Talk:Bačka/Archive 1

Northern area
Could do with some more info on the northern part of the area still within Hungary. -- 217.44.142.112 14:31, 8 May 2004 (UTC) --

History
For Joy:

"Just a note: the same stuff about empire of Jovan and whatnot is at Backa"

It was not "stuff", but historical fact. As I explained, he was not real emperor, but he only proclaimed him self to be emperor and ruled in parts of Vojvodina territory as an independent ruler. Here you can find some quotes about Jovan Nenad:

http://www.subotica.co.yu/en/history/historyMAIN.htm

Following the defeat at Mohacs the town was occupied by Serbian mercenaries, recruited in Srem, serving for Janos Szapolyai, a voivod from Transylvania, later a Hungarian king. Their leader, Jovan Nenad Crni (Jovan Nenad the Black) proclaimed himself czar and founded an ephemeral independent state, with Subotica its center.

http://www.tomats.net/inde.php?What+to+see/The+City+of+Subotica&print

One of its most interesting figures is the Emperor Jovan Nenad, who made Subotica the centre of his empire.

http://www.suc.org/culture/history/Serbian_Medieval_Coinage/present/Related_Regional_Coinage.html

This is also the context which saw the brief appearance of the heroic but mysterious Serbian "Czar" Jovan Nenad, whose brave deeds against the Turks got lost in this civil conflict, and were never recorded by epic tradition.

http://www.visitvojvodina.com/engine.php/English/Communities/Subotica%20Town

One of the most interesting figures of its past is emperor Jovan Nenad, whose centre of empire was exactly in Subotica.

http://www.subotica.co.yu/new/en/actual/show.php?lg=en&id_kat=8&id=30

20th June – Sunday – Square of Jovan Nenad, the emperor – 18.30

PANONIAN --

Population
Info on Backa in 1900:

As of 1900 the Backa was composed of Hungarians (40.5%), Germans (22.5%), Serbs (19%) and Others (18%). This makeup changed radically due to the expulsion of some 200,000 Hungarians following the detachment of Backa.

Info on Bačka in 1715:

According to the Austrian census from 1715, Serbs and Bunjevci comprised 97.6% of the population. So, would you also say that this make up changed radically between 1715 and 1900? By the way, I never heard that so much Hungarians was expelled. Besides this, what we talk here about is population of ENTIRE Bačka, and the northern part of Bačka is now in Hungary, and Hungarians are still majority in the areas where they were majority in 1900. Only the participation of Serbs and Germans has changed. PANONIAN  (talk)  02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

 * Thanks for the answers. See my answer below. Fcsaba 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put this section under dispute. Fcsaba 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the demographic section contain parts which violates the neutral point of view (NPOV) principle, which is fundamental in Wikipedia. It simply describes South Slaves as "good guys", and Hungarians as "bad guys". Let's see tha facts!


 * I do not see that any part of the article mention words "good guys" and "bad guys". PANONIAN  14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's imagine that someone from other part of the world reads this article. What is his conclusion? "Originally Serbs lived on this area. Then came the Hungarian nationalism and Magyarization, but fortunatelly this area was liberated by the Serbs, and everybody was happy. Then came the Hungarian fascists, and the wanted to prove that the ethnical composition differs from the reality. But fortunatelly the big letter Justice won: the Serbs have taken the control over on this territory again, and everybody is happy since then. Conclusion: Hungarians are the bad guys, and the Serbs are the good guys." Don't You think? Fcsaba 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there is no mention here that "Hungarians are bad guys" - you really have to see the difference between Hungarians as a people and policies of former Hungarian governments that aimed to exterminate Serbs in Vojvodina either by cultural assimilation either by genocide. That has nothing to do with Hungarians as a people. PANONIAN  14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right that "Hungarian are bad guys" are not mentioned, and it is also true that we must differentiate between the government and the nation. But what I wanted to claim is that the article is not neutral, because you tell only negative for Hungarian politics, and facts that positive for Serbs. If someone reads this he could think "hey, there were always problems when that territory belonged to Hungary, and everything were all right when that belonged to Serbia (or Yugoslavia or whatever), so it is better to belong to Serbia than to Yugoslavia." It is not a question to which country this territory now belongs, but the sentence above is not true. Maybe you don't wonder, but a Hungarian could say "everything were all right under the Hungarian government, and everything is bad under Serbian government". This is not true, either. But be balanced! Please, don't think, that the only right is yours. Fcsaba 10:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In Bačka, the majority are Serbs, and Hungarians are only one of many minorities that live here together with Serbs, and this article is not the right place to writte history of every minority that live in this area: there ase separate articles about this such as the Hungarians in Vojvodina, Slovaks in Vojvodina, Croats in Vojvodina, etc, etc. This article speak about Bačka and demographic section mention only general demographic changes during history and general circumstances under which ethnic relations changed in certain time periods. We really have no space here to writte about population demographic trends of every minority ethnic group that live in Bačka and that is why these separate articles exist. Article named Hungarians in Vojvodina already mention reasons for decline of Hungarian population and if we mention this here as well that would not be fair towards Slovaks, Croats, Rusyns, etc, who are not mentioned. Thus, to speak here only about Hungarians and not about other minorities is very far from balanced article. For example, why you did not proposed that we writte here what Hungarian fascists done in World War II to Jewish community that was almost destroyed? PANONIAN  10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What you've written here are true, this is not the right place to write history of the several minorites. This is what I want to achieve in this case: do not write anything the history of the Hungarians in this sections. I mean for example "magyarization". Fcsaba 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Magyarization have much more to do with history of Serbs than with history of Hungarians: it explains why percent of Serbs, Bunjevci and Šokci decreased from 97.6% in 1715 to 26.70% in 1910. Magyarization just have to be mentioned as explanation for 1910 census results. PANONIAN  14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand it, and I totally agree with you that there was an official politics called "magyarization", and the goal was to increase the number of Hungarians within Hungary. (About the 97,6%: as far as I know this territory was almost uninhabited at that time, so it means that 9x% of very few people was South Slaves. But I really don't want to start a dispute on this intermezzo...) My only problem with this is the following. I hope we can agree that forcing to change the demograpics is a negative issue, so magyarization is a negative notion. To formulate it very simple: that was a bad politics. So if you mention magyarization, then you mention a negative fact. That's OK. But you mention nothing from facts with are negative points in the Serbian history. And this is unbalanced, this contradicts the Wikipedia NPOV principle. Fcsaba 08:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, territory was not "almost uninhabited" - it had low population density, but "almost uninhabited" is really not a proper description. Also, magyarization is not mentioned here as "negative point" but as explanation why census data from 1910 was so different from census data from 1715. And again, as I already said, article already mention what partisans done to Germans and Hungarians after the war, so what else you suggest that we writte here? PANONIAN  10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- 18th century: the article claims that it "seems to have been inhabited solely by them" (Serbs). It is not necessary to emphasize, it's enough to write the figures. Everybody understands it. You don't write "Adolf Hitler was a bad person", you just write "Adolf Hitler killed x millio people", and everybody is able to decide if Hitler was good or bad person.


 * I still do not see reason why we cannot writte "seems to have been inhabited solely by them" since that is a correct description. PANONIAN  14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See the "Let the facts speak for themselves" part on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Fcsaba 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But sentence "seems to have been inhabited solely by them" is a fact. So, what is a problem? PANONIAN  14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that a story is hidden behind the facts. "Originally the territory is inhabited solely by South Slavic. Then came the Hungarian nationalism and colonization. Then the territory got to Serbs, and everything was all right (because nothing bad is mentioned). Then came again the Hungarian fascists, and caused problems, but then the territory got back to Serbia, and everybody have been happy since then." What is the problem with this? Maybe you could write to 1910 census that "look, how many Hungarian and German speaking people live there, and what happens with them after the Yugoslav regime came back". Fcsaba 10:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Data from 1910 census is already presented and if you check history section of this article you will see that there is mention what happened to Hungarians and Germans after WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bačka#History So, I do not understand what you object to? PANONIAN  10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See may answer right above. Fcsaba 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

- 1910: "The 19th century saw the rize of nationalism, particularly Hungarian [...]". Black point to Hungarians. Why it is bad in this case? See later.


 * What black point? The Hungarian nationalism was crucial reason for magyarization of Bačka and ethnic changes. PANONIAN  14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't deny that the Hungarian minority politics was bad from the minorities point of view. I've mentioned the "black point" because beyond the facts you mentioned only facts negative for Hunagrians and positive for Serbians. This is one negative for Hungarians. Black point. That's OK, but it contradicts to NPOV's "Undue weight", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. "... the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints ..." Fcsaba 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again: there is very big difference between Hungarians as a people and policies of Hungarian governments. It is fact that these Hungarian governments done these bad things to local population of this region, so I do not see how mention of these things could be POV. Contrary to this, Serbian and Yugoslav governments never officially had any policy that wanted to assimilate Hungarians or commit genocide against them. PANONIAN  14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is not important if such a politics is official or not. Do you think Srebrenica massacre, 1995 was an official politics? And do you think it matters from widows POV? (Another issues: see later) Fcsaba 10:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see how Srebrenica is related to this case... And I said, article already mention that Yugoslav partisans killed some Germans and Hungarians after the war. PANONIAN  10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason how Srebrenica is related here is the following. You wrote that magyarization has to be mentioned since it was an official politics, and serbization shouldn't be mentioned since there is no such official politics. I've answerred that from the victim point of view it is totally irrelevant if there is part of a declared and open official politics or not, only the fact matters. The Srebrenica is a kind of semblance: a woman who lost her husband or son doesn't care if Srebrenica massacre was open official, semi-official or not official politics. You say magyarization has to be mentined just because this was official, and serbization shoudn't be mentioned since there is no such declared politics. I say that since the results are similar: before WW1 the percentage of Hungarians gradually increased and the percentage of Slaves gradually decreased, and the opposite process took place between WW1 and WW2, and after WW2 up to now, wither both has to be mentioned or neither, according to NPOV. I suggest neither.Fcsaba 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I really see no reason to discuss here about Srebrenica massacre - I never read or edited that article and if you want to discuss about it, here is right place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre Regarding serbization, there was no serbization policy at all (official or unofficial) in the SFRY. Serb colonists that were settled in Vojvodina after WWII were not settled there with purpose of serbization, but with purpose to fulfil economic vacum that remained in the area after German population left. Contrary to this, Kingdom of Hungary had very agressive policy of magyarization with goal to force all its citizens to become Hungarians. In Vojvodina, results of this magyarization policy are very evident because very large number of Hungarians in Vojvodina have Slavic surnames). Contrary to this, you have no many Serbs with non-Serb surnames. Also, let have this clear: term "magyarization" before anything else refer to cultural change in which somebody who is not Hungarian is forced to become Hungarian. In Serbia, similar policy was used only in the case of Macedonia, but never in the case of Vojvodina (It was not even expected that Hungarians or Germans in Vojvodina could become Serbs in the future). PANONIAN  14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

- 1921: it just tells the numbers, but says nothing about why decreased the number of Hungarians from 360 to 260 thousand, with more that 100 thousand people. It suppresses how it happened that the number South Slavic speakers' increased with 30.000 within 10 years, after a world war, when "normally" the number of people decreases. If we emphasize the Hungarian negative issues, let's emphasize also negative Serbian issues, too!


 * No, there was no "decrease of the number of Hungarians from 360 to 260 thousand" because population figure from 1910 is that for whole Bačka (including part that is now in Hungary), while figure from 1921 is for Serbian part of Bačka only. If you compare data from 1921 and 1931 census you will see that number of Hungarians in fact increased from 260,998 to 268,711. PANONIAN  14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Fcsaba 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

- 1941: it simply claims that the Hungarian census was unreliable. Not surprizingly from Hungarian point of view the Serbian 1921 and 1931 censuses were unreliable. I think accoring to NPOV it should be written that Hungarians hold Serbian cenuses as unreliable and Serbs hold Hungarian censuses as unreliable. Or not to tell anything about the unreliablity. (In this case I suggest the first one, in order to give some answers about the extreme variation of ethnic groups.)


 * The fascist census from 1941 is considered unreliable by most historians because it was not conducted in normal circumstances. Its "results" are also very different from both, previous and subsequent censuses. Also, some Hungarian historians might consider censuses from 1921 and 1931 unreliable as well as Serb historians consider censuses from 1900 or 1910 unreliable, but all these censuses (in 1900, 1910, 1921, 1931) have at least some scientificic credibility, while fascist census from 1941 have no any credibility. PANONIAN  14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Maybe you don't know but in 1921 and 1931 if at least one member of a family was Serb, then every member of the family was counted as Serb. Beyond, if someone's name seemed to be Serbian origin, than the whole family was counted as Serb, even though the didn't speak a Serbian word at all!


 * No. 1921 and 1931 censuses did not even recorded nationality of the people, but only their language and religion, thus you have no idea what you speak about. PANONIAN  14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know neither did 1910 census. I speak about the following. The enumerator entered to a household with 5 family members, and asked what are their mother language. One of them said Serbian, and other 4 spoke whatever, and the enumerator wrote 5 persons as Serb. Another case: the enumerator entered to a family whose family name is Jelasics, but everybody spoke Hungarian, and nobody spoke even a single word in Serbian. But the enumerator recorded their name as Jelašić, and registered them as Serbs. No doubt such problems were with Hungarian censuses, but please don't say negative only against Hungarians, see NPOV. Fcsaba 10:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Any census performed before 1948 did not recorded nationality so I do not see how "enumerator could record somebody as a Serb" when his only tasks were to record language and religion. Also, as I said, I do not see that I wrote something negative against Hungarian people. PANONIAN  10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean Serb is who speaks Serbian and Hungarian is who speaks Hungarian. I know this is not the best way to divide people into nationalities, since there are several nations (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrian, Bunjevci, Šokci, ...) who speak the same language, but we can compare the number of South Slaves with the number of Hungarians according to the language. So I mean "enumerator recorded someone as Hungarian" as "enumerator recorded someone as Hungarian native speaker". Is that all right now? Fcsaba 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So? There are several irregularities in every census, but this again lead us to the fact that 1941 census simply had too much irregularities including abnormal conditions under which it was conducted. PANONIAN  14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You, as Serb (I think you are Serb as nationality, aren't you?) think there are several irregularities in every census, but at 1941 census to much. That's OK. Your opinion. Maybe this is the opinion of 10+ million Serbs. I am Hungarian, and I say, that there are several irregularities in every census, including 1941, but there was much more in 1921 and 1931 censuses. That's my opinion, and maybe this is the opinion of 10+ million Hungarians. So according to Wikipedia's NPOV principle ("NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.") it is not enough to mention that 1941 census was unreliable. You either mention that 1921 and 1931 were also unreliable, or say nothing about this. Fcsaba 08:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is irrelevant what I "think" about censuses - the important thing is what I read in history books, so it is not my "opinion" (which is really irrelevant here) but results of research of various historians. And your opinion is also irrelevant here: please read some book about this issue and then we can talk. The NPOV policy of Wikipedia does not mean that you and me should present our opinions about the subject, but that opposite opinions of relevant authors should be presented (i.e. if there are opposite opinions among them). And, as I said, you cannot compare 1941 census with those from 1921 and 1931 because 1941 census was not conducted in normal political environment and it was part of fascist propaganda from World War II similar to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stimzettel-Anschluss.jpg PANONIAN  10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are let's say 100 specialists who think stg about stg, and there are 100 specialists who think sth else about the same thing, than these are 2 viewpoints. Fcsaba 14:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But in this case, there are no 100 specialists vs 100 specialists. Here you have only opinion of specialists vs opinion of small political group that like to wear fascist uniforms (see their site: http://www.hvim.hu/ ). You really should not read such web sites though. PANONIAN  21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The source is not HVIM, of course. There is a book, with title "Hungary in the XXth century", edited by Ignác Romsics, and currently this is considered to be one of the best and widely accepted work about this topic. His works can be treated as the Hungarian viewpoint. Fcsaba 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Listen: there are no such things as "Serbian viewpoint", "Hungarian viewpoint", etc, etc. There are just viewpoints of certain historians which may agree or may not agree one with another, no matter of their ethnic origin because it would be ridiculous to say that all Serbian historians think same or that all Hungarian historians think same, etc, etc. Therefore, opinion of Ignác Romsics (no matter what this opinion is) is only his opinion, not a "Hungarian viewpoint". PANONIAN  16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's not 100% correct what I've written, but I think it is not so important - if you want to understand, you understand it. You wrote that in every Serbian History books it is written that Hungary was a fascist state. Then, performing some "floppy" simplification I write this is the "Serbian viewpoint". That means 90+ % of Serbian people think so. The "Hungarian viewpoint" is defined in a similar way. Fcsaba 10:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But Hungarian historians from communist period of Hungary also claimed that Horthy period was fascist, thus if Serbian and Hungarian historians agree about this, you cannot call it "Serbian viewpoint". It is a viewpoint generally accepted by the post-WW2 free World. The fact that some "new-composed" Hungarian historians today present "different viewpoint" is another story and their viewpoint is certainly not a "Hungarian viewpoint" - their viewpoint is just a viewpoint of one ideology that was defeated in WW2 and that was generally regarded as evil. PANONIAN  22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The communist period of Hungary was full of liar, and the official statepoint cannot be considered as a relevant viewpoint. I think if I can find easily let's say 100 different sources about stg, including for example official secondary school coursebooks, this has to be considered as a relevant viewpoint. Maybe you don't like it, but Wikipedia NPOV says it has to be treated in a fair way.
 * How so? During communist period of Hungary, Hungarian historians had same opinion about certain issues as historians in neighbouring countries. Today, some Hungarian historians have different opinion than historians in neighbouring countries, which mean that certain current opinions in Hungary are problematic, not the one that existed during communist period. PANONIAN  06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * About the fascism: it seems that you say fascism for Hungarians wery easy. Do you know what fascism is? Do you think Hungary was a fascist state between 1920 and 1945? If you think so, then I think you are wrong. According to reliable historians Horty was a so-called authoriter person (a kind of dictator), but not fascist. I don't deny that there were issues during that period which were close to fascism (e.g. numerus clausus, jewis laws, Novi Sad massacre), but this doesn't mean that the whole period was fascist. You say the 1941 census as unreliable and fascist. Hungarian historians say it was relatively good organized (taking into account that there was war), and the methodology was much better than used in the surrounding countries at that time. Everybody knows that Serbs wanted to prove that their number is higher and the number of Hungarians is lower, and Hungarians wanted to prove the contrary. Don't say the Hungarian census was unreliable and fascist, and 1921 and 1931 cesuses were much better. Fcsaba 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I say fascism for ideology that was defeated in WWII and I never "say fascism for Hungarians" because Hungarians as a people were victims of fascist regime that ruled over Hungary during World War II. And it is not question whether I think was that regime fascist or not, the facts speak for themselves: it was regime that persecuted Jews, Serbs and Roma and was ally of Nazi Germany, so what else it can be instead of fascist? And who these "reliable historians" who you mention are and what exactly they say? Regarding census from 1941, perhaps you have to read more about period of Hungarian occupation of Bačka so you will found that the basic fact that somebody was Serb was a reason that fascists kill him, so people were afraid to say that their native language is not Hungarian. Other thing is that before the census, fascists expelled many Serbs and instead of them settled Hungarians from Bukovina and other places. And those are only some among things that are wrong with this census. PANONIAN  14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you regarding to your first sentence. It is out of Bačka topic, but I think it is worth to discuss a bit if a Hungarian regime on that time was fascist or not. You are right that they killed Jews, Serbs and Roma (and even 6 Hungarians!) in 1942. But don't forget, that the executor was sentenced to death even under Hungarian regime (and executed later during the Yugoslav regime). It is also true that Hungary was ally of Nazi Germany, but: at that time every country, even Serbia was ally of Nazi Germany, and beyond to this Hungary wanted to get back some of their former territories, mainly lived by Hungarians (from Hungary POV the state wanted justice), and since other world-powers didn't want to help Hungary, Hungary chose Germany for alliance. But despite of these (and many other) facts you cannot say that Hungarian regime was fascis. Why? For example under a real fascist control the other parties were forbidden. In Hungary several parties were active, until the Szálasi government (which was fascist, indeed). In a real fascist state Jews were killed. In Hungary during the Horty regime Numerus Clausus was introduced, "Jewis laws" were accepted, some Jews were killed near Novi Sad (or, let's write Újvidék) and the jews were deported. But Numerus Clausus (against Jews) was accepted in several countries, even in the United States! Neither of these can be accepted, of course, that's why we cannot say that Horthy era was democratic (I know such people who claim this), but you are not fascist if you don't act as a democratic, there are several nuances. Who are these historians? Almost every current Hungarian historians dealing with this era say this (do you want some certain names?), except a negligable minority (some radicals), who say that was democracy, and a negligable minority (especially communist ideologists) who say that was fascism. Fcsaba 10:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The trial to "those responsible for 1942 genocide" was false and was made with purpose "to show to western allies that Hungary is not fascist state". The problem with this trial is that it was not organized for all people responsible for genocide including Miklos Horthy and other officials who were aware of the genocide before it started and who approved it. Therefore, the trial to several officers was organized with the sole purpose to hide the truth about the role of the state and highest state officials in this genocide. And very interesting fact is that these officers in fact were never convicted in this trial - state allowed them to escape to Germany and therefore they could not be sentenced by the Hungarian law. Regarding "former territories that Hungary wanted to get back" as you say, by 1910 census these territories were mainly inhabited by non-Hungarians and therefore even the right of former Kingdom of Hungary to rule over these territories was very questionable, not to mention aims of the WWII fascist Hungary. And yes, it was fascist state, like all other states that were allies of Nazi Germany - perhaps you heard a term "Fascist Europe" which refer to all these states. Regarding these Hungarian historians who claim that WWII Hungary was not fascist state, perhaps you should see what Serbian, Slovak and other historians say about that or just to see map named "Fascist Europe": http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/194145fc.gif PANONIAN  10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact don't know much about these events, but I know that the society has always been against that. A good example is the Hungarian film called Hideg napok (English: Cold days). But about the fascist Hungary, just in order to avoid the misunderstangings: I don't support the politics of the Hungarian government between the 2 WWs. But the Horthy era lasted between 1919 and 1944, and if we take into account the whole era, we cannot simply say it was fascist. We have to compare it with real fascist states like Germany, Italy, and Hungary after 15th October, 1944. The difference is huge, even though there were fascist-like facts. Fcsaba 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, majority of Hungarians were against fascism (and they are today against it too since Hungary is ruled by socialist party), but I do not understand this "fascist denial policy" of some Hungarians; we do not have here a problem with 1919-1941 period, but we have problem with year 1941 when Hungary invaded and occupied neighbouring country and commited genocide against Serbs, Jews and Roma (invasion, occupation and genocide ARE characteristics of one fascist country). PANONIAN  14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * New issue begin. I've found what is required to know about the Horthy-era the secondary school students in Hungary for the final examination: http://www.sulinet.hu/tovabbtan/felveteli/2001/27het/tortenelem/tori27.html. Here I translate the summary ("összegzés") part.
 * ° The Horthy era was a civil parlamentarism, which contained authoriter elements.
 * ° Democratic elements: multi party system, parliament, responsible government, soveregn judgement, varied intellectual life.
 * ° Authoriter elements: antidemocratic functionating of the institutional structure (from the race for the political power notable parts of the society were excluded, or forced into uneven conditions).
 * ° The Horthy system didn't have parameters which were specifics of the fascist or national socialist states (official ideology, one party system, elimination of the parliamentary system, controlling the whole intellectual life, armed terror).
 * This one is wrong: it had official ideology: "Greater Hungarism" and it also had armed terror, thus we see that fascist elements are here. PANONIAN  22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the summary. So if it is required to know this in the secondary schools, this can be treated as the Hungarian viewpoint. As I've already mentioned there is a minority in Hungary, let's say 5%, who think Horthy-era was fascist. There is another minority, let's say another 5%, aho think it was democracy. But this is only 10%, the remaining 90% is on the opinion above. That means it can be defined as the viewpoint of Hungary. I've found this viewpoint among Hungarian people living outside Hungary - including Serbia -, so I think we could treat as Hungarian viewpoint. (I personally would add to the list the fascist like issues, too.) It seems to be significanlty different related to the Serbian viewpoint, which is - as already mentioned - correctly summarized by you.


