This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The text attached to the map clearly said that is the Romanian (part of) Banat. Serbs called their part "Voivodina", but romanians called their part "Banat" -- MihaiC
This page seems a bit romanocentric to me as well. The map only indicates the Romanian part of the Banat, and the msg: below does not mention the "Historical Regions of the Habsburg Empire" or so, but just other Romanian regions. Fransvannes 23:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think article is fine. I uploaded here map of Serbian Banat as well as map of Banat during Austro-Hungarian rule (So, article is complete now). PANONIAN
Many great thanks to great Romanian editor for make sure article conform nice good way. Alexandermoir ( talk) 04:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
is there a region Banat ? i understand there was a Elayet of Temesvar, that encompased all the teritory of Banat. but when exactly was Banat known as Banat, having a defined administrative status as Banat region/province/elayet/bansag ? -- Criztu 28 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)
Here is quote from the article: It received the title of Banat after the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718), and remained a separate province of Habsburg Monarchy under military administration until 1751, when Maria Theresa introduced a civil administration. The Banat province was abolished in 1778. The southern part of the Banat remained part of the Military Frontier (Banat Krajina) until it was abolished in 1871. So, Austrian province named Banat existed between 1718 and 1778. Today, Banat is geographical region. User:PANONIAN
This needs a section on the period during World War 2 when the Banat region in Danube Banovina was an autonomous region in German-occupied Serbia ruled by its German minority. Or at least a link to the Danube Bonovina page where this information is contained, though information about this period is generally scant on Wikipedia. Anybody knowledgeable about it? 59.167.6.155 04:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A link to here would be good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banat%2C_1941-1944 59.167.6.155 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
have to be revised: - Ajtony was orthodox before the Great Scism??? - what Serbian uprisign are we talking?? not even the Serbs history Wiki Page speaks about such an uprising? - No words about the Serbian Conquest ... -- fz22 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is how the situation is presented in "Timişoara (monografie)" by Ioan and Rodica Munteanu, Mirton Publishing Press, Timişoara 2001. No mention in that monography about a Serbian majority ever in Timişoara, the first statistic presented is from 1851, with 8775 Germans, 3807 Romanians, 2346 Hungarians and 1770 Serbians (total 20560) in Timişoara.-- MariusM 07:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Zero Romanians in 1720? Is it used in the original statistic the word "Serb" or "Rascian"? I wonder if there are statistics in that time which differentiate the Serbs from Romanians, as orthodox faith was considered more important than language. In 1700 part of Romanians in Transylvania were converted at Greek-catholic faith, those who remained orthodox (a majority in Banat) possible that prefered an orthodox identity than a national Romanian identity, in order not to be confused with the greek catholics.-- MariusM 12:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It is very complicated to say if the Serbs were the majority or the Romanians in the banat during the Middle Ages. The fact is that many sources from the Middle Ages say that in the territory of Caras-Severin the population was "Vlach". Even the names of aristocratic families were Romanian names. The old sources only mention a Slavic population in the South West of the Banat and in the North of Lugos (Lugoj). And the North-West was mainly Hungarian-speaking (Temesköz), but is not any more. The Hungarians living there today are a minority. Öcsi 11:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit, hard to say if Romanians were a majority? Romanians live on these land for more than 2000 years. And population that you call "Vlach" are Romanians! That is how Slavic people called Romanians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iadrian yu ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The Middle Ages were before the Ottoman conquest. Öcsi 16:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
I have just added the demographic data for the Romanian Banat as recorded by censuses since 1880. I have also re-organise a bit the whole demographic section, as it was quite a mess. I suggest that we should probably follow the same format even for the Serbian Banat (with all the data presented in one single table). It is a lot easier to read it in this way. Alexrap 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have now re-organised the demographic data for the Serbian Banat, as well. It is now in a single table. I haven't verified or changed any of the data, I just copy+pasted it from the way it was organised before (with different subsections for each year). Alexrap 11:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
[1] —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Pannonia (
talk •
contribs) 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
It's funny to hear this from you... Of course your info from the 1715 census is correct. You know, this is the part in the hungarian history, when its population has rapidly increased: from 2 580 000 changed to 8 420 000 (There is a 5 420 000 diff), because a lots of people settled down in the country (slavs, romanians, germans etc.). Pannonia 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
