of mentioned philosophical concept. Sincerely, I do not care are you imposing this concept in articles about Hungary but its pushing into articles about Serbia is not acceptable. Why I am not posting anti-Hungarian nationalistic crap into articles about your country? Answer is simple: I am intellectually evolved human who think that people of different ethnic origins should enjoy same freedom as my own people. Therefore I am Serb who supporting independent Kosovo and right of Kosovar Albanians to freedom. Only when you recognize same rights of Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs we can be equal. I really do not see how some Hungarian users here can allow to themselves such aggression against everything Romanian, Serbian or Slovak. Is it so hard for you to write some good things about your country instead bad things about countries of your neighbors? Why I have such disputes here only with few Hungarian users and not with users from other countries? If I am Serb who support independent Kosovo then it is clear that I am not the one who imposing nationalism here. PANONIAN 20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You would have been right if Austria had been only Austria, but It was Austria-Hungary K.U.K.. This article is not about Serbia it is about historical Backa. I do not care who you are or what you like, none of my business.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Austria or Austria-Hungary, whatever. It ceased to exist in October-November 1918 and Hungarian Democratic Republic that was created in that time was not recognized by anybody. These facts cannot be disputed. Territorial claims of an unrecognized country cannot be used as a description of statehood in territories that this unrecognized country did not controlled. As for Bačka, most of Bačka is in Serbia today and it was in 1918, so claim that this article is not about Serbia is ridiculous. For you, Bačka is maybe "historical", but for me, it is place where I live, and therefore this is article about my homeland and about my country. As for your "business", when you provide evidence that an unrecognized country was a sovereign state we can talk. Until then, facts that I elaborated are undisputed. PANONIAN 11:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's not important what was Serbia imagined what its territory but important thing is that officially part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1919 (1920). Outesticide (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Banat,Bačka and Baranja are officially recognized as parts of Yugoslavia by the Treaty of Saint-Germain in September 10, 1919 because both countries, Yugoslavia and Hungary were unrecognized before that treaty. But, fact is that from November 1918 to September 1919 Banat, Bačka and Baranja were not de jure part of any country. They had similar status like Gaza Strip in our days. Local Serbs from Banat, Bačka and Baranja formed their political institutions and armed units before army of Serbia actually came here. And army of Serbia was actually invited by these local institutions to protect inhabitants of Banat, Bačka and Baranja. Armed units of local Serbs expelled Austro-Hungarian soldiers from Novi Sad one day before entry of army of Serbia into the city. So, in the next few days, I will expand article with data about these local institutions and their actions. PANONIAN 11:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, what is problem here? Words liberation and occupation should been avoided. -- Bojan  Talk  05:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

They should be used based on the wishes of the different nationalities. The claims of the detaching of Backa from Hungary being 'liberation' for the majority are suspect given the demographics of the region. Even when going by the 1921 Yugoslav census, which was probably the most accurate one conducted in the region since 1880 or 1890, there was a clear Slavic minority in Backa. With the Hungarians remaining loyal to Hungary (35.50%) and the Serbo-Croats and other minorities seeking to join Yugoslavia (39.92%), it rests on which regime the Germans (23.64%) sought to be part of if one wishes to state "By opinion of most people who live in Bačka event from 1918 was an act of liberation". If the Germans were mostly loyal to Hungary, it would have been liberation to the Serbo-Croats and other minorities (Slovaks, Slovenes and Ukrainians), but to nobody else. If the Germans were split in their loyalties one could argue it was liberation in the predominately Slavic south and occupation in the predominately Hungarian and German north. Or if the Germans were mostly loyal to Serbia one could argue it was liberation for the majority. However I see nothing listing where the German loyalties lay, and even if they were neutral, it would be close to a plurality of who considered the changes in administration liberation and who considered it occupation given how close the percentages are (35.50% vs 39.92%) and given that it is estimated that some 40,000-50,000 Hungarians fled Yugoslavia immediately after the border changes which would have meant that the Hungarian percentage would have been slightly higher in 1918 as opposed to 1921 but less than that of the Serbo-Croats and other non-German minorities combined. Prussia1231 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced facts about Serbs killed in WW2

