Talk:Bačka

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

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Observations on the Demographics section 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: *See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Outesticide (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just elaborated the nature of your "work" here. I did not used insulting words. PANONIAN 11:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Outesticide

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *We're not linguists, maybe avoid this word. Outesticide (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbs "adopted" Hungarian name

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

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

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Serbian "occupation" in 1918

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What ever, I will provide another one then. PANONIAN 11:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of sourced facts about Serbs killed in WW2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Number of killed Hungarians after WWII

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Fakirbakir, I deleted your sources in my first edit because I have not seen them, but I returned them later, as your "colleague" confirm: . 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)

text: Man, do you see that I only moved your sources to end of paragraph: . 91.143.60.172 (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: I repeat myself. This article needs to be rewritten. There are serious POV issues.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified