Talk:Demographic history of Bačka

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes by Panonian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Serious discussion?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Serbs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: WWII

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, but Wikipedia, undue weight, you know... Fcsaba 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand what you want to say. PANONIAN 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Think it over! Fcsaba 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no place for word game playing, you know... PANONIAN 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Answers of a Hungarian historian 

message: Hobartimus, please stop disruptive revert war and please say why delwting whole paragraph. Thank you. PANONIAN 15:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your paragraph is original research and therefore unacceptable in the article. Hobartimus 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hobartimus

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problem 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Problem 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Problem 3

message: 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)
replies: text: The numbers are already there for anyone who can read. Hobartimus 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problem 4

message: Why you deleted sentence that 1941 fascist census was unreliable? - it is correct and sourced sentence. PANONIAN 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, just rephrase why is it unreliable and all will be OK. --PaxEquilibrium 18:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problem 7

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problem 8

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problem 9

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I guess the Jews left Germany willingly too. --PaxEquilibrium 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem 10

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problem 11

message: 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)
replies: text: Second. --PaxEquilibrium 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problem 12

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Censuses

message: 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)
thread_title: 1715 census

message: 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)
thread_title:  1880 Census Data 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified