Talk:Banat

message: I agree that "Banat" by itself means the serbian/romanian/hungarian banat. But look at the article text and at the picture. Like this, it sounds like "Banat" by itself means the Romanian part. And BTW, always? Zocky 11:45, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Banat

message: Can we please have some references for the demographic data, it just says that "according to 1774 data", is that a census, which one (from which country). Thanks. AdrianTM 09:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what other page you want to use this data? The reference where I found this data is this book: Miodrag Milin, Vekovima zajedno (iz istorije srpsko-rumunskih odnosa), Temišvar, 1995. Book is in Serbian, but it is published in Timisoara by the Serb minority of Romania. The numbers given there are statistical data for the year 1774, but are based on the 1771/1772 census. However, this census was partial, meaning it did not presented data for all settlements, thus the 1774 data are in fact corrected data from 1771/1772 census. PANONIAN (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I was thinking to balance the data from Timisoara#History with the info that in 1774 there were less than 2400 Hungarians in all the Banat region. AdrianTM 15:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References please 

message: a geographical region would be the Pannonian Plain, as it is a geographical unit, a plain. Banat is not a geographical unit, not a mountain, not a plain, not a river, it is thus a historical, or informal region. at best Banat could be a political region Political geography, but it is not a political region, it was a political region, today it is only a historic thing. Criztu 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pannonian Plain, Banat, Transylvania, Bukovina...everything is geographical here. Everything that exist today is geographical. Term "geographical" do not designate only mountain or plain, but also a territory that have its own geographical name (but that do not exist in political sense). On the contrary, term "historical" designate something that existed in the past, but that does not exist any more. If you live in Timisoara for example, you say that you live in Banat, so in which Banat you live? Do you live in a region for which name Banat is used today (in the geographical sence) or you live in the historical Banat of Temeswar that existed in the 18th century. Since this is 21st and not 18th century, I would say that you do not live in historical Banat, but in geographical one. PANONIAN (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, see this for definition of the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Region#Geographical_regions PANONIAN (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pff, i read wikipedia "historical regions can be used to designate geographical areas", i cant object to that, altho i regard Banat as an informal and historical region  Criztu 13:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the current intro say that Banat is both, geographical and historical region, no matter that my personal opinion is that word "historical" is wrong here because we have separate article about Banat of Temeswar. So, you object to word "geographical", and I object to word "historical", thus we already have a compromise version of the article, dont we? :) PANONIAN (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical region 

message: :Turkic like the title itself (brought by the Sarmatians - cf. Sultan/Sultanate, Emir/Emirate, Caliph/Caliphate, and Khan/Khanate).
The "-ate" suffix in those cases is Latinate, those words being derived by the western world from the title of the ruler, see etymology at dictionary.com. bogdan 10:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic "-ate" 