Data that Hungarian army killed 15-20,000 Serbs in World War II was referenced with reliable source (church source) and removal of that data from the article was nothing but vandalism. Note that WW2 Hungary was a fascist state and ally of Nazi Germany and that genocide performed by this state against Serbs, Jews and Roma is well known subject. Why would somebody try to erase info about that genocide? PANONIAN 10:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Because the data come from nationalist website even if church source. Moreover only is a secondary source it's unreliable.
• Why you deleted a number of Hungarian victims, or wrote from tens of thousands to several or to "certain". This is not adulteration of history or your personal opinion? Outesticide (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Nationalistic website? Are you serious? www.svetosavlje.org is clearly an religious site (not nationalistic one). If you claim otherwise, please provide some evidence that this is nationalistic site. Also, document published in that web site is an historical document written in 1941 by Nektarije who was Orthodox bishop of Zvornik and Tuzla and it is he who mention 15-20,000 Serbs killed by Hungarian army only in 1941. By all means, this is an reliable source - it is an original document from 1941. Other published sources are confirming that at least 20,000 Serbs was killed by Hungarian occupational authorities (among others, non-nationalist Vojvodinian historian Dimitrije Boarov also mention 20,000 victims of Hungarian occupation). Obviously, you do not have problem with origin of this source but only with info presented in it, i.e. you want to present Hungarian fascists as "good guys" and to hide their war crimes and genocide in Bačka. As for number of Hungarian victims, I said that this number is controversial and I only deleted data presented by nationalist author Cseres. If number of Hungarian victims is mentioned then it should be done in similar way as in 1944–1945 killings in Vojvodina article where all estimations of several authors are provided. PANONIAN 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Serb Orthodox religious sites are usually nationalists. English sources (or sources in English by historians) would be better or Serb academic sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That is simply not truth. There are some nationalist priests in every church but there are also those who are dedicated to their service to God. Letter written in 1941 by an Orthodox bishop cannot be discredited as a source. As for English-language sources, I will look to find those in following days. PANONIAN 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, your source (www.svetosavlje.org) is not reliable per WP:SPS. I am not saying that the information from the site are false, but we need a confirmation from a stronger source that fulfilles our criteria WP:RS (Iaaasi (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

What ever, I will provide another one then. PANONIAN 11:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of killed Hungarians after WWII