And according to Chronicals from the Middle Ages, in the 15th century more than 60% of the Banat's and about 80% of the Bacska's inabitants were Hungarian. What that can tell you? :) -- Öcsi 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, the number of the etnics increased in the 18. century, because they settled down in Hungary. The etnic content differenc between the two centuries in the south part of Hungary was so significant, that the maps from the 18 use the word "Rácország" Rác= Serb, ország=country for that region. Pannonia 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but they settled down in Hungary. The caiser(s) of austria, like Maria Theresia was (were) "Holy Roman Empress,Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia and Slavonia, Duchess of Parma and Piacenza, Grand Duchess of Tuscany". Hungary existed, but it was part of the Habsburg Monarchy. And the vajdaság was the part of the Hungarian Kingdom. Pannonia 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You said that the Middle age Chronicals are unreliable. Why should bee an older (9th century info) real? Your answer is a paradox. (This doesn't mean, that I dont think that slavs lived in this area before the hungarians) Pannonia 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You claim that we only know information about the etnics content (from the 15-16. century) from tax records???? You think that there are no archeological evidences from that age???? Pannonia 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello PANONIAN! I think we should stop this discussion, becaus it's started to morf into a hate-discussion, and has no sence. I wish you the bests, Pannonia 08:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There is one big mistake in these new tables: they are too confusing because they do not list ethnic groups in the order of they size. In another words, tables only list numbers and percents of various ethnic groups in various time periods, but if somebody want to know which ethnic group was largest, which was second largest, which was third largest, etc, he would have a problem to find that. I already wrotte new article for Demographic history of Serbian Banat, but I think that current table for population of the whole Banat is also not the best possible solution. PANONIAN 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, this section needs to be improved, because it is like a black stain on the whole article. It just sounds unprofessional and bad (e.g. "Roman presence vanished..."). Not only is this wrong, since the Romans kept forts on both sides of the Danube, including at Severin, but the entire sentence sounds like it's out of a children's coloring book.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.84.234 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
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:
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews ( talk • contribs)
I ask User:Fakirbakir to provide a source for the text added yesterday. Hahun ( talk) 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
surface/popnedinintro+istoryetc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.218.228 ( talk) 21:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
User:PetrusdictusA keeps adding an image he captioned as "proposed flag of Banat". Out of concern about WP:OR, could you please tell us who proposed this flag, under which authority and when? Thanks, Mentatus ( talk) 15:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://banatul.ning.com/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear,
IP, please present a source for your addition. Thank You( KIENGIR ( talk) 00:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC))
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)
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).
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)
@
KIENGIR: "In this area Serbs have been from medieval times with the largest numbers of inhabitants in 18th century" > What is this supposed to mean? Obviously, the population was lower in the 18th century. I doubt they had a higher population share either. Did you mean the highest numbers of immigrants? Still, it makes little sense.--
Adûnâi (
talk) 20:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The text attached to the map clearly said that is the Romanian (part of) Banat. Serbs called their part "Voivodina", but romanians called their part "Banat" -- MihaiC
This page seems a bit romanocentric to me as well. The map only indicates the Romanian part of the Banat, and the msg: below does not mention the "Historical Regions of the Habsburg Empire" or so, but just other Romanian regions. Fransvannes 23:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think article is fine. I uploaded here map of Serbian Banat as well as map of Banat during Austro-Hungarian rule (So, article is complete now). PANONIAN
Many great thanks to great Romanian editor for make sure article conform nice good way. Alexandermoir ( talk) 04:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
is there a region Banat ? i understand there was a Elayet of Temesvar, that encompased all the teritory of Banat. but when exactly was Banat known as Banat, having a defined administrative status as Banat region/province/elayet/bansag ? -- Criztu 28 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)
Here is quote from the article: It received the title of Banat after the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718), and remained a separate province of Habsburg Monarchy under military administration until 1751, when Maria Theresa introduced a civil administration. The Banat province was abolished in 1778. The southern part of the Banat remained part of the Military Frontier (Banat Krajina) until it was abolished in 1871. So, Austrian province named Banat existed between 1718 and 1778. Today, Banat is geographical region. User:PANONIAN
This needs a section on the period during World War 2 when the Banat region in Danube Banovina was an autonomous region in German-occupied Serbia ruled by its German minority. Or at least a link to the Danube Bonovina page where this information is contained, though information about this period is generally scant on Wikipedia. Anybody knowledgeable about it? 59.167.6.155 04:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A link to here would be good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banat%2C_1941-1944 59.167.6.155 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
have to be revised: - Ajtony was orthodox before the Great Scism??? - what Serbian uprisign are we talking?? not even the Serbs history Wiki Page speaks about such an uprising? - No words about the Serbian Conquest ... -- fz22 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is how the situation is presented in "Timişoara (monografie)" by Ioan and Rodica Munteanu, Mirton Publishing Press, Timişoara 2001. No mention in that monography about a Serbian majority ever in Timişoara, the first statistic presented is from 1851, with 8775 Germans, 3807 Romanians, 2346 Hungarians and 1770 Serbians (total 20560) in Timişoara.-- MariusM 07:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Zero Romanians in 1720? Is it used in the original statistic the word "Serb" or "Rascian"? I wonder if there are statistics in that time which differentiate the Serbs from Romanians, as orthodox faith was considered more important than language. In 1700 part of Romanians in Transylvania were converted at Greek-catholic faith, those who remained orthodox (a majority in Banat) possible that prefered an orthodox identity than a national Romanian identity, in order not to be confused with the greek catholics.