 * Again, please do not use terms "Hungarian viewpoint" or "Serbian viewpoint" because these terms are wrong - you will not find 100% Hungarian or Serbian historians that agree with this. Also, it is irrelevant what Serbian or Hungarian people would think about history - the only important opinions are opinions of historians and other competent scientists. The view that you presented is therefore a view of several historians from Hungarian educational system who are connected with state policy. Perhaps I should translate for you what my old book for secondary school say: "Aiming to stop actions of Shiptar (note that book use this name instead Albanian) separatists, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was ready to give to Shiptars very large autonomy within Republic of Serbia, which they refused because they wanted to separate Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and to join it to Republic of Albania". We both know that this is ridiculous. The point is that official educational systems of states are connected with official state policies and therefore certain viewpoints in these systems reflecting certain political aims of the states and these aims are well known in the case of Hungary. PANONIAN  22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Hungarian viewpoint" means "the most commonly accepted viewpoint among Hungarians". Is that all right? And since there are about 15 million Hungarians all over the world, and a significant majority of them think the same about somethink, that can be considered as "Hungarian viewpoint". About the secondary school book you mentioned: according to the text it was written during the Milošević's era, which was a kind of dictature, and that's why it is a bit misshapen. This is not the case in the current Hungary, since there is a kind of democracy. (In fact I consider Horthy as fascist as Milošecić. Neither of them were fascist, but both of them were authoriter persons. In both cases there was a multi party system, but the opposition didn't have a real chance to get the political power without a kind of violence. And in both cases there were wars and many innocent people were killed - maybe more during the Milošević era (especially in BiH) than during the Horthy era.) But I have a question to you: if you were secondary school student approximatelly 10 yeras ago, who it could happen that your cousins had problems with the Hungarian authorites, 65 years ago? Fcsaba 12:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat: the only relevant viewpoints are those of Hungarian historians, not of ordinary Hungarins whose proffesion is not history. And thenagain: there are Hungarian historians that do not agree with the views that you presented, so is that mean that their opinion is not "Hungarian view"? What is their view then? Would you say that they are "national traitors" because they want truth and peace? Similar to this, in present-day Serbia everybody who do not want new war in Kosovo is seen as "national traitor". Both, modern Serbia and modern Hungary are "kind of democracies" as you said, but in both you have strong forces of darkness that aim to start new wars and therefore these forces present such "opinions" as justifications for these new wars. As for comparison with Milošević, he was fascist too of course. Regarding my cousins, what is relevance of my age here? Many of my cousins were killed by Hungarian fascists during WW2 and the fact that I was not born yet in that time does not mean that they were not my cousins. PANONIAN  06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So I think it is irrelevant to discuss about if Hungarian viewpoint exist or not. Accoding to the above it exists. It is up to you if you accept it or not. (I guess not.) But it cannot be treated as the viewpoint of the irredentist and fascist minority, and according to the Wikipedia rules it has to be treated in a fair way.
 * New issue end. Fcsaba 11:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is very relevant to discuss about it because Hungarian or Serbian viewpoints simply do not exist. They would exist only in one case: if 100% of all Serbian or all Hungarian historians have same opinion about one issue and if 100% of all other non-Serbian or non-Hungarian historians have opinion exactly opposite to the first one. Since we do not have this case, we cannot claim that such viewpoints exist. I believe that one Hungarian who is not irredentist, who want to live in peace, who do not want to start new wars between Hungary and its neighbours, and most important, who do not want to lost his life in such meaningless wars, would never agree that viewpoints that aim to start new wars are his viewpoints, and since he as Hungarian do not agree with such viewpoints, we cannot claim that these viewpoints are "Hungarian". For example, I would never accept that views of current Serbian government about Kosovo are "Serbian viewpoints" because I, as citizen of Serbia who want to live in peace, do not agree with such viewpoints that aim to start new wars. PANONIAN  22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If X is a characteritics of Y, and Z has an X characteristics, that doesn't necessary mean that Z is X. Invasion, occupation and genocide had taken place before the fascism. I personally don't deny anything you meantion, I just claim that if we want to characterize the Horthy era with one word, the "fascist" is not the most suitable word. I think "authoriter" is much more adequate. Fcsaba 08:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In every history book in Serbia you will read that Horthy era was fascist. And if invasion, occupation and genocide are not characteristics of one fascist state, please tell me what are then characteristics of such state? PANONIAN  10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In every history books in Hungary issued before 1989 you read that Horthy era was fascist. But in every history books issued in Hungary since 1989 you read that the question is much more complex. Different viewpoints, NPOV... I didn't claim that the characteristics you've mentioned are not fascist characteristics, I've just written that if these characteristics characterizes a state, this doesn't necessary mean it is fascist. For example there were invasion, occupation and genocide also in the medieval ages, but these staates weren't obviously not fascist, since fascism's appeared in the 20th century. It's a simple logic. Fcsaba 14:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But pre-1989 Hungary was a state that aimed peace with its neighbours and in this time Hungarian historians were much more objective. After the fall of communism, nationalism started to rise and these different view points were simply reflection of nationalism (exactly same kind of nationalism that was guilty for Yugoslav wars) and therefore the "new" historians inspired by their nationalistic ideology presented such "new" opinions. The most interesting fact is that situation of Hungarians living outside Hungary became worse only after such "new" historians presented their "opinions" about neighbouring countries. The modern world is like a chain and if somebody spread hate towards somebody that hate come back to him as a boomerang and by his own hate, he will mostly damage himself. Regarding fascism, it did not existed in the middle ages, but we speak about 20th century here and fascism clearly existed in this time. PANONIAN  21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Before 1989 Hungary was occupied by the Soviet Union, and many truths couldn't be said. It is not true, that the situation of the Hungarians living outside Hungary became worse only after 1989. The Hungarian dispora livin in West-Europe and North-Amercia dealt with the bad situation of Hungarians, especially in Romania and Czechoslovakia. The bad situation turned into even worse, due to the nationalism in those countries. But this is really out of the scope if this article. Fcsaba 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, some of what you call "truths" are better not be ever said (such "truths" are always reasons for new wars and new genocides). PANONIAN  16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Couldn't be said anything about, let's say, revolution in 1956. I don't think it was a reason for a new war just to tell the truth. About the Hungarians outside Hungary: people living in Hungary before 1989 even didn't know that there existed Hungarians outside Hungary. As they arrived to Hungary as tourists, local people said: "Hey, being Serbs, Romans, etc., how well you are speaking Hungarian!" But it is just an information, and not a reason for wars and genocides. And if you think Hungary wants wars and genocides, then please count how many wars was started by Hungary after 1989, and how many innocent people were killed by Hungarian troops after 1989. And just for comparation please count how many wars has been started by Serbs after 1989, and how many innocent people were killed by the Serbian troops after 1989. And accoring to the results try to figure out if saying out the "Hungarian truths" caused any bigger problems... To tell the real truth is not the basis of violence (if telling the truth is followed by violence, then the basis is not the truth itself, the source of the problems is much deeper), but prohibiting to tell the truth could cause unwanted violence. Fcsaba 10:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that what you call truth is not truth but "truth" (i.e. the false truth fabricated with exact purpose to start new wars). People do not start new wars to tell this "truth", but they telling this "truth" with aim to start new wars. And it is very nice that you compared Hungarian and Serbian history because I, who lived in Serbia all these shity years, very well know that telling a "truth" about "evil neighbours" was exactly something that appear before beginning of the war and therefore if Hungarians starting to tell these "truths" about their "evil neighbours" there will not be long until they came to idea to solve the question of their "evil neighbours" by war. PANONIAN  22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And I also do not see where you found that "Serbs wanted to prove that their number is higher" when even Hungarian censuses conducted before 1918 proved that number of Serbs was higher. For example, in 1910 Hungarian census, percent of Serbs in Novi Sad was 35% and by 1941 census only 27%, which is simply ridiculous. Census from 1941 differ from both, Yugoslav and old Hungarian censuses, and that is very big picture of its invalidity. In another words, you do not have to compare 1941 census with Yugoslav censuses from 1921 and 1931 - it is enough to compare it with Hungarian censuses from 1910 and 1900 and you will see how it differ from them. PANONIAN  14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * About "X wanted to prove that their number is higher": I mean not "number of A is higher than B" but "number of A is higher than the reality". Fcsaba 10:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean but, as I said, the problem with 1941 census is that its data is different not only from Yugoslav censuses, but also from old Hungarian censuses, and the fact is that these older Hungarian censuses showed already high number of Serbs (higher than number of anybody else in Vojvodina), thus I do not see a reason why Serbs would want to make it higher. PANONIAN  10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's say there is a territory under government X, and there live x majority and y minority. If the ratio of x is 60% and y's is 40%, then X government may think 40% is too high, because maybe they will be forced to give more rights for them, so it is its interest to somehow lower the ratio. The manners are: genocide, expellation, colonization, false census results. With such manners the ratio can be reduced to let's say 30%, and then they can say, "hey, more than 2/3rd of the people living there are x, what do you want?" I claim that these "tools" were used by the Yugoslav communists after WW2.Fcsaba 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You claim? Where is proof that censuses after WW2 were forged? Censuses from 1948 to 2002 are considered very accurate in most cases. The only irregularity from 1948 census was the one that members of Bunjevac and Šokac communities were counted as "Croats", but still, there was no forgery of numbers, only of names. PANONIAN  14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a historian and I don't have any proofs. I just think so. Maybe a few million other people think so, too. And now I would like to ask historians who read this article and have proof, let share us! But I just refer to the Wikipedia's NPOV, again. Fcsaba 08:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can always go to library where you can read history books and then you will not have need to think anything. PANONIAN  10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have no time for that:-) Fcsaba 14:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- 1948: it tells ABSULUTELLY nothing about how it happened that 50.000 Hungarians simply "dissapeared", and how it happened that the number of German speakers decreased from 162.000 downto 10.000. How it happened that the number of Serbs suddenly increased to 300.000, which is even much more than their number according to last census lead by the Serbians (1930)?! If we mention the "Hungarian nationalism and Magyarization" and the "unreliable Hungarian census", let's talk about the Serb's massacre among Hungarians in Vojvodina, 1944/45, about the deportation of the almost whole German speakers, and the Serbian colonization from Bosnia and other parts of the not so developed parts of Yugoslavia. If the article mentioned the Hungarian colonization in the 18-19th century, then according to NPOV it MUST mention the Serbian colonization, too.


