| Revision as of 22:30, 1 November 2007 editCeha (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,517 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:32, 2 November 2007 edit undoTawhid Jihad (talk | contribs)26 edits →Vladimir Perics incorrect mapNext edit → | ||
| Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
| From where did you get jajceportal? FZS made those estimations in 2005. No one mentioned jajceportal. | From where did you get jajceportal? FZS made those estimations in 2005. No one mentioned jajceportal. | ||
| ] 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | ] 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| No they didnt. | |||
| And you are a liar, cause you openly lie. ] 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:32, 2 November 2007
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Bosnia and Herzegovina. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Reference desk. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.  What's new?Article alertsDid you know
Articles for deletion
Categories for discussion
Redirects for discussion
Good article nominees
Featured article reviews
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!
To do list
ScopeThis WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Misplaced Pages, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries. NavigationThis WikiProject helps Misplaced Pages's navigation-related WikiProjects (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Misplaced Pages's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages. Categories
Subpages
FormattingMany country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.). We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course). Goals
Structure and guidelines
Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia) Main politiesMain article: CountryA country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory. Lead sectionShortcut See also: WP:Lead section
Opening paragraphsFurther information: MOS:INTROThe article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The primary purpose of a Misplaced Pages lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article. First sentenceFurther information: MOS:FIRSTThe first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, and where. It should be in plain English. The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting and naming disputes, may be dealt with in the etymology section. Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may also belong in the etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER. Example:
Detail, duplication and tangible informationShortcut Further information: Misplaced Pages:How to create and manage a good lead sectionOverly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, excessive numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. The lead prose should provide clear, relevant information through links to relevant sub-articles about the country an relevant terms, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country. Example:
InfoboxThere is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page. Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. ]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page. The contents are as follows:
Lead mapThere is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC). SectionsFurther information: Misplaced Pages:Summary style and Misplaced Pages:Too much detail ShortcutA section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections. Prose should provide clear, relevant information and links to relevant sub-articles about the country, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.
 Articles may consist of the following sections:
Size
HatnoteThe link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles should be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE, WP:HATNOTERULES, WP:HATLENGTH for more recommended hatnote usages.  Y== Economy ==Main article: Economy of Canada
 N== Economy ==Main article: Economy of Canada
See also: Petroleum industry in Canada and Agriculture in Canada
Further information: Economic history of Canada and Early Canadian banking system
ChartsShortcutAs prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams that lack any context or explanation such as; economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS. GalleriesShortcutGalleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sandwiching of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information. FootersAs noted at Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use. TransclusionsTransclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below. This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history) Shortcut Further information: Misplaced Pages:Transclusion costs and benefitsLike many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.
Lists of countriesTo determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:
For consistency with other Misplaced Pages articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Misplaced Pages articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed. ResourcesSisterlinksRelated WikiProjectsPopular pagesNotes
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: not checked
.svg){kind=small}
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
Official name of country
Please see http://www.ustavnisud.ba/public/down/USTAV_BOSNE_I_HERCEGOVINE_hrv.pdf - there it reads that the name of the country is "Bosna i Hercegovina" without "Republic" or anything else. This is what was signed into law with the Dayton Agreement in 1995. "Republika/Republic of" should be removed from this wiki page. 69.207.134.22 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
OHR until 2008
May you please check and update the sections about the High Representative? It is the news of these days that OHR will continue to work until 2008 -- Dans-Sverige
Population
The population figuers have not declined by more than a million people. Look at the lin . At the same time no one (but No. 13) is questioning the numbers. Show some evidence... Vseferović 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The very source to which the population estimate is calling itself upon and places Bosnia and Herzegovina at 126th place says the estimate is 3,935,000. (List of countries by population). On the other side I would like to see some evidence for the ridiculous inflated number of over 4,5 million. --No.13 13:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the population of Bosnia, but it seems two very well respected sources use the figure 3.9 million:
- According to the Wiki list of countries by population Bosnia is no. 126 with a population of 3,935,000. This is according to the 2006 United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 revision.
- The World Bank country profile for Bosnia has the figure
- The Presidency of BiH cites 3.8 million on their official web site.
- According to the Bosnian govt's official tourism website the population is 4,354,911 according to the 1991 census. However, it goes on to say that "Due to war-related death and migration, that number is lower now. Policy makers estimate that the country's population is now around 3.8 million people and steadily growing, and that over one million Bosnians now live abroad."
- So, it would seem that 3.9 m is the most widely used figure. Cheers Osli73 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The 4,5 m figure seems to relate to the last official census, carried out before the war (at least judging from the official BiH tourism website.Osli73 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- So, it would seem that 3.9 m is the most widely used figure. Cheers Osli73 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
GPD PPP
The given GDP PPP of 45 billion was to high: This years IMF number is U$D 27.410 billion: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weorept.aspx?pr.x=80&pr.y=17&sy=2003&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=963&s=PPPWGT&grp=0&a= and the GDP PPP per capita number is U$D 6,884.079: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weorept.aspx?pr.x=80&pr.y=16&sy=2003&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=963&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a= noclador 09:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Demographics again
Please indicate what sources you're using for demographic information when you change something. If the current source does not match the data, please indicate so. Thanks! -- Ronz 17:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ronz, could you please enable your email? 65.10.158.218 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I’m removing the following sentence since there is no source: “ The majority of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Muslims at an estimated 52%. There is also a large minority of Christians ortodoxs and Roman Catholic” Instead of that, I’ll add the following sentence: “According to the CIA World Factbook, 40% of populations are (Sunni) Muslims, 31% are Orthodox Christians, 15% are Roman Catholics, and 14% are atheists or have other religious affiliation. “ --N Jordan 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Name of Hercegovina and the Original Herzog
The part of the page that deals with name of the country is simply wrong in a way that it fails to name the original Herzog. Now I know that this mistake is not the only of its kind, but the section is short enough and at the top of the page, so it does warrant accuracy. Tzuppy 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Population figures
Please leave the present United Nations population figure estimate (as before), as the ones in the CIA World Factbook are misleading. Even the IMF uses a figure like the UN one to calculate GDP per capita amounts. Bosnia does not have 4.5 million permanent inhabitants, and the figure is most definitely closer to 4 million. —Insanely Beautiful 05:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Vladimir Perics incorrect map
There is a couple of things that is incorrect in his map and this is enough reason to delet it.
1. Jajce is not Croat majority city, it isnt even divided, it is now bosniak majority city and we can get this out of 2 evidence, first we have election result where bosniak parties got 60 % and from the municipality where we have 15 bosniaks out of 25 which is 60 % and gives bosniaks absolute control over the Jajce municipality and now we can do whatever we want without asking croats.
2. Brcko, cause the entity line doesnt exist anymore and every election/municipality result goes through District level, not entity level cause entities have no control over neither the city, villages or any part of the District. Also no cencus have been made and many bosniaks and croats have returned to the city. There is absolutely no evidence that serbs form majority in any part of the District, be it the city, Brezovo Polje, Palanka, Maoca, Brka or other parts.
3. Mostar. Cause in this case it looks like the croats have majority in the entire municipality! How wrong! First of all they dont even form majority in the city nor in the municipality. And how can croat colours be in eastern mostar where there practically arent croats at all! The municipality should either be coloured completely neutral or have green colour for bosniaks in eastern mostar which is 50 % of the entire municipality and red for the other half of the municipality.
4. Bosanski Petrovac cause here we get information that serbs form majority which is clearly untrue. If we go at the election result, we bosniaks form between 55 and 60 % cause no serbs are voting for SDP, and if we look at Republika Srpska even SDA got more votes than SDP and that says everyting on who the serbs are voting. In this case, we have no evidence at all that serbs even form 45 % of the population.
5. Novi Travnik. In this case you could believe croats form majority and as we all know Novi Travnik is completely divided where neither bosniaks nor croats form majority.
6. Vares. In this case you would believe bosniaks form majority but only small one and this seriously damages the map. That is untrue cause bosniaks form 65 % of the population which is exactly the number croats form in Zepce and why then should Zepce be all red while Vares be only slight greeen?
This and many more untrue and incorrect things in Perics map clearly shows that this isnt valid for a reliable page such as Misplaced Pages. Visca el barca 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is an encyclopediae, and not a place to "put" your private conclusions. Please stict to the official demographic data (and as you've been told a million times election results aren't demographic). And you can not divide some municipalities in which Bosniaks don't have majority (Novi Travnik, Mostar, etc) to Bosniak and not-Bosniak parts while deeninig same rights to the non-Bosniak population in Bosniak majority municipalities. If you think of demographic division of the country under the municipality level, than you got to go from village to village...(for examples Croats around Vareš, Kraljeva Sutjeska, Novi Šeher, Guča Gora, Nova Bila, Uskoplje, Uzdol, Kostajnica near Konjic etc...) Ceha 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
Oh, you can be so damn sure that CROATS DONT FORM MAJORITY IN neither Novi Travnik or Mostar. Be so sure about that! Tawhid Jihad 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok crazy Arab:) What's wrong with you?
Ceha 12:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I am only telling the reality. Tawhid Jihad 14:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that is possible to talk to you without exclamation points. Could you give some evidence for your claims? (Ceha 16:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)).
Can you give any evidence of croats form majority in Novi Travnik/Mostar without your horrible crusader nationalism? Tawhid Jihad 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Look Tawhid, please do not mention nationalism and stop being paranoid. Here are links for that data, you could google it out, or look it on wikipedia... ] . Where are sources for you claims?
Ceha 08:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
First of all those maps doesnt show anything, and in the federal estimation can you give any source for demographics cause I have looked in that site about 5 times and I still cant see any demographic information?
First of all, in Novi Travnik the situation is completely divided like in Mostar. Tawhid Jihad 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Also in Jajce bosniaks form 60 % of population, and are in majority just like in Bugojno, Donji Vakuf, Gornji Vakuf, Fojnica, Northern Konjic, Hadzici, Travnik, Zenica, Visoko, Breza, Ilidza, Ilijas, Kakanj and in other parts of central bosnia like in Gromiljak,Brestovsko and other parts in northern Kisljak municipality, and in many parts of Busovaca, Novi Travnik and Vitez. Tawhid Jihad 18:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorce your data. Everything you just said here are just unchecked claims without verifible source. Map shows ethnic percentage on municipality level. If someone would speak about village level, then you would get something similar to 1995-front line borders (with some corections in Kraljeva Sutjeska, Vareš, Novi Travnik, Travnik, Bugojno, Jajce, Konjic, Mostar, Stolac and Tuzla) (or better say most of divided municipalities). But I don't get you. What are you traying to prove? That more Croats have fled from mixed areas that Bosniaks? That more Croats were ethnicly cleansed? If you want to talk about ethnical divisions try ] or prewar situation:) Ceha 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
I am trying to say that it is no coincident that croat parties got 70 % of the votes in Jajce in year 2002 while bosniak parties got 60 % of the votes in year 2006. That is no coincident or a massise vote campaign coordinated by bosniak refugees from around the world. No, rather that is the situation today and that is the current reality.
And it isnt a cooinsident that exactly 50 % of the land in Mostar municipality belong to east mostar where over 90 % are bosniak and it is not a massive bosniak diaspora campaign that made the municipality level in Mostar divided exactly.
Also as for central bosnia, yes you got ethnically cleansed, and this time succesfully cause now there are around 90 000 croats in central bosnia canton and around 150 000 bosniak and now when Jajce, Donji Vakuf, Bugojno, Gornji Vakuf, Fojnica and Travnik are bosniak majority in that canton, you croats cant even manage to have majority in Novi Travnik, Vitez and Busovaca.