Exact number of Hungarians killed by partisans is unknown and estimations are ranging from 4,000 to 40,000. We cannot mention just estimation provided by Cseres and ignore estimations provided by other authors. Cseres himself was a controversial author and Greater Hungarian nationalist and his book is full of racist hate against Serbs. Interestingly, Cseres in his book even claimed that "Bačka is an ancient Hungarian land" despite the fact that Hungarians conquered this area centuries after period of antiquity was over. That is obvious example that this author was falsification maker and studies about his "work" proved that he listed some Hungarians who died on Eastern Front (where they fought in the name of Adolf Hitler) as "victims of evil Serbian partisans". Finally, number of 35,000 killed Hungarians referring to whole of Vojvodina, not only to Bačka and user Outesticide clearly trying to falsify facts and to present this number as a "number of Hungarians killed in Bačka only". I do not object that estimations about number of killed Hungarians are presented, but in that case, we have to mention all estimations, not just one provided by controversial nationalistic author Cseres. PANONIAN 10:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's your opinion, but I think it also shows how biased you are. Outesticide (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • What exactly is my opinion? An non-nationalist Vojvodinian historian Dimitrije Boarov clearly mention that estimations about number of killed Hungarians are ranging from 4,000 to 40,000. I am not at my home right now, but I have this book and I can provide exact quotation later if you wish (or I can scan a page from that book and upload it into Internet). PANONIAN 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You always say that the citations are from non-nationalists, however everybody can see they are usually biased in reference to Hungarians.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is quite opposite. Hungarian nationalists are biased towards any source that does not glorify their ideals (I do not want to mention names here, thought). PANONIAN 19:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Your opinion is that everybody nationalistic only Serbs not. It's necessary write the number of all victim, but from a normal reliable source. Outesticide (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did not said that Serbs are not nationalistic, but Serbian nationalism is usually related to territorial pretensions towards other countries like Kosovo, Montenegro, Croatia, etc. However, if we speak about territories of Serbia that are mainly inhabited by Serbs then dispute about history of these territories is usually related to nationalists from neighboring countries who trying to impose idea of their statehood and their "historical rights" over these territories (this also include propaganda about minorities "persecuted" by Serbia). Concept of "historical rights" is itself nationalistic and is not acceptable in democratic World of the 21st century. People who live in one territory are the only one who would have right to decide about statehood of that territory. You might say that there are few municipalities with Hungarian majority in Bačka, but in general, Bačka has Serb majority and article about Bačka should not be insulting for Serbs and written in a way in which Serb victims of WW2 are diminished and Hungarian victims are glorified. That is exactly what you trying to do here. You deleting number of Serb victims and you imposing an as high as possible estimation about Hungarian victims and you using a source written by an ultra-nationalist whose book contains so much hate against Serbs (I downloaded it from the Internet) that I can imagine that this author likely has a tatoo of a Nazi cross somewhere on his skin. Yes, number of all victims should be mentioned, but not in way in which you done it: glorifying Hungarian victims and Hungarian state and diminishing Serb victims and trying to make Serbian state to look "evil" and "anti-Hungarian". Yugoslav partisans also killed large number of Serbs and Germans, but you mentioned only killed Hungarians. We both know why. PANONIAN 11:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN is and has been a pro-Serb, anti-Hungarian editor that plagues articles that criticize his country. He refuses to accept any evidence unless he sees it in print. When an article he becomes involved with gets out of hand, when he loses control of it, he will ask for its deletion or append it to somewhere else. His work has devalued wikipedia due to his unwarranted extreme nationalism. He should be admonished and banned from wikipedia. 115.64.217.11 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Serbian POV about medieval Bács

'Bačka is a typical Slavic[1] name form, created from "Bač" (name of historical town in Bačka) and sufix "ka" (which designating "the land that belong to Bač").

The sufix ka is not only Slavic, you can find that in Hungarian language, while sufix ke is clearly Hungarian. Some place names, which can be found: Szabadka, Csobánka, Mogyoróska, Halaska, Nádaska, Eperjeske.

'The first known prefect of Bacsensis County was recorded in 1074 and he had Slavic name Vid. In this time, the region was populated by both, Slavs and Hungarians. Serbian historian Dr. Milenko Palić mentions that prefect Vid was an ethnic Serb and that he, together with two other ethnic Serbs whose names were Ilija and Radovan, participated in dynastic struggles in the Kingdom of Hungary, in the end of the 11th century.[10]'

The first known comes of Bács was comes Vid, a noted member of the German clan Gutkeled and member of the Magyar nobility. Illye (not Ilija) was an ethnic Hungarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosszkornyifog (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Vid belonged to the Gutkeled genus. These are POV issues.I think the whole article needs to be checked. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, people like you should stay away from sensitive history topics like this one. You fail to demonstrate any kind of NPOV approach and from your editing in Wikipedia is clear only one thing: that you have a sole goal to "prove" that parts of Serbia, Romania or Slovakia should be annexed by Greater Hungary. For your personal sake, I suggest that you don't waste your life to obviously lost cause because greater Hungary will be never resurrected and Hungarian minorities in other countries will certainly disappear in next 50 years because of their low birth rate. This is only truth about World in which you live and it is your personal problem would you accept this truth or not. However, you should not falsify history of other countries because of your nationalist believes. Now try to be good Wikipedian and answer some questions: 1. why you revert all my edits? 2. why opinion of Hungarian historians should be first and opinion of Serbian historians second? (it is Serbia about which we speak here for most part). 3. why name "bač" should be described before name "bačka"? 91.143.60.172 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Another important question, why you replace "Hungarian authors" with "others"? They are not "others". They are Hungarian authors and only Hungarian authors and you clearly use description "others" to hide their ethnicity and POV background of their "opinions". 91.143.60.172 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

1, I do not understand your personal attack. 2, Your source about "Vid" is from 1870, 3, My sources about Vid clearly state that he belonged to the Gutkeled clan. 3, Unfortunately, the article has huge POV issues. You deleted reliable sources and you try to push a kind of Serb POV. I am going to fix the problems soon. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Which personal attack? Do you deny that only reason you are here is to prove that "Bačka belongs to great Hungary"? Do you deny this? Why else you would do what you do? About sources: this is article primarily about Serbia and this is why if Serbian and Hungarian sources contradict one to another info from Serbian sources should be first and info from Hungarian sources second. This is because Serbian authors write about their own conutry and they have no reason to lie of falsify history and Hungarian authors write about foreign country whose part they would want to occupy and annex to greater Hungary. It is well known fact. And I have not "deleted" your sources, they are still there just after Serbian sources. This is just proof that you revert blindly and that you even do not checked my edits. Why you reverted my changes in "Geography" section? This is proof of your disruptive behavior which also prove your bad faith intentions. Can you become a good hun boy and try to actually examine my changes and then to discuss problems you have on this talk page? 91.143.60.172 (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I still do not get your personal attack. You should check your edit history. You deleted my sources. Your reasoning is chauvinist a bit, isn't it ? "This is because Serbian authors write about their own conutry and they have no reason to lie of falsify history and Hungarian authors write about foreign country whose part they would want to occupy and annex to greater Hungary.." Fakirbakir (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with user Fakirbakir, the IP editor has made some clear personal attacks, which is unacceptable on WP. Dear 91.143.60.172, please, refrain from such paranoid statements. Your argument that "Serbian authors write about their own conutry and they have no reason to lie of falsify history and Hungarian authors write about foreign country whose part they would want to occupy and annex to greater Hungary" is complete nonsense, and your own POV. Please, read WP policy about this: WP:NPOV. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, I deleted your sources in my first edit because I have not seen them, but I returned them later, as your "colleague" confirm: [1]. So, any other problems? Now, if you two claim that my comment was "personal attack" tell me why two Hungarians like you are so interested in history of Serbia? Which other political issue is behind this? There is no anybody who can say that your changes here are kind of "Serb-friendly". 91.143.60.172 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please put my sources back about Vid? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Man, do you see that I only moved your sources to end of paragraph: [2]. 91.143.60.172 (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I should have gone to "Specsavers". Anyway, Hungarian editors are interested in article of Bačka because of historical reasons. Its territory belonged to Kingdom of Hungary for a couple of hundreds years. The northern parts of historical Bacska still belong to Hungary. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"historical reasons"? Region was also part of Austrian and Ottoman Empires but I see no Turkish and Austrian editors that try "rewrite" regional history in this way. And former county whose prefect was Vid was located fully in territory of south Bačka. I have no see that you write anything about north Bačka. 91.143.60.172 (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I repeat myself. This article needs to be rewritten. There are serious POV issues.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear 91.143.60.172, fortunately, WP is free and editors can edit whatever articles they like, there is no need to justify the interest. The bare fact that an editor edits an article makes it clear that (s)he is interested in that article. Her/his personal motivation (i.e., why (s)he is interested in that topic) is fully irrelevant, as long as the basic principles of WP are kept (e.g., adequately sourced neutral contributions). I suggest you should learn more about how WP works. For example, you could start with reading about the five pillars. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: And I agree with the POV issues. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715214650/http://www.russia-talk.com/history/slavs-VIII.jpg to http://www.russia-talk.com/history/slavs-VIII.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314175108/http://www.home-edu.ru/user/uatml/00000628/rumjancev/drevnieslavjane/rasselenie.jpg to http://www.home-edu.ru/user/uatml/00000628/rumjancev/drevnieslavjane/rasselenie.jpg

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060911162541/http://www.pallaslexikon.hu/pallas/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm to http://www.pallaslexikon.hu/pallas/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)