 * When exactly 50,000 Hungarians "dissapeared"? In 1931 there were 268,711 Hungarians and in 1948 307,343, which means that their number again increased. But if you refer to data from 1941, these Hungarians dissapeared in false fascist statistics. As for Germans, the answer is simple: they mostly left from region together with German army. And number of Serbs increased because of post-WW2 colonization, of course. Regarding massacres, I do not see that this articles mentioned anything about genocide that Hungarian fascists commited from 1941 to 1944 against Serb, Jewish and Roma civilians, so we have no reason to mention revenge killings commited by the partisans after the war (there are separate articles about both things). Regarding Germans, most of them left Vojvodina together with German army before it was actually liberated by Read Army and partisans. Regarding post-wwII colonization, I originally wanted to writte very brief introduction section describing general ethnic relations during the history, so we have no enough space to mention here just everything - as I said, there are other articles that speak about other subjects. PANONIAN  14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't accept your opinion about how Germans dissappeared from that region. According to this that was their own will, but they were forced by partizans to leave their homeland. Germans were deported to Germany by the partizan "liberators", and nobody said them at least "I'm sorry, that was really a bad deal", even up to now. In fact Germans were deported from the whole region. I repeat: if you write things which are negative for Hungarians, write things which are negative for Serbians, too (NPOV). Or, leave the figures as they are, without any comment. If you mention the "Magyarization", please mention also the post-wwII Serbian colonization. Believe, that from Hungarian point of view the post-wwII colonization was at least so bad as was bad the "Magyarization" from Serb point of view. Fcsaba 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is well known fact that most of the Germans left from Vojvodina together with German army before partisans and Red Army came here, it is not "my opinion" but historical fact. Those who remained here were arrested by the partisans because they were members of "Culturbund" (95% of Vojvodina Germans were members of this organization). And I repeat: I did not wrote here a single negative word about Hungarian people. Regarding post-WWII colonization, these colonists were people whose houses in Bosnia and Croatia were destroyed by the fascists, thus, the government wanted to solve the question of their new houses by settling them into empty German houses. This colonization thus had economic and humanitarian aim, not nationalistic one, so we cannot compare it with magyarization policy before WWI. As for "Hungarian point of view" you speak about, that is again not the point of view of Hungarian people, but only of Greater Hungarian nationalists who wanted to exterminate Serbs in this area and create Greater Hungary and therefore it is obvious why it was "bad" for them. PANONIAN  14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe to be member of "Culturbund" at that time was similar to be, let's say, pionir during Tito. Everybody was pionir, and nobody asked of it is part of the communist ideology. As far as I know ther other German parties were banned. So if you condemn someone who was member of Culturbund at that time is morally similar to condemn someone to be communist because he was pionir. Another issue: normally most of the peolpe don't give up their homeland voluntarily. If the number of a minority reduces to less than 10%, then there must be problem with the new regime, I think. It is not normal that 95% are exaggarated. Fcsaba 10:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Culturbund" was a pro-fascist organization and according to my source (Jelena Popov, Vojvodina i Srbija, Veternik, 2001.) 95% of Vojvodina Germans were its members, which, as I said, was a reason why partisans arrested them after the war. Also, most of the Germans left from the region before partisans came because they were aware of the fact that partisans will punish them for their support for German army that commited numerous war crimes against the peoples of Yugoslavia. Only about 40% of Germans were still in Vojvodina in the time when partisans liberated it from fascism. PANONIAN  10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think if there is an organization which 95% of the people are members it is a real free choice to join? Don't you think it is a bit enforced, or maybe it is just a part of the peoples everyday life, without thinking if that is wrong or not, since they are too small to change the system? Do you really think that 95% of a minority can be war criminal? Fcsaba 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant what I think about it, I only explained what partisans (and Germans) thought about it. PANONIAN  14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So you think it is rightous to punish ethnic German civilians because the German Army committed war crimes. This is a good example of collective punishment which is against human rights. Otherwise to speak about liberation seems to me also contoversial:A cruel totalitarian regime (Nazism) was sustituted by another brutal totalitarian regime (Communism), so where was liberty? Hitler and Tito were brutal dictators and responsible for the death of many innocent people. I see no difference between atrocities committed by Hungarians or Germans against Serbs and the Bácska Massacres against Hungarians or Bleiburg massacres both committed by the "liberating" titoist partisans. --Koppany 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read my posts again you will not see that I wrotte that anything was rightful or not rightful - I simply said why partisans arrested these Germans without opinion whether this was rightful or not. Regarding liberation, for my ancestors and my cousins that indeed was a liberation because one regime which killed many of my cousins and burned their houses only because they were of wrong ethnic origin was replaced with regime that did not done this to them, so they indeed were liberated and that is how they felt about it. PANONIAN  19:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

- The past 5 decades: according to the numbers it is obvious that number of Hungarians decrease and the number of Serbs increase. Why don't we speak about the current "Serbization", if we speak can about the "Magyarization", 100 years before? Why just mention the numbers?