message: I was under the impression that in the early modern times and especially (or at least) throughout the Late Middle Ages Banat had a mostly Slavic (Serbian) character - is this true and if it is, why isn't the article reflected in that way? Also - Hungarians and Serbs seem to be mostly conflicting over Banat's history - but Romanians seem to be the largest ethnic group there for a long time. Roday Romanian Banat is populated almost exclusivly by Romanians (there are Serbian minorities), while Serbian Banat contains a large Romanian minority. What's the issue? --PaxEquilibrium 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You had a wrong impression. Romanian and Serbs are both orthodox, until second half of 19th century Romanian Orthodox church in Banat was under Serbian jurisdiction (it was bishop Andrei Şaguna who realised the split between Romanian and Serbian orthodox churches). In Middle Ages religion not language was the most important cultural factor, Romanian language became a written language only in 16th century, and only in 1688 was published a complete Bible in Romanian. Untill 17th century and in some parts even in the first half of 18th century, in the entire Romanian teritory (not only in Banat) the language of church was Old Slavonic. This is why some confusions appeared. In early statistics, by the word "rascians" is included both Serbs and Romanians--MariusM 09:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that name "Rascians" was used for Romanians too? I never heard this before. I only know that name "Vlachs" was used for both, Romanians and Serbs. Anyway, during the Ottoman rule, eastern Banat was mainly populated by Romanians, western Banat mainly by Serbs and central Banat had mixed Serb-Romanian population. During the Habsburg rule, many Germans settled in central Banat and population became even more mixed. The city of Timisoara for example in different periods had Hungarian, Turkish, Serbian or German ethnic majority, and that reflect all complexity  of the ethnic relations in the area. PANONIAN (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, history certainly does not start in 1851. According to my sources (Dr. Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjige 1-3, Novi Sad, 1990), Serbs were majority in Timisoara in 1720, and according to the sources added here by other Wikipedian (captain Graf Paolo Wallis - Neumann, Victor: Istoria evreilor din Banat. Buc. 1999), the population of the city after it was captured by the Ottomans (i. e. in the same time) numbered 600-700 inhabitants out of which 446 were Serbs, 144 Jewish, and 35 Armenians. PANONIAN (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, explanation for this is very simple: during the Ottoman rule, the majority in the city were Turks, while Serbs were largest minority. After 1718, the Turks left from the city, but the Serbs remained and they were majority there in the 18th century until Germans started to settle in the city. PANONIAN (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Zero Romanians in 1720?" Well, not exactly. My source in fact claim this: "In 1720 majority in Timisoara were Serbs and besides them, Romanians and Spanish Jews also lived in the city." So, I assume that other source is in fact wrong and that it listed Armenians instead of Romanians (the names are similar, so it is possibly that somebody made a mistake - but I only guess here). You should see who added this data to Wikipedia and ask him does his source mention Armenians or Romanians. Regarding statistics from 1715 and 1720 censuses, I know for sure that these statistics did not recorded ethnic groups, but they recorded something else: personal and family names of the people, thus research of these names showed exactly who was Serb (or Slav), Romanian, Hungarian, German, etc. I do not have exact data for Banat from these censuses, but for example according to the 1715 census, in the entire Bačka there was only 40 houses whose heads did not had a Slavic names. PANONIAN (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Census by family name? Hm. My name is slavic, yet I'm Romanian. We have many Romanians whose name is Vlad, Popovici, Eminovici, a.s.o. Given that Romanian is 10-15% Slavic in vocabulary, this is normal. Hell, maybe 20% of the Romanian population could claim EU/Slovenian naturalization  based on their names. Dpotop 09:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope we don't have the same problem with Serbs as we do with Hungarians, Bulgarians, a.s.o. Everyone seems to say that Romanians somehow immigrated on **their** "historic territory", and then deviously overthrew their superb kingdom/principality/ethnic majority, and this is the cause of all evil ever since (the last x years, with x>500). :) Dpotop 09:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you certainly cannot explain origin of surnames ending with -ic, -in, -ov and -ev with Slavic words in Romanian vocabulary. Words in vocabulary are one thing and surnames are something else. From the Slavic words in Romanian you would have surnames with Slavic base and Romanian sufix, but certainly not surnames with Slavic sufix. Anyway, since central Banat had in the past mixed Serb-Romanian population, and since they both were Orthodox, they mixed a lot one with another (much more than they mixed with Germans or Hungarians), so, the existence of such surnames among Romanians is not surprize. Regarding your claims about "problem with Serbs", "historic territory", etc, as far as I know there were never such problems between Serbs and Romanians and therefore I do not understand why User:PaxEquilibrium opened this question at all. I certainly do not intent to claim that "Romanians migrated to Serb historic territory", but if for example, the city of Timisoara had Serb majority in the early 18th century, I do not see why any Romanian would have problem to mention that. There were also some places in Serbian part of Banat that in the past had Romanian majority and now have Serbian, and I do not have problem if we mention this. I expanded now section about population in this article, quoting what my sources say, and if you have some other sources that claim something else, please post that in the article. PANONIAN (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Here you can see who added this data mentioning Armenians instead of Romanians in the city population: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timi%C5%9Foara&diff=55907085&oldid=55881411 Since my own source claim that population was composed of Serbs, Romanians and Jews, there is very good chance that term Romanians was replaced with term Armenians in this edit. PANONIAN (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a short note: the confusion with Armenians might come from "Armân" not from Romanian. It would be strange though for those sources to treat Serbs and Romanians together, but differentiate between Romanians and Aromanians, I'm also not sure if there were Aromanians in that area. -- AdrianTM 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said, we have two sources about this and both sources mention 3 groups that lived in the city. In both sources, Serbs and Jews are mentioned, but in one source the third group are Romanians and in another Armenians. So, it is very likely that confuse is indeed between Romanians and Armenians, but I cannot tell you which of the two sources is wrong because I do not know. And I do not think that these sources treat Serbs and Romanians together, in fact, 1720 census did not mentioned any ethnic group at all, so personal and family names mentioned there are the only indication of ethnicity from the census. However, there might be some other sources that mention ethnicity, but I am not aware of them. PANONIAN (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You speak here about time before Ottoman conquest in the 16th century, right? In the first half of the 18th century, there were no Hungarians in Banat at all, according to my sources. PANONIAN (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: It would be nice if somebody can post data about ethnic composition of Romanian Banat only from any census between 1919 and 2002. PANONIAN (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the 2002 census figures. Mentatus 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent demographics

message: I have found this about the 1910 census:
In backa: 43,2%- was hungarian, 22,5%-a german, and just the 28,1%-a south slav. In Banat: the population's 19,9%-a was hungarian, 23,1%-a german and 39,9%-south slav. 
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pannonia (talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course and I found in 1715 census in Bačka 97.6% South Slavs and only 1.9% Hungarians and in Banat in 1774 58.55% Romanians, 26.61% Serbs and Greeks and only 0.64% Hungarians and Bulgarians. What that can tell you? PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 17:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the Hungarian population had largest increase during this time period because many Slavs and Germans were Magyarized during this time - in the 18th century Hungarian was almost dead language, but number of its speakers much increased until 1910. PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: First, data from the Middle Ages is partially unreliable, but anyway, just go back to the 9th century before Hungarians came to Central Europe when these areas where almost entirelly inhabited by Slavs: http://curug.rastko.net/karte/img/5_varvari_vizantija.jpg PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Those people did not settled in Hungary but in Habsburg Monarchy (and most of those lands were part of Habsburg Military provinces). Also, total number of them did increased but their percentual participation decreased because of magyarization and Hungarian colonization from central parts of the Pannonian Plain to the south. By the way, name Rácország/Rascia is in use for this area from the 15th century. PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they did not settled in Hungary - Habsburg Military provinces included entire Banat, most of Bačka and even northern bank of the river Mures and these provinces were under completelly separate administration, not to mention difference between Kingdom of Hungary (that existed before 1918) and Hungary (that existed after 1918) - those are very different terms. So, the Kingdom of Hungary did existed in the first half of the 18th century but it did not included Banat and most of Bačka (not to mention Slavonia, Syrmia or Transylvania...). And this is talk page in English, so please do not use Hungarian name "vajdaság" because readers that do not speak Hungarian would not know what that mean (same with other names). PANONIAN 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 9th century data is based on archeological evidence, while 15th-16th century data is based on tax records that recorded only smaller part of population (and Serbs were well known during history that they avoided paying taxes, so if you do not find Serbs in tax records that does not mean that they did not lived in the area). PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The archeological evidences from the 15th-16th century cannot establish clear difference between Slavic and "Hungarian" (read: "magyarized Slavic" settlements). On the contrary, there is clear evidence of continuity of life in these settlements before and after Hungarian conquest which means that exactly same population lived in them before and after Hungarian conquest and that population was certainly not Hungarian by origin. PANONIAN 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You started it, so it is your decision when it will stop. PANONIAN 09:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1910 census 

message: These is ridiculous. I am a Romanian, and i can say from my own experience that Romanians are disconsidered in Vojvodina and especially in Serbia. Banat is ancient Romanian land and in this article in the history of Banat Romanians are deleted. I don`t have a problem with any nation and i have grown up to tolerate every nation , especially in Vojvodina, but this is too much. Just because we are friends and don`t attack Serbian people with lies and propaganda , Serbs are changing history to their likings. Banat had a majority Romanian population and only recently Serbs are the majority in north Banat, in south there is still a significant Romanian minority that is also deleted here on Wikipedia in articles about Vojvodina, Banat, and especially Vrsac(Varset) and Bela Crkva (Biserica Alba). It was under Hungarian rule for a long time, but this don`t means that is Hungarian land, and Serbs migrated in Vojvodina on the request of Hungarians. I am sick of this lies and propaganda against Romanians and Serbs from all people in Vojvodina don`t have the right to this land, even Hungarians have more rights. Serbs came last in Vojvodina and now to delete the Romanians from their home land is outrageous. When Romanians lived in Banat Hungarians and Serbs were a tribe somewhere in central Asia so please, i am asking Serbs to stop this propaganda and lies about Romanians in Banat and Vojvodina. 
Don`t worry, if you tell the truth we won`t ask for out land back, i know you are paranoid about that, we lived a long time in Vojvodina together like this, and we will continue no matter what to live together in Vojvodina as a part of Serbia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iadrian yu (talk • contribs) 13:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a point of your post? Romanians were largest ethnic group in Banat and that is not disputed, but they were not largest ethnic group in modern Serbian Banat. If you want to write anything about history of Romanians in Banat you are welcome to do so, but I do not understand reason for such anti-Serb attitude and hate in your post. As for cities of Vrsac and Bela Crkva, these cities had mainly German population in 1910 and in 1921, so I do not see why you speak about these cities when you refer to Romanian-Serb relations. As for question whether any nation have right to any land, we live in the 21st century (if you did not noticed) and in this century any nation would have right only to land in which it form majority of population (in this century I mean, not in previous ones). As for question when Serbs came to Vojvodina, we know that Serbs and Slavs settled in the Balkans in the 6th and 7th century, but they did not fell from the sky, did they? - they had to come from somewhere, and Vojvodina is the place from which they moved to the Balkans. PANONIAN 10:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: By the way, you may say that Dacian ancestors of Romanians were in Banat before Slavic ancestors of the Serbs, but Dacians were almost destroyed by the Romans and other invaders like Goths, Huns, Sarmatians ect, conquered Banat, so in the time when Slavs settled in Banat this land was practically empty and even Romanian historians agree that romanized Dacian population was preserved in Transylvanian mountains, but not in Pannonian lowland. Finaly, you certainly cannot claim in the 21st century that any land belong to your nation only because your Dacians ancestors lived in it some 2000 years ago - according to this theory all white Americans should leave from United States and "return back" to Europe simply because Indians lived there before them, and furthermore, according to same theory, your own nation (and all other homo sapiens humans from Europe) should go back to Africa because another human species (homo erectus) lived here before them (it is likely that development of the science would be able to recreate live homo erectus according to data from their genes, so you would be in position to "give land back" to them, would you?). PANONIAN 10:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanians 