That is the current reality and even if you form 55 % in Vitez and Busovaca that doesnt change the fact that 55 % isnt enough to be counted as "majority". Tawhid Jihad 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If we go for the election result and municipality formation (which is the only information we got right now) then we can get this municipality demographic result for the municipalities in central bosnia canton (will not count other central bosnia municipalities).
Jajce = Bosniak 60% - Croat 40 %
Donji Vakuf = Bosniak 99 % - Other 1 %
Bugojno = Bosniak 80 % - Croat 20 %
Gornji Vakuf = Bosniak 65 % - Croat 35 %
Fojnica = Bosniak 65 % - Croat 35 %
Travnik = Bosniak 78 % - Croat 22 %
Novi Travnik = Bosniak 49-51 % - Croat 49-51 %
Vitez = Croat 55 % - Bosniak 45 %
Busovaca = Croat 53 % - Bosniak 47 %
Kiseljak = Croat 73 % - Bosniak 27 %
Kresevo = Croat 85 % - Bosniak 15 %
This is as I pointed out the only reliable information we got since there is no government information, no cencus and thats why we got only how the municipality is formed ethnically and how the election result ended.
As we see bosniaks form absolutely majority in all important municipalities along Vrbas, all the way from Vranica to Vlasinje in Jajce, we control the entire Vranica mountain area from Fojnica to Gornji Vakuf, Vlasic mountain in Travnik, we controll the 3 biggest cities in the canton which is Travnik as the biggest city and as its capital, Bugojni as the second biggest and Jajce as the third biggest city.
This clearly shows that you croats got nothing, even in the municipalities you are majority in you are majority only by 55 % with Kiseljak and Kresevo as exception and the only completely divided municipality in the canton is Novi Travnik.
And as for the rest of central bosnia municipalities, we all know they are pure bosniak as Zenica, Kakanj, Visoko, Breza, Ilidza and so on. No croats at all. Tawhid Jihad 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Croats are one of the constituive nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. BiH is surrounded whith Croatia on 2/3 of its borders. Žepče is a central bosnian municipality in which Croats have majority. Usora also. There are Croats in Vareš (Daštansko) and some of them are still existent in Kraljeva Sutjeska (that is Kakanj municipality). As I said before, you cannot draw a line and say if some nation has more than 65% than the whole municipality is of that nation, and if it is less than it will be divided. If someone would change municipal borders than every village is going to be counted, and compared to its 1991 national status... Ceha 08:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC). Also this is an encyclopediae. There are no "we" in this matter. Try to be objective and applay the same rules to other nations as you apply to your own. And all of your data is based on the election results which under wikipedia rules have no demographic meaning.
Haha, you are the one who are not objective!
And what has Croatia to do with the demographics in Bosnia? Cause even if you are constitutional in Bosnia you are a minority, cause if you make up 11 % of the population then you are a minority whatever the law says.
As for Zepce it is just as croat majority as Fojnica, Vares, Jajce or Gornji Vakuf. But dont forget that Zepce is a part of Zenicko dobojski kanton which is 90 % bosniak and which makes the Zepce croats be governed and ruled by bosniaks. And Usora, you cant seriously take that municipality serious?
It has barely 3000 people living there while it isnt even visible at the map.
And central bosnia area is 80 % bosniak while croats form around 17-18 % of the population. You cant seriously mean that you croats got anything important in Bosnia, you dont control any big city in bosnia, the biggest city you control is Siroki Brijeg in the rocks in Hercegovina.
And you are of course a minority, you have % just as much as we bosniaks have in Montenegro. You form 11 % of BiH population, while bosniaks form around 11 % of the population in Montenegro. Tawhid Jihad 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
On ] you can find definitions of objectivity. Misplaced Pages is not a kinder-garden where anybody can put unsorced informations. Do you know the percentige of italian speakers in Switzerland? And they are still constituve nation... Do you deny the laws of the state in which you are living and under which the Croats are equal with other 2 nations? Educate yourself a little bit. And stop refering to yourself as general spokesmen for the Bosniak nation. It doesn't look well on you>:) Ceha 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
I am objective and as a citizen of Jajce I can by all objective methods point out the fact that the center of Jajce is ethnically clean bosniak area.