-- MariusM 12:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It is very complicated to say if the Serbs were the majority or the Romanians in the banat during the Middle Ages. The fact is that many sources from the Middle Ages say that in the territory of Caras-Severin the population was "Vlach". Even the names of aristocratic families were Romanian names. The old sources only mention a Slavic population in the South West of the Banat and in the North of Lugos (Lugoj). And the North-West was mainly Hungarian-speaking (Temesköz), but is not any more. The Hungarians living there today are a minority. Öcsi 11:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit, hard to say if Romanians were a majority? Romanians live on these land for more than 2000 years. And population that you call "Vlach" are Romanians! That is how Slavic people called Romanians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iadrian yu ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The Middle Ages were before the Ottoman conquest. Öcsi 16:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
I have just added the demographic data for the Romanian Banat as recorded by censuses since 1880. I have also re-organise a bit the whole demographic section, as it was quite a mess. I suggest that we should probably follow the same format even for the Serbian Banat (with all the data presented in one single table). It is a lot easier to read it in this way. Alexrap 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have now re-organised the demographic data for the Serbian Banat, as well. It is now in a single table. I haven't verified or changed any of the data, I just copy+pasted it from the way it was organised before (with different subsections for each year). Alexrap 11:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
[1] —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Pannonia (
talk •
contribs) 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
It's funny to hear this from you... Of course your info from the 1715 census is correct. You know, this is the part in the hungarian history, when its population has rapidly increased: from 2 580 000 changed to 8 420 000 (There is a 5 420 000 diff), because a lots of people settled down in the country (slavs, romanians, germans etc.). Pannonia 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
And according to Chronicals from the Middle Ages, in the 15th century more than 60% of the Banat's and about 80% of the Bacska's inabitants were Hungarian. What that can tell you? :) -- Öcsi 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, the number of the etnics increased in the 18. century, because they settled down in Hungary. The etnic content differenc between the two centuries in the south part of Hungary was so significant, that the maps from the 18 use the word "Rácország" Rác= Serb, ország=country for that region. Pannonia 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but they settled down in Hungary. The caiser(s) of austria, like Maria Theresia was (were) "Holy Roman Empress,Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia and Slavonia, Duchess of Parma and Piacenza, Grand Duchess of Tuscany". Hungary existed, but it was part of the Habsburg Monarchy. And the vajdaság was the part of the Hungarian Kingdom. Pannonia 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You said that the Middle age Chronicals are unreliable. Why should bee an older (9th century info) real? Your answer is a paradox. (This doesn't mean, that I dont think that slavs lived in this area before the hungarians) Pannonia 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You claim that we only know information about the etnics content (from the 15-16. century) from tax records???? You think that there are no archeological evidences from that age???? Pannonia 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello PANONIAN! I think we should stop this discussion, becaus it's started to morf into a hate-discussion, and has no sence. I wish you the bests, Pannonia 08:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There is one big mistake in these new tables: they are too confusing because they do not list ethnic groups in the order of they size. In another words, tables only list numbers and percents of various ethnic groups in various time periods, but if somebody want to know which ethnic group was largest, which was second largest, which was third largest, etc, he would have a problem to find that. I already wrotte new article for Demographic history of Serbian Banat, but I think that current table for population of the whole Banat is also not the best possible solution. PANONIAN 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, this section needs to be improved, because it is like a black stain on the whole article. It just sounds unprofessional and bad (e.g. "Roman presence vanished..."). Not only is this wrong, since the Romans kept forts on both sides of the Danube, including at Severin, but the entire sentence sounds like it's out of a children's coloring book.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.84.234 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
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:
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews ( talk • contribs)
I ask User:Fakirbakir to provide a source for the text added yesterday. Hahun ( talk) 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
surface/popnedinintro+istoryetc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.218.228 ( talk) 21:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
User:PetrusdictusA keeps adding an image he captioned as "proposed flag of Banat". Out of concern about WP:OR, could you please tell us who proposed this flag, under which authority and when? Thanks, Mentatus ( talk) 15:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://banatul.ning.com/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear,
IP, please present a source for your addition. Thank You( KIENGIR ( talk) 00:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC))
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)
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).
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)
@
KIENGIR: "In this area Serbs have been from medieval times with the largest numbers of inhabitants in 18th century" > What is this supposed to mean? Obviously, the population was lower in the 18th century. I doubt they had a higher population share either. Did you mean the highest numbers of immigrants? Still, it makes little sense.--
Adûnâi (
talk) 20:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
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)