Suggestion: either remove the whole personal opinions and extra information, and show just the bare figures, or write also the issues which is negative for Serbs and positive for Hungarians, not only those ones which are negative for Hungarians and positive for Serbians. More certain suggestion: don't speak about the "Hungarian nationalism" and "Magyarization", don't mention the cruelities done by Serbs against ethnic minorities, especially against Germans and Hungarians in 1944/45, but you can mention that Serbs hold Hungarian censuses as unreliable and Hungarians hold Serbian censuses as unreliable, that's why it seems that demographich composition of the territory changes so rapidly. Fcsaba 09:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The number of Hungarians in recent decades decreased because they have very low birth rates, but there is no official state policy that want to "serbianize" them. On the contrary, the magyarization was an official policy of the former Hungarian Kingdom that wanted to transform all its citizens into Hungarians. And I do not understand what "negative and positive issues" you speak about. The purpose of the article is to present scientific facts, not to present somebody in negative or positive light. PANONIAN  14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the low birth rates, and beyond that there are a great migration (much more Hungarians migrate to abroad in percentage than the migration rate (percentage) in the whole country) and assimilation (if a Serb and a Hungarian person get married, most of the cases the children will be Serbs). But many Serb refugees from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo are settled to northern parts of Serbia (much more than it would be in case of a normal distribution). (According to international laws the state must actively enable the minorities to survive, so it is even not allowed to tolerate the contrary things.) Maybe there is no officion politics of "Serbization", like it used to be "Magyarization", but from Hungarian POV it is the same as it used to be from Serbian POV. With 100 years difference. Fcsaba 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But Serbian state do actively enable the minorities to survive by allowing them official usage of language and development of their culture. What else you expect from the state? To force Hungarians to have children perhaps? Regarding refugees, you are not correct about area where they settled: most of them settled in Belgrade, as well as in Districts of Srem, Mačva, South Bačka and West Bačka, i.e. in areas with Serb majority (much less number of them settled in areas with Hungarian majority). PANONIAN  14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I expect from the state to actively defend the minorities from atrocities, and to enable them for some self-government. Don't surprize that minorities in Serbia, espceially Hungarians (and Albanians, but ther are other story) don't feel Serbia as their home. Maybe currently a Hungarian man's feeling in Vojvodina towards Serbia is similar to a Serb person's feeleng towards Hungary, 100 years ago. Regardless if there is official "Magyarization", "Serbization" or whatever. Fcsaba 10:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Self-government is not one of the standards of human rights - the standards of human rights are protection of minority languages and cultures in any state or territorial unit. Besides this, in Vojvodina majority are Serbs, thus self-government for Vojvodina would not have anything with Hungarians because Serbs would be the one who would rule over that Vojvodina (perhaps even Serbian Radical Party which have largest number of voters in Vojvodina). PANONIAN  10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that you often choose arbitrary a territory where the majority is what you want. Yes, of course, in Vojvodina the majority is Serb. You are right that even in Bačka the majority is Serb. But there are a few municipalities where the majority is Hungarian. This can be the basis of the territorial autonomy, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Regional_Autonomy. I don't claim if that would be the best solution, I just claim that we can choose such territories where your arguments are not true. Fcsaba 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, we came to the point: this is article about Bačka and since it have Serb majority then my arguments are true, but if you want to discuss about autonomy of municipalities with Hungarian majority then you obviously visited wrong talk page. PANONIAN  14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right that this article is about Bačka, but 2 facts: 1. north Bačka is part of Bačka, too; 2. more important in this case, I claimed that the borders were unfair, you answerred that they were fair because the majority was non-Hungarian in every place, and my answer was that if you count the whole territory that's OK, but if we take into account some smaller parts, than your argument is not true anymore. That was a short story how we came to a smaller territory... I agree that this is out of the scope of the article Bačka. Fcsaba 08:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is separate article about North Bačka District as well as about Hungarian Regional Autonomy where more data about north Bačka is presented - this is general article about Bačka and there are really other articles where you can writte about these "smaller parts" (there are many Wiki articles about municipalities and settlements in which Hungarians are ethnic majority, so these articles are right places where you should writte about these areas). PANONIAN  10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For me is always interesting how PANONIAN is finding demographics data in his obsure books. With that I want to say that nobody outside Serbia is having this sort of demographics data. Rjecina 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, it is obvious that previous comment posted by user:Rjecina is example of trolling and according to Wiki policy trollish comments should be removed and other users should not respond to them. However, since some users want to have trollish comments here, I will answer to this: User Rjecina, please say is the only "proof" that these books are "obscure" fact that they are published in Serbia or you have any real proof that any of these books or its authors are "obscure" or that they presented incorrect data. Regarding claim that "nobody outside Serbia can find this data", libraries in Croatia certainly have some of these books that are published during former Yugoslavia and some of them are also translated into other languages, so you really have no idea what you speak about (not to mention the fact that data from these books originally came from archive documents that are mostly founds outside Serbia in archives of Budapest, Istambul or Vienna. PANONIAN  09:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let as be clear that comment about obscure books is first writen by oser Osli73 on 1 other discussion between me and PANONIAN so please there is no need dear PANONIAN to be actor !! Rjecina 06:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not remember that user Osli73 ever participated in discussion about Vojvodinian history. Please provide a link to page where user Osli73 said something like that and then we can discuss about it. PANONIAN  20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We are having discussions only on few articles so it is not hard to find where. I think that this has been History of Serbia. Rjecina 22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You think? Fine, if you think then please go to that page and show us where word "obscure" is written because I cannot find that word on that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Serbia PANONIAN  22:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am always happy to help you dear PANONIAN. I must say that it has been wrong article. Sorry my mistake. Because of that I will using copy transfer his words on this page :))


 * OK, does anyone have any other, perhaps more detailed, links or sources they feel could be appropriate (ie not obscure books/sources)? CheersOsli73"


 * If you want to know from which page is this you will need to look our popular pages :)) -- Rjecina 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But you again did not provided link to the page where user Osli said that - if you do not provide link to this page I can only assume that you invented the thing. PANONIAN  10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographics (2)
Here I describe what I expect and why in order to accept this section as neutral.

1. The Serbs (73%) and Bunjevci and Šokci (21%) had an overwhelming majority in the region which seems to have been inhabited solely by them. Delete these sentences. Reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. You could put percentages after the population, into brackets.
 * We already discussed this (see above) and I do not understand what exactly is not NPOV here? These sentences are correct, so what is wrong with them? PANONIAN  16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't write "Hitler was a bad guy", but you write "Hitlet killed x million people" and everybody should decide if Hitler was bad or not. You don't write "The Serbs (73%) and Bunjevci and Šokci (21%) had an overwhelming majority in the region which seems to have been inhabited solely by them.", you just write that the facts, and everybody has to decide if this is considered overwhelming majority and so, or not. Fcsaba 07:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But "inhabited solely by them" is also the fact, not an opinion like the one that "Hitler was a bad guy". Seems that you mixed some issues here. PANONIAN  23:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

2. This is not a neutrality issue, but at 1820 is the word plummeting the right one? Maybe increased is better.

3. ''The 19th century saw the rize of nationalism, particularly Hungarian and Magyarization. The policy of massive Hungarian colonization, mostly in the north of the Bačka region (Bačka-Bodrog county) finally gave a Magyar relative majority in the area, but still with a mixed population, as recorded by the 1910 census.'' Delete these sentences from here, and put it to the History part. Reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. This part is about the Demographics, and please don't explain the facts. Stick to the facts in this section. (Or, if you want to explain, then you should explain how it happened that that the number of Hungarians and Germans decreased during the 20th century... I don't want to start a new dispute about this topic here. Many viewpoints exist, and the Serb viewpoint is only one of them, but not the only and unattackable objective truth.)


 * Some census results require further explanation (reasons are already explained in our previous discussion above, but you ignored my explanation and posted same question again). Regarding minority ethnic groups, I already told you that we have no enough space here to writte about history of every ethnic group that live here. There are separate articles about Hungarians in Vojvodina and Danube Swabians where their histories are already mentioned. PANONIAN  16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't ignored your explanation, but it seems that you ignore my explanation. I really do understand what you are writing. I don't tell you are not right (maybe I think so, but it is not important), I just want to tell you that this is a sensitive topic, and therefore there are different viewpoints. What you are writing is a perfectly correct summarization of the Serbian viewpoint. I really admire your work. But I want to repeat again, that this is only the Serbian viewpoint, and not the absolute truth. On Serbian Wikipedia you can write only this viewpoint. But since this is the English Wikipedia, I think every relevant viewpoint has to be written, in a fair way. So there are many people who think what you are writing is not correct. You think they are nationalists, fascist, irredentists, whatever. You are free to think so, and I don't even tell that you are not right. Maybe you are right. Maybe these people think you are ... whatever, and maybe they are right, maybe not. But you, as a liberal person (you define yourself as liberal, aren't you?), should understand the different viewpoints. You can beleive that I don't want to write the history of all the minorities living in Vojvodina in the Bačka demographics section.


 * This is not sensitive topic: Bačka is territory in Serbia with Serb majority and I do not see anything "sensitive" about it (it is neither disputed area neither area where any non-Serb ethnic group is in majority). Regarding liberalism, I am liberal in all questions which aim to give freedom to people, but I am not at all liberal towards ideas that aim to enslave people, and I am sorry, but as I see it, all your proposals connected to this article are related to aim which want to "prove" that Serbs have no right to live in Bačka. I am really sorry, but I cannot be liberal towards this. I do not support Greater Serbian nationalists who claim that lands inhabited by Albanians, Bosniaks, Croats, etc are "Serbian", but I also do not support Greater (add country here) nationalists of Serbian neighbours who claim that lands inhabited by Serbs are "their" (add country here). You can clearly see in which of these two Bačka belongs. Regarding other things, which your explanation I ignored as you said? (I believe that I answered to all questions raised by you). As for view points, I already told you: there are no such things as "Serbian" or "Hungarian" viewpoints and some of these viewpoints could be most correctly classified by the political affiliation of persons that present such viewpoints, i.e. in some cases it is enough to see what are political goals of the author to know everything about his historical viewpoints. In another words, we can mention such viewpoints in certain articles, but not in all articles, which are not proper places for them. For example if fascists think that Jews are minor race, then their opinion could be mentioned in article about fascists, but not in the article about Jews because that would be insulting for Wikipedia readers of Jewish origin and articles should not be insulting for their readers. Same thing is with Bačka: if Greater Hungarian irredentists claim that Bačka is "rightfully Hungarian" then their opinion could be mentioned in the article named Greater Hungary, but not in the article about Bačka because such claim is insulting for most inhabitants of Bačka. PANONIAN  23:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bačka is a territory with mixed population, and many atrocities were committed in the past (and even in the present!) against minorites. The reason of the sensitivity is not that maybe some people disputes to which country it should belong to, but due to the history. Currently we are speaking about an aspect of the history of this territory (I mean: the demographics changes), and if you start to explain the bere facts, then you've stepped to a sensitive field. And please don't think so exaggarated: nobody (maybe except a really neglibable minority) thinks Serbs have no right to live in Bačka. As opposed: some Serbs think the minorites have no right to live in Bačka. One of them has to explain this in the Hague Tribunal, and it's party's popularity is very high - which could mean that this is a very common opinion among the Serb majority. But if many Serbs think so that minorites doesn't have rights to live on a sepcific territory, that doesn't necessary mean that the minorities think the Serbian doesn't have rights to live there. Fcsaba 12:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Bačka is not territory with mixed population. It had mixed population in the 19th and 20th century, but today (as well as before 19th century) it had clear Serb majority (and not only that, but Serbs are also constitutional nation in this area, while others are officially "national minorities"). And I would not buy the story that "only history is issue here" - history is often used as justification for current political and territorial claims. And sorry to tell you this: but if you think that Serbs have right to live in Bačka (and as part of their country named Serbia) then we would not even have this converzation. But since we have this converzation, it is obvious that you do not think that. PANONIAN  06:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's nonsense! Why do you think that I think Serbs don't have rights to live in Serbia? Of course, they do. I have never told that Serbs have to be exiled or killed, its your theory that I - and many Hungarians - want this. But the sad in this story is that many Serbs think that minorities, especially Hungarians shouldn't have equal rights with them. To tell an example: tonight I read an article claiming that in Bačko Petrovo Selo refugee Serbian teenagers beat Hungarians just because they are Hungarians, and the Serbian authorities do nothing against this behaviour (the used expression is they are cynical) (http://www.vajdasagma.info/universal.php?rovat=cikk&ar=tukor&id=1452, the article in Hungarian). According to http://www.hhrf.org/osszefogas/atrocitasok/ you can read that this is not a unique case, but it is a tendency. You can read this site besides Hungarian both English and Serbian! And what happens if Hungarians try to do the same with Serbs as Serbs do with Hungarians? They receive more than 10 years punishment in prison (http://www.humanrightscenter.net/borton/index_uk.php, read it in English)! This is Serbia in the 21th century! Now I am asking: who thinks the other nation has no right to live in Bačka? I just claim: the explanation of the historical facts regarding to Bačka is sensitive. I mean: there were many atrocities by Hungarians against Serbs, there were many atrocities by Serbs agains Hungarians. Serbs think they suffered more, the Hungarian think they suffered more. But both nation explains the facts differently - that's why I claim it is sensitive. And I repeat: I don't want to start a war between Hungarians and Serbs due to this territory, I don't want to kill or exile anybody. We agreed once that nobody should rule over anybody. But what happens in the current Serbia? According to the above sites they are not equal, but Serbs rule over Hungarians! You claim that insulting texts can be removed from Wikipedia. I think claiming that I want Serbs to be killed is insulting, but I don't delete it: you wrote it with a signature, this is grade of yours! Fcsaba 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You attacking here results of reliable censuses with aim to "prove" that number of Serbs (who live in their own country) was smaller and the only logical reason for this would be your aim to use your claims as justification for future genocide against Serbs in this area. Why else would you object to number of Serbs and Hungarians listed in census? Regarding beated Hungarians, dont you think that those Serbs beat Hungarians after they read stuff that you and your "friends" write about Serbs on internet - that is a source of whole problem. When people like you stop political Internet campain against Serbs then Serbs will not have a single reason to beat Hungarians (just think why they beat exactly Hungarians, but they do not beat Rusyns, Romanians, Macedonians, etc...). PANONIAN  22:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are still insulting me! The reason why I am attacking the results of the censuses which you claim as realiable is that in fact they aren't. You attack the 1941 census saying it is unreliable. You have right to do that. But then I have right to attack the results of censuses, especially 1921 and 1931. You know, Wikipedia's principal, undue weight... I am going to find relevant sources to prove that. Do you really think if some attacks the results of a census, then he wants to perform genocide against them? If so, then it is sad that you want genocide against Hungarians... And why other nationalities are not beaten? First of all: somehow Hungarians are not welcome in this region. The reason could be that this region belonged to Hungary for many decades, but not to Romania, Macedonia etc. But it is no true that other minorities are not beaten: there are some news beating Slovaks, Croats, Romas etc. Their number are smaller than the Hungarians, and maybe Serbs treat e.g. Slavs and orthodox Romanians as "friends". I don't see any political Internet campaign against Serbs, the mentioned sites are just list what Serbs do. If Serbs wouldn't do anything, then the contents of these sites would be empty. If the authorities try to do something positive, it is also mentioned! And imagine the situation of the partents of the children who were sentenced to more than 10 years just because they were beating a Serb person! What an unfair situation that Hungarians beating Serbs are punished as they were war criminals, but Serb refugees beating Hungarians receive no punishment! AND STOP SAYING THAT I OR OTHER HUNGARIANS WANT TO PERFORM ANY GENOCIDE AGAINS SERBS, BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR OBSCURE THEORY, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE ANY REALISTIC BASIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fcsaba 07:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not insulting you - it is clear that you did not came to Wikipedia in good faith and talk about this issue is not an insult (It is rather a way in which I suggest to you that you should become constructive editor rather than political propagandist). By the way, usage of word "obscure" in your last post and the time when you registered your nickname could imply that you are sockpuppet of user:Rjecina, who also use word "obscure" often and who was harrassing me in the time when you created your nickname, which could imply that you are a sockpuppet created with purpose to continue this harassment (a clear indication for this is the fact that you do not edit any other articles, but only two related to Bačka). And I will repeat for who knows which time already: it was not me who claim that results of censuses are reliable or unreliable, but sources claim that. It is irrelevant what me or you would think about it - the only important thing is what sources say and so far you did not presented reliable sources that would support your "personal opinions". Regarding genocide, yes I really think that as long as you attacking results of these censuses that you want to create Greater Hungary and perform genocide against Serbs (why else would you attack these results?). And why would I want genocide against Hungarians? - the things are in fact quite simple: Hungarians live just fine under Serbian rule, but any attempt for creation of Greater Hungary and Hungarian occupation of Bačka would lead to high-scale war and mass Hungarian genocide against Serbs because as long as Serbs live here this territory cannot be part of Hungary since most of them would resist to that with arms. Also, I told you: Hungarians are beaten because Serbs who beat them read what you and other Hungarian nationalists writte about Serbs and Serbia on Internet, and such beatings are only small examples of chaos that could emerge if Hungary ever try to occupy Bačka. May I suggest that you stop with provocative comments and controversial "work" and to become constructive editor? Perhaps you should work on some other articles where your involvement will not be so controversial? And "sentenced children" that you mentioned were adults and local junkies and criminals.  PANONIAN  10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PANONIAN! Stop your absurd accusations. 1. User Fcsaba seems to be Hungarian, citing Hungarian sources, and as I know Rjecina is Croatian and does not speak even a word in Hungarian. 2. Noone, in this discussion wanted to kill or expell any Serbs. Fcsaba is arguing mostly in a polite style, but you are always assuming bad faith and accusing other users ceaslessly. If you continue this behavior you will be blocked again and not only for 3 days. --Koppany 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what? - you are absolutelly right: I really have no reason to discuss here about political and personal issues because that has really nothing to do with content of the article. There is Wiki rule that say that users should avoid hate-discussions and I really made a mistake leting you people to drag me into one. I will focus only on the article content in further discussion. PANONIAN  09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not the sockpuppet of the user Rjecina, furthermore I've written his name wrong. I am a "real" person, and I want to be a constructive editor. I!ve never heard the word "obscure" before, but I like it:-) I want zou to explain why someone who attacks a result of a census want genocide against someone? How do these 2 facts are related which each other? The simply reason why I consider that the results of these censuses are unreliable because many Hunagrian treat them so. But from now on I won't write it as absolute truth or my opinion, but I am going to give source, and I'll write "according to xyz source the results of these censuses are considered unreliable". And why do zou want genocide against someone? I don't claim that you want it. You wrote that if someone attacked the result of a census organized by someone wanted to perform genocide againt them. You (and your sources) attack the results of theis census, and according to your logic both you and the author of the referenced book want to perform genocide against Hungarians. It is your logic, not mine. And now everybpody knows that it is not a godd business to start war against Serbs, so Hungarians won't do that. But may I ask you something: why do we speak about Greater Hungary? I just claim that censuses 1921, ... I consider unreliable. How does Greater Hungary come here? And another error in your logic: it is not true that the reason why Hungarian children are beaten is that Hungarian nationalist write something about Serbs/Serbia on the Internet, since, there were such cases before 1993, when the WWW started. But why is it wrong that someone writes the truth? And don't you think you are performing an Internet camaign against Hungarians in your articles? What are you writing? "Hungarians are nationalists", "Hungarians want to perform genocide against Serbs", "Hungarians are fascists", ... And about the sentenced youngs: is it acceptable that someone is sentenced to 10+ years prison just because he had beaten someone? Fcsaba 11:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, as I said, I will not discuss any more about political or personal issues and I will focus on article content only. I made a mistake by leting you to drag me into hate-discussion, but it is never too late for me to change that mistake. My basic point regarding article content was that you did not provided sources for your claims and you even admitted that your claims are only your personal opinion. Now you said that you will "give source" for your claims and I will wait until you provide that source (before that, we have nothing constructive to speak about instead to continue hate-discussion). PANONIAN  09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources? Here is one: http://epa.oszk.hu/00400/00462/00006/5.htm. But you and someone else are keeping to delete my (and other peoples) changes. I've provided it in the article, but now it is deleted again... I haven't written that "the sky is blue", but "according to xy the sky is blue". Isn't it neutral? But you claim something as truth, and not that something is so and so and so according to that source. ("According to the unreliable Hungarian census" instead of "According to census ..., which is considered to be unreliable according to xy". I've modified this sentence but you've redone it. The modified text is neutral but yours is not.) I think I can provide even 100 sources, you will find an excuse in every single cases why my source is not acceptable, and that I want to kill everybody in the world except myself and my dog, and maybe Rječina, who is in fact my sockpuppet... I've asked a very popular Hungarian historian to provide sources, and according to him he is working on it. One more thing: please read the whole discussion and try to find out who is the hate-discusser: you or me? I provided a brief summary on the discussion page (without changing even a single letter in the main article!) why I consider this part not neutral, and your aswer was most of the cases that I want to kill the Serbs. If I write something on the article with sources or explanation, you delete them immediatelly. You are accusing me to be sockpuppet (finally now I know that that means), but it is very likely that the sockpuppet of Bonaparte's are sockpuppet of yours... And in the discussion I've always written what I find in your work good... If I wanted to heart you as you claim, then I wouldn't have write positive things about your work. Fcsaba 11:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you discuss about Demographic history of Bačka article, then post your comments on that talk page, not here. If another user reverted your changes there, that is not my problem - I can only discuss about your changes that I reverted. Also, if you think that I have a sockpuppet, please go and ask checkuser to confirm your claims. Regarding source that you showed here, is that source related to Bačka article or to Demographic history of Bačka article and about what this source speak? PANONIAN  14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First little about myself. I live in Croatia on river Rječina which is really long way from Hungary and Serbia. PANONIAN like to write how others era editing in bad faith, but when we look his work ..... This article is best example of his bad faith editing. He is writing without internet links (sources which we all can look) how Serbs have been victims of Magyarization (in 1910) but deleting historical fact confirmed with source (internet link) of Yugoslav/Serbian ethnic cleansing. He is deleting this statement with words that this has been "political" cleansing. For our peace I will accept even that absurd claim (political cleansing of children with wrong nationality !!) but in article must be writen that there has been in period 1944 - 48 cleansing of population. If we do not want comments then we will have neutral article if on this page are writen only census data without any comment, but PANONIAN is refusing even that which is final evidence that he is editing in bad faith. My last comment for today about this article. In overview part of article is writen nothing about who has lived in Bačka before Serbs. It is interesting to see that only Serbs during history have not made conquest and assimilation of nations which has lived before in Bačka. Fcsaba it will be interesting if you have book which speak who has before Serbs lived in Bačka. This data need to enter this article. ---Rjecina 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rjecina, I said that I will not continue hate-discussion and I will not. Regarding your personal accusations against me, if you want to discuss any specific question about any article or any source used in that article, please use talk pages of relevant articles and post your comments there (but comments about article, not about me). Since in your last post you did not said one single word related to "Bačka" article, I do not see what constructive answer could be given to you here. PANONIAN  09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You write "some census results require further explanation". That's OK. You selected 1910 and 1941 for "further explanation". But I repeat that this is your viewpoint, and it is somehow important for you to explain these results. But there are many people who think censuses 1921, 1931 and 1948 has to be explained, too. This is their opinions. You don't agree with them. That's OK, you are free not to agree with other people's opinion. But this is Wikipedia, I don't want to repeat myself. Fcsaba 07:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only 1910 and 1941 - there are explanations of other censuses as well. And I do not see how these explanations could be "viewpoint" when these explanations are generally accepted facts not "one view among many". And who are those "many people who think censuses 1921, 1931 and 1948 has to be explained"? - the only person who want to explain them is you and you wanted to explain them with such ridiculous claims such is the one that "Hungarians were recorded as Serbs" forgeting the fact that these censuses did not recorded nationality, but only language and religion. If you present any reliable "explanations" then we can talk about them. PANONIAN  23:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look! I've looked after some analysis about we are talking about. I don't want to translate all the things (that according to a kind of name analysis was it decided if someone is Hungarian or not, so the number of Hungarians were reduced, the Hungarians suffered handicaps in almost every fields of the life (economy, agriculture, school, intellectual life, ...), that officially 39.272 Hungarians were exiled from Bačka (+ family members, and now I am asking: who exiles whom?), the many administrative issues to reduce the number of Hungarians etc.). But beleive me that not only I think so that if we "explain" the 1910 and 1941 censuses, then the other ones have to be explained, too. Maybe my composition is not the best one, and the reason is maybe tha fact that I'm not historian. But just because maybe it is not 100% true what I've written on that literal way, it can hold truths, and I hope a real historian can provide much more adequate explanations. I really don't have time and energy to translate all the things I've found, but I try to use reliable sources. Why do you think your sources are perfect and other's sources cannot be goo enough? Fcsaba 09:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I already told you: this is not article about Hungarians. There are separate about ethnic minorities that live in Vojvodina and all these issues are already mentioned there. This is general article about Bačka and this is not place where ethnic histories should be written. Why you do not expand article Hungarians in Vojvodina with further data about this ethnic group? Also the reason for thing that you proposing that "censuses from 1921 and 1931 should be explained because census from 1941 is explained" is ridiculous. Question whether we will explain 1921 or 1931 census results is not connected to the question whether we will explain 1941 census results, because these cases were very different and each of them require unic approach. Regarding sources, I do not see that you so far presented reliable sources that say that 1921 and 1931 census are not valid. PANONIAN  06:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

4. According to unreliable Hungarian census from 1941 conducted during military occupation, population ... You can choose among the following possibilites:

4a. Write just "According to the Hungarian census from 1941, population ..."

4b. Reformat the sentence as follows: "According to the Hungarian census from 1941, which is considered to be unreliable by many people - most of them are ethnic Serbian - population ...", but in this case please write the following sentence at 1921 and 1931 censuses: "According to the Serbian census, which is considered to be unreliable by many people - most of the are ethnic Hungarian - population ..."

Reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight.

Fcsaba 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I already explained this in the discussion above and I have no reason to repeat my answers - just read them again. PANONIAN  16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right, and I totally understand your viewpoint, you can beleive me. But ... now comes the section what I wrote to section 3. Fcsaba 07:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know what you consider "a section 3", but since I answered to all questions here raised by you, I believe that "section 3" (what ever it is) also have my answer. The whole point is that we do not need two places to discuss one same question, do we? PANONIAN  23:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've dealt this part into 4 sections. This is the 4th one, and 3rd is ... the third. Fcsaba 12:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As a summarization: this section is unilaterally composed, and it is not neutral. Fcsaba 12:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)