I have concluded following things:
1. Jajce is majority bosniak 2. Novi Travnik and Mostar municipality is ethnically divided 3. Central bosnia is almost entirely bosniak area with small exception of Kiseljak, Busovaca, Vitez and Kresevo but all those municipalities together doesnt even form 60 000 citizens 4. Croats are constitutional in Bosnia, yes, but bosniaks are also constitutional in Montenegro especially now after the new constitution was approved which makes us constitutional and have equal rights as other people in Montenegro
As you see this isnt nationalism, this is how the situation is. Tawhid Jihad 13:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Ethnically clean is a bad word:) 1. That is your subject opinion. There is no goverment (or independent) verification of your claimes. And this is encyclopedia. 2. There are large portions of both nations in both municipalities. But the last calculations of federal bureau of statistics (fzs) says that there are more Croats in those to municipalities than Bosniaks. 3.Kiseljak, Kreševo, Dobretići, Vitez and Busovača are Croat majority municipalities acording to fzs. So are Jajce and Novi Travnik. Bosniaks form majority in municipalities of Travnik, Donji Vakuf, Uskoplje,Bugojno and Fojnica as they did before the war, but now with a lot bigger percentage (in Travnik and Bugojno they are now apsolute majority-->and they were only relative before the war). 4.I didn't read Montenegro's constitution and I can not comment something without knowing basic facts. But status of Bosniaks in Montenegro doesn't have anything to do with status of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For example, Montenegro could be just a Bosniak state. And that would not change status of BH-Croats. Ceha 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
Thats a lie and you know it!
First of all, the federal bureau of statistics doesnt on any page show demographic result and if you really believe in this lie, then whu dont you show source? Show source for any demographic result!
Jajce is bosniak majority, Novi Travnik is equally divided like Mostar.
Its you who wrote unsourced propaganda like croats forming majority in Novi Travnik and Jajce. You say something without showing any source or evidence, you say it says in the fzs but as I said, I have searched that page a couple of times now and never I can find any demographic result.
However the only result we got so far is the election result which CLEARLY SHOWS WHO is majority in Jajce, Novi Travnik and Mostar.
Period. Tawhid Jihad 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Again. Are you stupid? Elections do not say anything about the demographic data. In Uskoplje-Gornji Vakuf major of municipality is a Croat. Does that makes Uskoplje Croatian majority municipality? I've gave you the link. Try to find it.
Ceha 22:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
You are stupid!
You gave me a GENERAL LINK without source? Cause in that link you showed NEVER are to be seen any kind of ethnic demographic result!
Thats why we have to go after the election result which also is a very reliable result and the election result clearly shows that we bosniaks form majority in Jajce, and that Novi Travnik, Mostar, Vitez and Busovaca is not croat majority.Tawhid Jihad 10:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok I'm repeting this one more time (I'think is now close to a hundred:) elections are not valliable data, under wikipedia politcy. Don't use exclamation points when you are talking to somebody cause it makes you look like a 9-years old. I've given you a link of the site from wich that data was taken out when those maps were made. I'think that was about 2 years ago. Try to find correct source. And if you cant't find something I think there is even telefon number on that page so you can call fzs and check it out... No?:) Ceha 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
Fzs has never made any estimation on ethnic background in municipalities, hence you cant give me any source. As for the jajceportal estimation, that is taken from nowhere because they do not mention any source confirming what they wrote and you can only, and ONLY find those estimation in that site and nowhere else. Tawhid Jihad 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Call them. It is easy:p From where did you get jajceportal? FZS made those estimations in 2005. No one mentioned jajceportal. Ceha 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No they didnt.
And you are a liar, cause you openly lie. Tawhid Jihad 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- Start-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- WikiProject Countries
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
- WikiProject style advice
- WikiProjects participating in Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessments
- A-Class Europe articles
- Top-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- A-Class Yugoslavia articles
- Unknown-importance Yugoslavia articles
- WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
- Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)