== 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: 

 # 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. 

 # 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 the 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, ". The POV of Hungarian historians should also be presented: "On the other hand,  claims that the census was reliable" or whatever. 

 # The same should be applied to the 1921 and 1931 censuses which, according to  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.  

 # 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? What the reasons that your source provides for this? 

 By following the above, I think the dispute can be resolved quite easily. It's just a matter of writing in a manner that is historically-accurate, that respects diversity of historical views and that adequately and neutrally explains the situation so as to better inform the reader. Thanks, ~~~~