message: An image used in this article, File:Fountain-and-cathedral-at-night-in-timisoara-roml206.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Fountain-and-cathedral-at-night-in-timisoara-roml206.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: According to a complete breakdown of Hungary's population in 1880, the combined population of the counties of Krasso Szoreny, Temes and Torontal broke down as follows:
* 516,879 Romanians or 39.51%
* 333,149 Germans or 25.46%
* 243,212 Serbo-Croats or 18.59%
* 111,884 Hungarians or 8.55%
* 21,788 Slovaks or 1.67%
* 81,425 Others or 6.22%
* 1,308,337 Total
* 748,180 Greek Orthodox or 57.19%
* 466,073 Roman Catholics or 35.62%
* 31,305 Greek Catholics or 2.39%
* 29,868 Lutherans/Evangelicals or 2.28%
* 17,545 Jews or 1.34%
* 14,868 Calvinists/Reformed or 1.14%
* 498 Others or 0.04%
* 1,308,337 Total Prussia1231 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1880 Census Data 

message: In the talk section of english wikipedia article abouth the "Ban" title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ban_(title) I've posted o probable source regarding the possibility of region's "Banat" name existence since the 5-th century AD. Is there any confirmation about the accuracy of it, please? Thank you.Bigshotnews 21:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banat region's name from first half of 5-th century AD? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Banat. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110608152320/http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/rezo_eng.htm to http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/rezo_eng.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060309202200/http://www.talmamedia.com/php/district/district.php?county=Temes to http://www.talmamedia.com/php/district/district.php?county=Temes
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) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: surface/popnedinintro+istoryetc  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.218.228 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  noinfobox? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Banat. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/rezo_eng.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626040157/http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/?pg=9&id=9 to http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/?pg=9&id=9
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) 00:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Banat. 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/20060210043212/http://www.banatul.com/ to http://www.banatul.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210043212/http://www.banatul.com/ to http://www.banatul.com/
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) 10:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Banat. 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/20070626035822/http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/?pg=9&id=10 to http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/?pg=9&id=10
*Added  tag to http://banatul.ning.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011055121/http://bylijsmezde.cz/roadtrip-rumunsko-banat-ceske-vesnice-svata-helena to http://bylijsmezde.cz/roadtrip-rumunsko-banat-ceske-vesnice-svata-helena
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) 22:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Banat. 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/20110127170507/http://www.caransebes.ro/istorie/istoric/istoria_en.htm to http://www.caransebes.ro/istorie/istoric/istoria_en.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) 02:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Dear,
IP, please present a source for your addition. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed flag 

message: The Serbian Banat since the First World War section's second and third paragraphs duplicate each other, although not completely - they retell the story of the same period with different words and emphases.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support your proposal to edit that paragraph. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Serbian Banat since the First World War section has duplicate paragraphs 

message: In the eastern part of the Pannonian basin among Christians, the Byzantine rite became more influential after Ahtum's conversion to Christianity. This was halted with the establishment of the Kingdom of Hungary. István I reasserted dominance over the last local leader, Ahtum (Ajtony in other sources).</br>
It appears as if the second mention of Ahtum once was the first - it has the name hypertexted, and there is the parentheses part. Can this be corrected? Also, "In the eastern part of the Pannonian basin among Christians" sounds a bit wrong.--Adûnâi (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I solved the first issue hopefully. Regarding the second one, not I was adding that material to the article, so I could as well just guess what the original contributor meant.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  An awkward part in the Hungarian administration section 

message: When You google Banat, Google will guide You to this article, which means that this article should refer to geographical term of Banat, and therefore represent it completely. Due to that, an update of number of inhabitants in short description is needed - now 979119 shows up, completely ignoring cca. 700.000 inhabitants of Serbian part of Banat, and cca 50000 of Hungarian part,and if I may say, also ignores part of Romanian Banat in Arad county. On the other hand, the surface covers whole Banat (27104 km2). What is the reason for keeping incorrect data in short description?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.255.189.177 (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You can fix it yourself but sources are needed for this. Super Ψ Dro 11:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind actually, we have sources for the census of both Serbia and Romania in the body section. Super Ψ Dro 11:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed