Talk:Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina

To Do List

I am doing a lot of stuff to this article. Here is a to-do list.

• Finish the major rewrite.
• Restructure (reformatting) throughout the whole article
• Strengthen some of the main points, and rewrite the weaker points again
• One final revision/cleanup
• Load it with good references, and remove data that have no valid sources and one's I cannot located any sources for.

I should be done with this all by sometime tonight. --businessman332211 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The article needs more info and other sources... HolyRomanEmperor 18:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The name of this article is a bit deceptive. Demography of particular region includes statistics about more than just ethnic composition. The article should probably be called "History of ethnic composition in Bosnia and Herzegovina" or some simpler version thereof. Or other demographic data should be included--Dado 20:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

While your point is true, the title is obviously based on similar articles dealing with Kosovo and Montenegro. If a move was to be made it'd have far greater consequences than this article alone. But, like I said, I agree with your arguement. Live Forever 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Note 1 is disputed. Can someone provide a source. Even if it was true the similar unobjectivity can be said for Yugoslavian census commision as well --Dado 21:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. I don't believe the Ottoman Sultans had any need to manipulate statistics, especially in the early Ottoman period. Also, as far as I know historians generally view Ottoman statistics as essentially credible and impressive for the time. Live Forever 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

While one of the main reasons might be Christian religious discrimination; European historians generally consider the Ottoman accords as altogether - unreliable and inacurrate; mainly because the Ottoman Empire was the only undemocratic state in Europe at that time (with the proper understanding of the word "democratic" during that age (when actually, only France, Italy and maybe Serbia on the Balkans were actually democratic)). HolyRomanEmperor 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the "Medieval" section belongs in the article. All other "Demographic history" pages deal with numbers and census data (for good reason), and there is no credible information dealing with Bosnia's demographics during the Middle Ages. The section also opens up the whole "ethnic identity of medieval Bosnia" can of worms. For such a sensetive topic I feel like we should stick to recorded facts (i.e. official data). Live Forever 23:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The "98% Serbs" figure. I believe that comes from the Catholic encyclopedia, or some other foreign source. Why they recorded this I do not know, but I think its obvious to anyone familiar with the historical situation in Bosnia during the second half of the 19th century that this is a case of people unfamiliar with the situation messing up the truth. Its highly misleading and I believe it should be taken out. Live Forever 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of questionable information on this page as it is right now. I will try to rewrite it later tonight and come up with something fitting of the topic. Live Forever 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Since we are now seeing some changes in numbers from Ottoman censa could someone provide source to these information. I have not been sucessfull to find any on my own. Thanks --Dado 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

Yes; the article should deal with more than simply ethnic compostition. But the article has just been created.

Temporarely removing that part as per Dado's incinuation; no proof on the Ottomans' forging (yet). HolyRomanEmperor 16:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Medieval

I think that it deserves at least a mention. And perhaps an incinuation of its validity and controversy. Still; it deserves a mention; just as so I am preparing to add the Dardanians and the Slavic Migrations on Demographic history of Kosovo. What makes you think that the Ban's edicts are not official recorded data? HolyRomanEmperor 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Slavic migrations in Kosovo are established historical fact and disputed by almost no one. In Bosnia its a very different matter. Like I said, putting up a medieval section would mean opening up an enormous can of worms. You have to think about things like this - do you want this article to be perpetually disputed, contested, and subject to frequent attacks by nationalistic vandals? If not, you have to put just the facts - simple undisputable facts and data with sources that no-one can deny. Either way, the subject is already adressed well enough throughout the rest of wikipedia. The great "Nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina" article deals sufficiently with all major questions about the ethnic history of the country, so I feel that a link to it is all we need.

As for the Ban's edicts, no I don't consider them official recorded data. Data would be "Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions." The Ban's edicts are just historical documents that can be interperted one way or another. For instance, I strongly disagree with the article's current interpetation of Ninoslav's edict. Live Forever 19:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. We ought to outright delete that section. I just don't understand one thing: Why do you think that Matej Ban's edicts are not reliable. Thruought the history, only 25% of the people declaring themselves as "Serbs" were "ethnic" (hate that word) Serbs. The Republic of Dubrovnik was Serbian at times; but its decendents are now Croats. During the Golden Age of Serbdom in thr 18th-19th centuries; almost all Slavic Muslims, Macedonians and a large contigent of Croats declared themselves as Serbs, leading to numerious Greater Serbian Projects. HolyRomanEmperor 21:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand, I'd rather we not start an off topic debate about Ninoslav here. Anyways, I think the new section you added on the 14th and 15th century is good. That should be kept. I'll remove the other subsections though (If I understood you correctly, you agreed with my reasoning above). Live Forever 23:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you understood correctly. :) (Happy New Year; by the way!) I have written a section named Archaic. Does it fall out from the selection now (due to those facts)? HolyRomanEmperor 15:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agrarian reforms

Serbs lived on 64% of Bosnia's soil; while the Bosnian Muslims (a. k. a. Bosniaks) owned the majority of it. The reforms of 1918 and 1919 led to numerious confiscations of lands owned by Bosnian Muslims; of which a large part was split amongst Bosnia's Serbian population. HolyRomanEmperor 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina

.. isn't quitte a rich page :). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of Demographic info

... can be seen here: CIA World Factbook - Bosnia and Herzegovina I am neither skilled nor have enough free time to add it all up; so if anyone can... HolyRomanEmperor 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bosnian War

...edits made by User:Dado are somewhat biased. No one can claim that there were 100,000 Bosnians missing from the war; since some sources mention some 278,000 persons missing! Additionally; the section is slightly POV, so it might attract some predators from the "other side". I suggest re-writing it in here before re-insertion... 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman censi

I will search for evidence for that info. Francly, I think that it is impossible since the Herzegovinian population was just starting to lose in Orthodox majority; and the eastern Bosnia was Orthodox since 1054 (I believe that it still is; even more after the ethnic cleansing); and the population censi state orthodox majority in Lika (belonging to Bosnia at the time) and the southwest in 1528/1529, while the Ottoman "Serbian Bosnian Frontier" plan made Bosanska Krajina almost entirely Orthodox (with the exception of most Western Bosnia, being Muslim as the Ottoman generalate of... ahh.. Bihac? (not sure)). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Bosnia had always had Bosniak majority (until the more recent war). As for Bosanska Krajina I am not familiar of any "plan" that Ottomans had to establish Serbian Bosnian Frontier. Bosanska Krajina was a natural frontier of Ottoman empire sparesly populated because of frequent attacks by Austrian forces. Even today it has one of the lowest population densities in Bosnia (not counting Herzegovina which is sparely populated due to arrid climate). Such incursions stiffeled urban developments in Bosanska Krajina region with exception of Banja Luka. Since most of the muslim population at the time and even today resided in cities (Banja Luka also having traditionally majority muslim population) the remaining agrarian population was predominantely Serb. Western Bosnia switched control several times between Croatian, Austria and Ottoman Bosnia and it has a very distinct demographic history unlike Bosanska Krajina.--Dado 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes

Do you think we should move notes to its respective sections. As it looks like now each note has only one reference and the section is quickly becoming a burden to navigate. We could only leave notes that have multiple references if they come up. Also I have added the table for Bosnian War casulties. Feel free to disasseble it if need be or we can use the same system throughout.--Dado 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The victims table looks OK for now. Just note that there are between 250,000 and 300,000 people alltogether missing from Bosnia and Herzegovina. I also thought (note: unconfirmed) that there were 3,000 civilian casualties from the Serb side (I believe in eastern Bosnia 1991-1993). It is only a believing that is "generally" popular in SCG; but could be true. Also, take a note of the discussion to the up; it was noted to you.--HolyRomanEmperor 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

250,000 to 300,000 is a popular belief and an estimate that this research center has started from and trickled down to about 100,000 when numerous duplicate names and entries were found. I know these people (at IDC) personally and have seen some of the research they have done. It is possibly the most comprehensive to date. It will be available on the internet soon.

Also why did you add "Industrial" category to the article. Although the time is accurate in most of Europe it was hardly Industrial in the Ottoman empire.

Also, take a note of the discussion to the up; it was noted to you. Could you clarify?--Dado 18:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, Dado (Happy New Year by the way!). I added the Industrial naming solely because its used as a chronological term (rather than geographical). About the latter, I meant the Ottoman censi section here, on the discussion. All the best. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Industrial is a good name to classify the period. Given that only towards the end of the 19th century Bosnia has seen the construction of typically industrial complexes such as brick factories, steam mills and breweries it is very deceptive to call the era before it Industrial. It can stay for now but we'll have to find some other name to group it (if the grouping is necessary at all). Thanks and happy hollidays to you too.--Dado 21:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but is there any specific reason why you didn't comment the Ottoman censi subject? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

continuing the Ottoman census discussion with Dado

I re-checked the map ([2]); and it clearly puts a territorial equalty between the Serbs and Bosniaks in eastern Bosnia. An error, sorry. Throughout the history, Eastern Bosnia (roughly Bijeljina and Srebrenica) were a part of Serbia, rather then Bosnia, until the expansion of King Tvrtko. So it is a little strange that the population became suddenly so low; as Serbs in Eastern Bosnia in 1981 were the autochtonous population, rather then refugees from Turkish conquests. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would caution you from looking at maps from before 1991 as there are so many variables that may have changed the ethnic picture of the region some of which I have pointed out in the article. 1991 census and maps are perhaps most realistic than any previous ones. Keep in mind that Serb and Croat natality rate was one of the lowest ones in Europe while BH Muslims had one of the highest in Europe (for various reasons, cultural, patriarchal, social) --Dado 00:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The only copy of the 1991 map we have isn't detailed, as it is based on the counties' leves; on the same basis, I have here an ethnic map of BiH from 1921 which I don't want to put, as it shows 65% of Bosnia inhabited by Serbs, while only 30% by Muslims (while it is correct, it's based on the counties). The 1981 map is my favourite since it depicts almost every single village. And the natality rate is (sadly) the main reason for the most recent Islamophobia that engulphed the Crhistian world of BiH :( --HolyRomanEmperor 13:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Habsburgs created the Military Frontier explicitly to the Orthodox population; and created a living wall which utterly stopped any more Ottoman advances into it. When the Krajishniks started to menace Ottoman lands and more and attempts to drive the Ottomans from Bosnia; they decided to fight fire with fire, created a Bosnian Frontier, with the Ottoman generalate in that enclave (you know the one in northwestern Bosnia). --HolyRomanEmperor 23:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about the Millitary Frontier but, Bosanska Krajina is a different story. What you call "fight fire with fire" is stipulation. Historical evidence points to more natural and socio-political reasons rather than a specific plan that was implemented. --Dado 00:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is all this significant. We are dealing with Demographic history which is pure data crunching. and not analysis of various theories. Otherwise you are opening a can of worms that can be swayed in many ways. --Dado 00:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes; the story is far more complex with the Bosnian Frontier. But truth remains that thousands of Serbs were forcibly moved from Dalmatia, Herzegovina, Eastern Bosnia and Serbia to the Bosnian Frontier by the Ottomans back then. About the data; you are indeed correct; although another thing bugs me. Most of the info that I put there is from my History database. While I always had a tendency to note correct info, I never really dealed with the sources. Could you help me find a source for the Ottoman census (I believe that I saw it in a Croatian encyclopedia; but I'm not sure). --HolyRomanEmperor 13:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're not tired; you could take a look at this: Православна црква Босне и Херѕеговине од 960. до 1930.

I won't mix into the discussion all to much but emperor please choose your sources more carefully, most rather sources that aren't ex Yugoslavian. Damir Mišić 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As you wish; but I think that the modern sources are pure garbage bombarded by nationalism from all sides; and sources from the pre-Yugoslav age are simply too old. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bosnian Frontier

Serhat - Bosnian Krajina was populated by both voluntarely migrating (stimulated by Ottoman authorities) and forceful removal of Serbs according to the "Serhat" plan since the lt 15th and early 16th century. It was supposed to be a defense in the likehood of the Military Frontier; it eventually failed, but the name has remained to this very day, and the sources from then mention majorily Serb population, with some authochtonous Muslims living in the cities like Banja Luka and the arivals (like explained) to that enclave. There was also some Croat autochtonous populace. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have found some information about this and indeed some Serbs were stimulated by Ottoman authorities to migrate to Bosanska Krajina as the population was dieing from the plague and in wars with several epidemics starting in 1507 and repeating several times through the 18th century. It is also true that this region was under repeated conflict as it seeked its western expansion. This has caused spreading of plague more easily. Serbs that moved to Bosanska Krajina did not move only as military personel but to take on tasks of healthy and young populace that were deficient due to plague. They were needed to perform difficult agrarian tasks to which women and old were not fit to. There were also some occasions where Serbs became traders alongside Muslims in Banja Luka. They have also taken part in further military conflict and infact had their own military units called "martolozi" who were basically paid by the Ottomans for their military involvement. This again does not prove the founding of the Bosanska Krajina after Serbian migrations or as a particular military frontier but it is only one of it events in history as the region had its specific identity as "Krajiste" even before the arrival of Serbs. The name "Bosanska Krajina" was introduced in 1869 and has little to do with Croatian military frontier. --Dado 17:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The Bosnian Krajishniks were much less war-like like their eastern Semberian counterparts were (which produced most of the Serb war crimes today). :) There was no specification for the Military Frontier either. Sure, the Serbs were a majority in both, but the only difference is that the Habsburg Emperors issued freedom edicts called "Serbian statutes" creating a rather vague image of a "Serbian" land. Anyway, it's the population that is in the question. It was actually the Ottomans' biggest mistake, instead of repeating the process of the Military Frontier, they kept the old Feudalism ways, making the Bosnian Frontier much less advance and/or effectable than the Military Frontier. That's actually the reason why the Ottomans eventually lost. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

Holy, I am very tempted to completely revert your last edits for following reasons:

1. You are mixing "Muslims" and "Muslims in a national sense" terms up to the 1991 most of which are factually wrong ina inconsistant.
2. You have deleted all reference links to clarifications at the bottom.
3. You have added maps about ownership that I find particulary problematic especially ones that deal with land ownership during communist rule after most of the denationalisation of the property have taken place.

Please explain. --Dado 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

More on item 3. There are two maps shown in the article, one showing distribution of Serbs in BiH per district and the other distribution of Serb "owned" land per districts. The two maps are literary identical. This "conincidence" is far more clear if one observes policies of the communist regime in Yugoslavia at the time regarding the land ownership. Following the WWII denationalisation of property that started with Agrarian reform in 1918 in BiH, it was concluded that about 95% of the land was taken from its original owners and was given to the state. Furthermore the state worked with the socialist principle that "land belongs to those who work it". Hence we have a "conincidence" that these two maps are identical. It is also a fact that map such as the one showing the land ownership is probably a recent work (1992 to present) as such ethnical analisys was taboo among demographs in 1980's and earlier. The government never recognised any analysis that dealt with the nationalities other than to simply record them in the census. Not even a juxtaposition of the maps showing natality rates were allowed. I find that this map was manufactured around the start of the war in Bosnia to justify many political claims that arose before and during the war.

Now, if one were to approach the census data in question from a capitalist perspective or a perspective that most western systems are based on, which is that the property is permanent and unalienable right of its original owner, and if one were to "re-nationalize" the property in BiH, the results of most of the reforms that were conducted begining with 1918 and finalized with the Yugoslavian comunist government would need to be found invalid and the property would need to be returned to its original owners. This is something that stings RS in the ... and it is a fact that most of its land, if these standards are applied and they probably will be once BiH enters EU, would belong to Bosniaks.

The map is to say the least a misleading fabrication and needs to be removed.--Dado 01:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dado: 1. I have only stated the pure data. The Bosniaks were referred to as Muslims as an ethnic group in 1961; but since 1971 as Muslims by nationality (a constitutional nation). If there is something wrong in precise; be my guest and change it. 2. Links to clarifications? Sorry (lost during editing). Be my guest and return them. 3. I have no idea what you meant with those maps. i here was planing to add the territorial distribution of Bosniaks in 1991; but if you think that the maps are a little offendive to non-Serbs (I actually fail to see their incorrectness); be my guest and remove them (just keep the ethnic/religious historical maps, please).

Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dado,

1. ...please sorry for that percentage part (from the population census). It was actually not sneaky vandalism as you characterised it. I used sole data found at Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. My apologies for the misunderstanding again.

• Actually it is a sneaky vandalism but obviously not yours even if youadded it. I would not dwell on it too much --Dado 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2. The population of Muslims that registered as others in 1961 is actually 600,000, not 800,000. (1,482,430 altogether minus 842,248 is 600,000 if mathemathics serves me well).

• If you take the total population number and do the math the 800,000 make more sense. Also I've heard this number independent from these numbers --Dado 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct, but we can with precise say that 600,000 were Bosniaks. The remaining 200,000 might've been Romas (not defined undecided). Correct me if I am wrong. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Islamization is neither negative nor positive. It renders the assimilation of the Bosnian population into the religous-lingusitic nation of the Ottomans. May I take myself the liberty to replace it with assimilating?

• Islamization does have very negative conotations (at least to me; it reminds me of terms such as "Poturice" and "Poturcenje"). Also it is very very dubious that assimilation took place or that islamization took place and I have given some economic and geopolitical reasons for it on the article. If that was the case most of Bosnians would now speak Turkish language and have turkish customs (neither of which is evident). To say the least there are a ton of proof that assimilation is not the proper word but rather the mixing of cultures that created a uniquely Bosnian one. --Dado 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not refering to the forming of the Bosniak culture, but forceful conversion of Catholics and Orthodox. I know that the Bosniaks remember the Ottoman Empire with a warm feeling, but even Mak Dizdar accepts the forceful conversion (my personal translation: assimilation) of some Slavs (mostly Serbs, some Croats, Hungarians and other non-Slavs). It actually has nothing to do with the Poturicas.

4. The bit that the the majority of Serbs was converted to Islam has actually a near-fact status. You may see it in the source that I put to the up (a very detailed Yugoslav statistics); but note that this regards only for the first periods of Ottoman rule. As you know, the Orthodox Serbs have comprised majority in Herzegovina, but were only present in a (big, but nevertheless a) minority in Bosnia proper. So, hypotheticly, I'll use an example: If there were 10,000 Orthodox Serbs in Bosnia, and 9,000 converted to Islam. Wouldn't that make the majority?.

• Although I accept that certain number of Serbs have converted to islam it is well known that it was a small number. The logic that claims otherwise also negates the impact of Bogumils on these regions and tries to portray non-Serb and non-Croat presence in BiH as foreign. From your edits it is obvious that sources you have used only deal with migrations and not with the social and cultural aspects of population dynamics. Population migration data again serves to push their point that Muslims have immigrated to Bosnia and in turn that Bosniaks are either Serb converts or of foreign encestry. I would be a bit more critical of sources that you have provided but I will go through them when I get more free time. --Dado 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• One of the sources that I have brought up is Serbian nationalist; but the info there confirms my personal data from the resently-mentioned database (I rather cite sources that the reader can confirm and see directly through the net). But the source to the up (that Yugoslav statistics) is actually a very commendable article, detailed to every way. Note that the Muslims have an unnaturally high emigration rate during late Ottoman rule (I stated so in the article myself). Basicly, it is generally accepted that most of the Serbian minority majorily converted to Islam; but the way that I presented it is ambigous; so could you please re-phrase it? The number might have been very small, but it is still the majority of the little autochtonous Orthodox Serb populace of Bosnia proper. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

5. The part stating that the Bosnian Bogumils (Bosnian Church) have all converted to Islam, making a sort of a continuation is at least a bit strange. As you can see at the Bosnian Church's article, it stood that the Bogumilism had almost died out before the Ottomans came to Bosnia, before a nationalism dispute arrised there. The last known Bogumil was a member of the Kosača family and he lived in the 1480s. Although I wanted a keeping of strict facts in the article, this deserves a place, but needs at least a little rephrasal.

• The Bosnian church article begins with the notion that the church disappeared during the Ottoman rule and not before it. Lack of documents recording a nation does not negate the fact that they lived there before and during Ottomans. We are getting into an area that has many contradicting information and that has been "raped" by political historians over and over again.--Dado 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very well, but please re-phrase in the sake to avoid controversy (and political historians that might invade our article soon). :) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

6. The article lacks the explaination of the arrisal of the Bosniak nation. Man would think that its just a renaming of a religious entity rather than a people. Could you deal with it?

• I agree that there is a great deal of inconsistancy and ambiguity about the terminology Moslems-Muslims-Muslims by nationality- Bosniaks. Even for those familiar with the topic it becomes a riddle. We should probably have a blanket statement on the start clarifying the terminology--Dado 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

7. May the tag go down (personally I see no reason for its presence)?

• I don't think it hurts. The article does need a lot of work and may stimulate others to join.--Dado 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• OK. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I hereby apologize to User:Dado if any of he has interpreted any of my edits have been contrary to the WP:NPOV policy and state that I will be even more precaucious in the future. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this was not clear but the term "Muslims by nationality" was an interim term that was introduced in late 60's and early 70's to describe what we today define as Bosniaks. Official term per constitutional changes in 1970s was "Muslim". This was the case in BiH. Other republics may have continued to use term Muslims by nationality for their ethnic minorities.--Dado 14:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Really? I sincerely didn't know that. In the records that we still have in Montengro, I see a Muslim by nationality tick.

I would like to add something: 8. AFAIC, I am compelled add something. The actual reason for the 1918/1919 confiscation might seem racial, but actually it wasn't on that basis. A large part of the still non-national Bosniak people was actually poor. It was a cruel Feudalism. 91% of the land owned by just a few descendents of the former Ottoman nobility, which has been declared illegal, as Feudalism was abolished. The land was equally given to all the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It its not the governments', nor the people's fault that the majority of the land was inhabited by Serbs, and that they got the most of it. I don't think that the return of the land is entirely possible. That would require tracing of back to the third knee and create a renown unproportional Feudalism in Europe. Actually (if you see in detail), the ownership map is less than the territorial distribution map.

• This is an interesting observation and personally I agree that Feudalism was cruel but so were many things in the past including Slavs driving indigenous Ilirians from the Balkans. Objectively debating Feudalism is another story and I am afraid that we would be opening a can of worms.

What is most critical is that Austria-Hungary during their rule confirmed the land ownership of the Bosniaks (than Moslems) and practically “modernized” their property deeds so as they are applicable today. Originals of these deeds are on various locations in BiH and if those are in any way destroyed (as many attempts were made during the 1992-95 war) copies are also available in Vienna. So technically Austria-Hungary already dismantled the feudal system.

Knowing this it is hard to justify Agrarian reform as non-racial. Complete denationalization of Bosniak property was only possible under ideological auspices of communism and socialist paroles such as “land belongs to those who work it”

If those systems ceased to exist so did their ideology. So historically and legally that land belongs to Bosniaks or at the very least the ownership is still not reclaimed as political forces are preventing it. --Dado 19:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A rather long story (sorry :) on the ownership part

Please sorry for the vastness of this note, but read it when you have time:

I understand. I understand that there are more possible angles of view on the fact. But one obviously sees that the ol' minority rules the majority was applied there. For instance, we have had one Islamic citizen in, say, Banja Luka, Mostar or Sarajevo; and say, 17,500 Christian peasents (only slightly protected by Austro-Hungarian laws) working on his estate alone. Plus, if we go that old way back, we could simply give the majority of the land of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the government of the Republic of Turkey. Note that the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was one of the three only Feudal Monarchies of Europe back than. The Russian Czardom relinquished its Feudalism in the second half of the 19th century, bu continued to practise it all the way to the Red Revolution. The Ottoman Sultanate had still the old religious-based Feudal Classism at hand (abolished only several years later by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - Father of the Turks). The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was rather strange. It was at the same time a Kingdom that was based on harsh Feudalism but enlightened by the revolutionary 1848-1867 movements and an Empire based on liberal social capitalism, that again turned to using the most out of the lowest classes. The Croatian nobility abolished Feudalism, but continued to practise it. Same can be said for the Hungarian nobility. The reforms in Bosnia-Herzegovina were somewhat unique, because Bosnia and Herzegovina was governed directly from the Ministry of Economy (which again turned back to the Emperor and the Imperial Court – large-scale Feudalism?).

An illustration of the Bosnia-Herzegovina situation during Austro-Hungary

Let me use a unique story of Petar Kočić to illustrate the time from Jazavac pred sudom and his other Austro-Hungarian period works. He told the tale of a Bosniak (not to be mistaken with Bosniak) that received 3 Crowns as a compensation for his son's death on the Eastern Front against the Russians. The Bosniak had a somewhat-big land, whose name was nit' njego'a, nit' carska, nit' spa'ijska; because he owned it, the Austro-Hungarian officer said that it is in the range of an Imperial forest, so it is the owning of the Empire and according to the local Spahija, it was his. So, thus, he baptised the land owned by none of the three. According to the story, a bagger desolated his field, so he took his gun and killed the vermin. His estate-holder emerged from no where, asking (and taking) 5 Crowns for the unjustified murder of a being that did not belong to the Bosniak, but to the real (wait, who?) landowner. Remember how much he got the same morning for his son's death.

Anyway, let me also note that the same Agrarian Reform was conducted in Serbia decades (nearly a century) before that. The Ottoman Feudalism was abolished as well as the nobility, which was allowed to keep its prestige only by serving as high-ranked soldiers in the army, or as artists, scientist, craftsmen, traders or politicians. The land was split equally among all citizens of the Principality of Serbia. It became a source for the new laws. The government then considered it as beneficial for the majority of the population, and damaging only to the rich, self-esteemed, full of arrogancy & pride in some cases also corrupted rich upper-class.

A comparison

Dado, let me make a comparison. The land of the Military Frontier was equally held by the the people, the Frontiersmen. After its annexation into Croatia and Slavonia in 1881, the lands were confiscated and given to the Croatian and Hungarian (but also German/Austrian) nobility (consider it as a backwards movement to what happened in BiH), thus damaging mostly the Serbs. The Serbs continued to own (in many cases as nobility themselves, like the case with Ivan Desnica, Vladan Desnica's ancestor) over a third of the ownership land in Croatia. It is certain that the land will never be returned. After the terrifying changes of 1990-1995, the land ownership dropped to percentage that could be freely noted under others. Croatia is soon going to enter the European Union; but despite it; it is a fact that the apartments and land (all together with private ownership summing over 1,400,000,000 Euros) from this most recent war will never be returned to the people. As soon as I understood it, I could go on freely with my life. Currently, I do not know for whome to feel sorry more:

• the people that have been (including me) directly damaged by the war, or
• the fools that actually shed hope that one day something will be returned

If that is the expected reaction for little acres of land from 1991 (my presice case this time), how can I ask for a partchment of land from 1790 that could actually be seen on the geographical map of Croatia; regardless of that the Vienna Archive is overflown with my entire family tree and my ancestor's who-did-what-wheres.

I apologize to User:Dado for writing a kilometre-size note, and hope that he will have one day time to read it thurrowly. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer

To begin I don't mind a long e-mail.

The flaw with the reference of returning the land to Republic in Turkey is in that Turkey (Ottoman empire) did not actually own the land but rather controlled it administratively. Following the arrival of Ottomans the landowners maintained their ownership of the land by turning to Islam or they were given the land within the feudal system as the reimbursement for taking part in the Ottoman military (equal to buying the land in modern days).

I cherish the reference to the book "Jazavac pred sudom" which I ``actually`` read cover to cover for the fifth grade book report. It is a heart full satire of the political system but hardly a significant reference for the topic at hand. It's author is a well known for its social activism for which he was also prosecuted.

On a personal note I feel that me and my ancestors were the lower order in the food chain as Serb's property was taken by Croats, Bosniak property was in turn taken by Serbs. Interesting how the history repeats itself. Implication that Bosniak landowners were "rich, self-esteemed, full of arrogance & pride in some cases also corrupted rich upper-class" perhaps best fits the theory that the policy of the Agrarian reform was at least biased against them if not on a national than on a social level. As I don't subscribe to Darwinian notion in either of two options it still stands that per data available to us about 95% of the land of BiH actually belonged to Bosniaks or the same "rich upper-class". It was taken from them and distributed to Serbs or "poor lower class". As you have presented the same is evident in Croatia but in reverse. However, those statistics are irrelevant for Demography of Bosnia and Herzegovina and hardly justify policies that Kingdom of Yugoslavia implemented in turn. It is quite probable that same property (either Serb in Croatia or Bosniak in Bosnia) will probably never be returned to their original owners (although not entirely impossible). However this does not mean that this fact does not deserve to be recorded and considered in history.--Dado 21:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You have slightly misunderstood me. Claiming that Bosniak landowners were "rich, self-esteemed, full of arrogance & pride in some cases also corrupted rich upper-class" is plain POV. You didn't notice that I never generalise anything; and when I do, I generalise to the highest ranking. Therefore, I was refering to the all Noblity/Feudalism on the world that ever existed. If I use generalising in that matter, ofcourse that I would make some mistakes, but I am sure that you agree that if I say "rich, self-esteemed, full of arrogance & pride in some cases also corrupted rich upper-class" for them, I am not far from the truth...

I totally agree with the second half of you 2nd paragraph; just note, that never the Serbs should be called as a poor lower class or Bosniaks as a rich upper-class as a whole is simply POV. The Serbs, although the lower-class, had their own Spahijas in the first ages of Ottoman rule, and the Serb Orthodox Church, next to other matters helped make the Serbs actually the main demographical and populational structure od BiH in that period. Note, also, that the greater part of the Bosniak population was in the lower-class back then, a rather significant portion actually being (bottom rung!) peasents.

P. S. And yet we say Historia magistra vitae est. :-( Selam Alejkum, my friend!--HolyRomanEmperor 12:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason of my revertings on Damir's changes...

...are the following:

1. It mentions frequent attacks of the Bosnian Church by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. This is, I think, false; but if true, requires a reference.

2. The strange removal of the data on the Serbian Orthodox populace.

3. Changing the adverb Moslem to a noun Muslim everywhere.

4. In the two Turkish population censi, the Bogumils, as well as Orthodox and Catholics were added (this is contrary to the actual census.

5. Total removal of the 1895 BiH population census data.

6. The unnecessary adding of the peoples' religion in the WWII losses.

7. Enforcing the Bosniak name in census where it wasn't registered as so.

I suggest that Damir Mishich answers all of these questions before suggesting his version of the article. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Damir's edits

I reverted Damir's edits because it is unknown whether the Bogumils were included in the "Christian" census. He also claimed that I make up different census versions of my own. Damir, aren't you doing that? I have no idea what you meant by Austria... --HolyRomanEmperor 22:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Territorial distribution

• What is the sorce of percentage? Are those are percentages of census 1875/78?
• If they are Serbs in it are not majority in Posavina (at least not of area between Derventa and Brčko), nor in central Bosnia (there are only few serbian villiges around Donji Vakuf). The middle lower course of Drina is where? Between which cities?
• Why is Bosniak/Moslem majority around Drina not mentioned?
• Croats were majority in border parts of eastern Herzegovina; Neum, Ravno, etc. some old mines (Ljubija, Vareš, Kakanj) western Herzegovina and most of Central Bosnia. Why is this deleted?
• At the part where is talk of Slavic nations (line 134), they were not all Serbs!
• Why is (what is the source) of calling all Catholics pesants?
• In line 156 there is talk of Croat majority in just northern Herzegovina, and there was no such region then. There were only regions of Bosnia Krajina (Muslim/Bosniak majority), Banja Luka (Serb majority), Tuzla (Muslim/Bosniak majority), Sarajevo (Muslim/Bosniak majority) and Herzegovina(Croat majority). There was no northern Herzegovina region!
• why are better living spaces in Vojvodina deleted (line 292)? That was great improvment as most of the people came from rocky/passive parts of Bosnia into fertile plain of Vojvodina.
• Why is fall of Croat population in second Jugoslavia (line 327) deleted? It fell by more than a quater (see censuses)
• line 357, what does the word lordship means?
• Why is in line 373 deleted text about fall of Croat settlements?

--Ceha 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you plainly removed a lot of the article, so don't push your version. I'll discuss here. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

• All censi is official data. Which particular census are you wondering about?
• You'll have to be specific - I just toook data (nothing of my research)
• When? If it was long ago (not recently) - they didn't form the majority
• That wasn't deleted. That wasn't even added. I simply rv what was obviously vandalism. Btw, what's the source?
• That stinks to me as well - but as I recall, I took that directly from my source
• The Catholic Encyclopedia. Why?
• Geographicly, southern Herzegovina was populated by Serbs. It's not a region - it's geography. Anyway, I took this from a source as well, so I don't know why you complain
• as I said I rv vandalsim. Additionally, what does it have to do if they're better. Besides, are you saying that you asked each and every of the 70,000+ people "Are your new apartments better?"?
• It means what it means everywhere - land ownership
• yet again - I rv vandalism (didn't delete that)

There. Satisfied? :) --HolyRomanEmperor 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Nope:)

• 1. that is in line 85. are those percentage of the census of 1875/78?
• 2 also in line 85. If you look about the picture [[3]] Croats are majority in Posavina. Also the rest of the list of areas which held Serbian majority is incorect; in middle and lower corse of Drina (the same map) there is a Bosniak majority, and Serbs have only few vilages around Donji Vakuf. This whole list is wrong:) because for example it speaks that a Serbs had majority in some parts of c.Bosnia (which you can see in the map, and it is false:) and it does not speak about Croat majority in most of c.Bosnia, nor parts of eastern Herzegovina, etc.. nor Bosniak majority in some places outside the cities.
• 3 source is that map, on that page [[4]] . In the text there is one thing, and map shows different? And that is map of Serbian Ortodox Church, right?
• 4 if you are refering to Rasko as your source, I can tell you that it is wrong (obvious comparison of map with that text shows you all:)
• 5 Ok, in 1875/78 98 percent of population were not Serbs, and if you are sourcing to Catholic Encyclopedia it should be some kind of error:) That would ment that Bosnia had a near 100% serbian majority, and that did not happen never in history:) Gimme your link to that page in Catholic Encyclopedia.
• 6 Ok, again your source is wrong or bias. You can not speak about 2 nations in terms of regions and 3. in terms of geografy.
• 7 Well it is true. "Vlak bez voznog reda:)" Also they were not forced to do relocate, but they were given something new:)
• 8 Ok, then preformulate in land ownership, and not in lordship. It is a problem because this page was written by somebody with serbian bias or POV, which is shown in that word and not mentioning that for exaple 200 years before nearly all of Bosnia was in the hand of Muslim landowners.
• 9 It was not my intention to wandalize, but to correct some incorections (you can see how I argumented it).

Look at that map [[5]] and the descriptions in 1875/78 and 1981 census and you will also see incorections. There are also many things like that and you should check out some of your sorces before you use them:) For now, I will just add what have I added before, change things like pesants, etc. And after discussion will deal with this as well:) See yaa Ceha 20:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

1) Yes - it is (1875/76, not 78) (an Ottoman census). Fortunatly, over there we've got percise territorial distribution.

2) Well, hardly can we compare a map drawn by the Royal Yugoslav Government in 1932 (and approved by the King) about the census on Bosnia-Herzegovina of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from 1921 (which you presented) with vague Ottoman-Austro-Hungarian censuses from 1875/1876. :)

4) and 5) How is it self-conflicting? And what do you mean by "Serbian Orthodox Church"? What do you think about a Church? That it's a mapper? :D

5) No, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the source for that one. Actually, see it yourself

6) What? I don't understand you

7) Well, I beg to differ (well, my former neighbour begs to differ). Please remove that. In case you have a source that the apartments were brilliant and better and how the tenants are more than satisfied - then keep it. This way it's like "don't feel sorrow for those guys", when many of them were actually complaining that they were ethnicly cleansed that way.

8) Why is it odd? I just wanted to use variety of wording! :S

9) You can see I noted that before myself. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

1) Ok, my error:)

2) Do you perhaps were is the source of that census? Is it just qouted? Because it is clearly vague, (for example it does not speak anything about areas which were inhabited by Croats, and only thing what it speaks about are percantages)

3) again my error:)

4) and 5) Well Churches usualy have a list of baptised people:) If someone took that data with population census it could figure out the porportion of that religion in the area. There was some example, when Catholic bishop in Mostar stated that according to census made by Church, there were more of Croats (or Catholics) in Mostar than just 33 percent.

5) Ok, it is still wrong, no matter where it writes. It could been easily been writen by some italian cleric who misunderstuded slav with sclavic or serb or something similar. There is no other confidential source which would claim that.

6) Look, there where 6 regions in Bosnia at that time; Krajinska, Banjalucka, Tuzlanska, Travnicka, Sarajevska & Mostarska (Herzegovina). Croats were majority in 2 of them (Travnik and Mostar), Serbs in one (Banja Luka) and Bosniaks/Muslim in 3 (Bihać, Sarajevo and Tuzla). That part is about in which region which nationality had majority, not in which region and part of the other regions Serbs had it:) In most of southern Herzegovina Serbs had majority, but then the discription is flawled, because you should talk about Croatian majority north of Banja Luka, Posavina, etc...

7) Ethnicly cleansed from where? I will remove that part, that is no problem, but most of those people came from largely Serbian areas (Glamoč, Grahovo, eastern Herzegovina, etc) and that was the time when there were no seperate Bosniak/Muslim nation, and bosnian Croats where prety much at the back of line when it was about authority (which you can see by their numbers).

8) It looks bias:) Lordship seems to make someone into the lord, and other one into the stranger.

9) Yes, I apoligize for not seing that was a picture of 1921. It still had the borders of regions of 1878 (those 6 I wrote you earlier about) and I though that I saw at Rasko page that it was map made by SPC. Again my appologies. Ceha 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

2) The source is Stanovništvo Bosne i Hercegovine, 1955, Belgrade, FPRY. It further goes deep into the research of the Ottoman and Autro-Hungarian censi

4) and 5) the census is just a governmental census - how people self-declared

5) I just obeyed WP:Cite. I would advice you to do so as well. Similiar thing can be seen on the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica

6) Look, I just took it from a source; I can't conduct OR (NOR! can you :)

8) What the...? Just take the Oxford dictionary, or any else! Yes, I am the Lord of my Garden, my estate or any other private ownership! You're just dismissing proffessional wording. Why?

---

2) That is the only source?:) There are some things for wich in does not seem relayble (at least not to me:);

• it speaks mostly of Ortodox population, it barely mentions muslim(it just sais they were living in towns) or catholic population
• it is very focused on the precentage of territory wich some religion occupied
• it speaks of middle and lower course of Drina with Ortodox majority when census of 1921 showed muslim majority in that area, and ortodox:muslim ratio was not changed during that time 43:32, right?

I'm sorry, but I did not find source for it, and as you can see, it looks bias:( Who were the authors of that book? Usualy I like to check most of information I get:)

6)"Attempt to cite sources from different viewpoints as to present a fair and balanced view of what the academic community believes to be true" Quote:) I thougt that a slight standardization of that cite would be in order. Cite is not incorect, but it is more convinient to talk about regions at that time. It gives as greater image,no?:) Also, the borders of the regions could be seen at the image of [[6]] census in 1921.

5)Ok, but I think it could be ofensive (there is no mention of (for example:) ortodox people which were mainly "stočari"?:)

8)Personly I see the diference:) That would be similar as "gospodar" and "vlasnik" in Croatian. First one is of the higher deegre, no? It looks a bit like nitpicking, but:) At least it will resault in a better page:) Ceha 20:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edits

Well, I improved article a bit, but it is still horrible. There is a lot of unsorced data in it (or at least not with clearly shown sources) and a lot of things are really prity unimportant (for example land ownership and etc.). Basicly whole of article is to long and badly defined.
Let's go in order. Migrations and other don't talk about nothing. Before 1453 western bosnia was part of Croatia and northern banates (Usora) where catholic with dualistic tendensies no?
Ortodox were confided to eastern parts of Herzegovina (I think there was 9% of ortodox over all).
Please source your data... some data with nationality which reported (parts with Austro Hungary).
Sources again on territorial distribution in A-U?
Private ownership of the land? That is from Rastko project? How reliable is that date (or NPOV)?
I'm going to try to fix it all, my god what a mes..Ceha (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

BiH_Austria-Hungary_ethmoc.png

This map has sources in [7] [8]. Laz, removal of sourced material is considered vandalism. If you do not return that map you will be blocked for vandalising wikipedia. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1910

Laz, as for your fraud of 1910, here is a more plausable map [9]. Unfortunately it is unsourced. Good thing is than on it you can also see Donji Vakuf as part of Bugojno kotar (as for Banovina discussion).--Čeha (razgovor) 14:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

On the map that you produced there is no date. It could be 1885, no? As for kotars - we can see that Livno has Grahovo in it. Yet Grahovo was not in the croat banovina. Keep the croat banovina on the appropriate page please. (LAz17 (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)).

Added legend. Now there is no excuse for not returning it.

As for Donji Vakuf, you know that I'm right. I gave you two more maps in which it is evident that Donji Vakuf was part of Banovina Croatia [10] [11]. That is clear nationalistic POV deniaing obvious. But will settle it on Banovina page. Now return this image.--Čeha (razgovor) 23:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no source. I do not see where the data is. And at any rate, it is dumb to do an ethnic map of such big units. The census itself was divided into smaller units. The 1885 map can be seen here, http://img155.imageshack.us/i/1885amv5.png/ (LAz17 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)).

POV and vandalisim (source of the map is clearly stated). Do I need to report you to ANI?

And this [12] is a forgery. I gave you this [13], and you me return the same without names is different colors? Low Laz, low...

Return the map, or you'll go to ANI because of vandalism. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We clearly can not say which map vandalized which one. The one that I have at least has a date, unlike yours. As for Your 1885 thing, without a census there is no source. Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia. We can not include such things that can not be confirmed. Back then Serbs were the biggest group in the country, and I suspect that they were the majority in more than one of those places. But, it seems ridiculous that there were only a few regions at the time. I am sure there were more. (LAz17 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)).

You were reported to ANI [14], regardless of your POV you have no right of destroying sourced data. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But you have no source. I have the data, and it does not align with what you are proposing. (LAz17 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

If I hadn't had sources or the data, than it would not be a vandalism. [15] --Čeha (razgovor) 11:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, then share the source. Scan the information, bring up the census. Otherwise it's not true. If you do that, you will see that you are wrong, just like you were wrong in the central bosnia canton. And then you will probably continue attacking me for fixing your mistakes. I have census, and my results show something different. On top of this all, nobody makes a map according to districts, but according to srez or whatever it was called back then. There were about 30-40 units in Bosnia back then, not 6. (LAz17 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)).

Laz do you admit that district map is correct? (I've given you sources for that). If it is correct why there should not be a map for it? As for census count it up. I took that data from this page (2 districts had the Catholic, 1 ortodox and 3 muslim majority). You should get the same results if you count every srez wich belongs to the district in question. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Get your sources, or leave me alone. (LAz17 (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)).

I think that some of the sources can be found here [16]. Do please read the upper post. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It requires me to be a premium member. Can you upload this stuff somewhere? Photobucket or yousendit.com? There are many options. (LAz17 (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)).

Okay cool I downloaded it. Take a good look at the totals for the bihac area. Serbs total over 110,000 and bosniaks total over 90,000. I have similar files for 1879, 1885, and 1895. My suggestion is this - Serbs were always the majority in that region, and you labeled them wrong. I did not bother to count up the others. Also, you mentioned that you have the source of the borders - if you can scan it or take a photo and upload that on your photobucket account, that would be nice. (LAz17 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)).

The borders of the districts are taken from "Povijesni atlas"--Kartografija Učila, Zagreb 1984. , you can also see them in the [17] which user Thewander uploaded. I'll go again through the numbers. I've made the map from the data which was onto this (wikipedia) page, I did not check it out.--Čeha (razgovor) 08:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here [18] you can find a better list.With a sumation at the end of every district. :::::List (orthodox,muslim, roman catholic)

District Sarajevo:94098 132623 52820

District Tuzla:189213 177649 60130

District Banja Luka:235260 70965 86847

District Bihać:125465 90306 12336

District Travnik:90602 76928 109908

District Mostar:90780 63666 112020

Sumation:825418 612137 434061

Map is corrected:[19]

---

Also, look at the data of Kotar Bugojno: 15229,14929,16001, obviously this [20] is false, and this [21] is true. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

1) Your map is about 1885, not 1910. Are you here to joke around/waste my time? Your map clearly said 1885. And now you switch your discussion to 1910? What kind of discussion is this supposed to be?

2) We have a very nice map for 1910, which is bellow the municipal level.

3) I would like to see "Povijesni atlas"--Kartografija Učila, Zagreb 1984. that you are talking about.

4) For you to change your map by 33%, is really amazing. It only confirms that you were very wrong to begin with.

5) Tell me why your map is better than the current 1910 map? (LAz17 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)).

6) Yes, the 1885 map is obviously false for the year 1910. Similarly today's map is also obviously false for 1910, as is almost any map when compared to a year that it does not represent. (LAz17 (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)).

My error.

2) There are two maps on commons which should be included into the article (as both are sourced) [22], [23] and removing them would constitute a vandalism.

3) Go to the library. You should have found it there.

4) Change is in 1910-1885 period. As can be seen from the numbers in Tuzla district, diffirence is minimal.

5) It is more clearer and sourced with an actual census. Where are the sources for [24]

6) I'll check the 1885 census. You claimed that you have it, yet you did not show a thing from it. Let me remind you Laz, that removing of the sourced data is considered vandalism. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the 1885 census? How many cadastar municipalities were there in Bugojno county in 1885? --Čeha (razgovor) 15:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

1)Your error, along with hundreds of other errors. What kind of joke are you?

4)I am speaking only about change in your initial map and the current maps. The changes are insanely large.

3)No Ceha, I do not live in Zagreb, we do not have that book available here.

2)One map is not on the commons, and since you are not the author the licensing is very questionable. As for the six unit one - six units is a joke. You may as well have one unit. It only confuses the reader. On top of that, in most units no group was the outright majority as you suggest.

5)I disagree.

6)I'll show you bujogno from the 1885 census and that is it. I am under no obligation to provide you with anything. 37935 total, 13326 muslims, 12223 orthodox, 12330 catholics. (LAz17 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)).

1)Are you again begining insaulting me?

2)See the 3. No matter, I gave source in that map. If someone wishes to check the actual figures he can easily do that. I'll repeat that deleting sourced data is considered vandalism.

3)Ok, then you've got [25] and census of 1910. In it you can see wich municipalities vere part of some kotars.

5)But you did not prove it in any way, until you prove it is just your POV.

6)Laz, you do not have the data. There was 12674 catholics, 12234 muslims and 11245 orthodox. There was also 408 of others (Jews). Here is the source [26]. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I've given the necessary sources, now return the maps. Or I should do it? But let me just remind you that deleting of sourced data is considered vandalism. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your maps have been removed because they were mis sourced and unsourced shit. What is difficult to understand here? You have not demonstrated that they should be returned. Feel free to report yourself to ANI again, for uploading a map that was 33% wrong, which you vigorously claimed was correct.

Your base map is not any "Povijesni atlas"--Kartografija Učila, Zagreb 1984. which you claim. Quite to the contrary, the map is a bullshit piece of crap, that is a cutout from another bullshit crap map from the serbian wikipedia... need some evidence? It was cropped out.

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:KraljevinaSHS1918.jpg

Clearly has nothing to do with the austrohungarian period.

The census that you provide shows bugojno on pages 85 to 89. Nowhere does it say that the croats were the biggest group in the kotar, and nowhere are your numbers cited.

No, I am not insulting you, but I think you are insulting me with your on purpose switching of dates to try to confuse me and to further mess up this discussion. (LAz17 (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)).

You are rude and uncivic. Map now is good. I've given you census (of 1910) in which is shown which kotar goes to wich district. You have map of 1910 in which kotar borders are shown. The same map is in that Atlas. Put the map back (in 1910 period). I'll do it otherways. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets discuss one thing at a time - perhaps that will give the most benefits. Also, I am sick right now, so it I might not respond every day.

Your map has been removed ,as it was before. It was shit before, and while you claim to have improved it (by fixing mistakes that amounted to almost half the map), it is still far from being acceptable or good.

You claim that the maps source is "The same map is in that Atlas.". Am not aware that such an atlas exists, and if your borders are true then bring up some source. I have proved that the source of the map is a bullshit map from the serbian wikipedia. The border suck, and on top of that the map is not education or encyclopedia worthy as generalizes the region too much. (LAz17 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)).

Ok, Laz I'm not going to discuss with someone wich uses words like "shit", "bullshit" or something simmilar. Thism map shows kotar borders map and this link | census explains which kotar was part of wich district. I'm going to ask future to help with this (because your actions are vandalic). --Čeha (razgovor) 16:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I will say what I already told you, yet you did not cooperate.

1) The source of the map is the Yugoslavia 1920ish map. Its borders are very poorly drawn.

2) It is stupid to draw a map with only six units, as it gives a very poor representation as to who was the majority where - in fact I think it is fair to say that no group was over 50% in any of the districts. So, it is very deceiving to have croats labeled as majority in this huge area, when in fact they were closer to 35%.

3) The standard coloration as seen in Croatian government maps, University of Belgrade maps, and elsewhere, is that Serbs are labeled as blue. You might not like this fact, but that is not my problem, it's yours.

(LAz17 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)).

Oh dear...

You guys are still at it? Ceha, can you please point me to the pages in that big census tables pdf where it gives the summary figures for the districts? LAz, what exactly are you disputing: the position of the district boundaries, or the figures for each district? What makes you think they are wrong? Wrong, or just imprecise? Of the things you write just above, none strikes me as particularly compelling. Of course you may have your opinion about whether a map of this nature is useful, but that has nothing to do with whether it is wrong. And please let's not start with color symbolism. I would strongly suggest to ignore all color coding conventions that might be perceived to have any political symbolism attached to them, and just stick to standard Wikipedia map colors as defined by the WikiProject. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ceha's map is cut out from this image, [27]. Not only are the borders pretty poor, but it is ridiculous to have a map with only six units. May as well have an additional map with only one unit, why not?

The map colors should be consistent with most of the other maps in the page. In other words, that Serbs are blue, that Croats are redish and that Muslims are Green. Those are the standard colors, and Ceha was told this by the user Direktor here. [28] However, Ceha does not listen to reason and his only response is something about serbs being nebeski narod, and I have no idea what his stuff about nebeski narod is supposed to mean. Please help him in understand that Serbs should not be red in the maps. (LAz17 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)).

Summary numbers are on pages 66-67,142-143,219-220,260-261,318-319,379-380. That is official census. Border lines can be checked from that kotar map... --Čeha (razgovor) 13:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for this. I can verify now that those figures are indeed in the source (i.e. I have checked the first set, but I assume the others will be correct as well). You might still want to consider the objection that the choice of charting majorities by such large areas, while mathematically "correct", isn't very informative, and may even come across as distorting. Since you have the data also for the Kotar level, both the geographical boundary lines and the population figures, wouldn't it be more informative to do it on that level? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to do both. And when making the district map, I'll put the numbers of every religion in each district. That would add some information on the map. It would be nice to see the difference between kotar and district level (maybe put larger kotar level and smaler district on the page?).--Čeha (razgovor) 14:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the census figures;

Ortodox Muslim R Catholic

288061 Sarajevo 94098 132623 52820 32,67% 46,04% 18,34% 97,04% 279541

425496 Tuzla 183213 177649 60130 43,06% 41,75% 14,13% 98,94% 420992

403817 BanjaLuka 235260 70965 86847 58,26% 17,57% 21,51% 97,34% 393072

229071 Bihać 125465 90306 12336 54,77% 39,42% 5,39% 99,58% 228107

284361 Travnik 95602 76928 109908 33,62% 27,05% 38,65% 99,32% 282438

267038 Mostar 90780 63666 112020 34,00% 23,84% 41,95% 99,79% 266466

1897844 Sum 824418 612137 434061 43,44% 32,25% 22,87% 98,57% 1870616

[29], when I'll have time, I'll try to make kotar map too.--Čeha (razgovor) 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Scandaous vandalism removal of historic facts in an article about history

The following paragraph is being constantly removed by vandals:

The Catholic Encycopedia claims that at the end of the 19th century 98% of population of Bosnia and Herzegovina were Serbs: According to the census of 22 April 1895, Bosnia has 1,361,868 inhabitants and Herzegovina 229,168, giving a total population of 1,591,036. [...] Excluding some 30,000 Albanians living in the south-east, the Jews who emigrated in earlier times from Spain, a few Osmanli Turks, the merchants, officials. and Austrian troops, the rest of the population (about 98 per cent) belong to the southern Slavonic people, the Serbs. Although one in race, the people form in religious beliefs three sharply separated divisions: the Mohammedans, about 550,000 persons (35 per cent), Greek Schismatics, about 674,000 persons (43 per cent), and Catholics, about 334,000 persons (21.3 per cent). The last mentioned are chiefly peasants. -- Klaar, Karl. "Bosnia and Herzegovina." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907.

What exactly is the vandalism perpetrators' problem with the historic fact that in 1895 98% of B&H people -- including all who today self-identify as Croats and Bosniaks -- were OFFICIALLY SELF IDENTIFIED AS SERBS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.154.237 (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

By the definition used back then, i.e. speaking the Serbo-Croat language, not by the definition used today... Thomas.W ^talk 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you are obviously also a liar, in addition to being a vandal, vandal Thomas.W.

At that time there were Serbs AND Croats offically in the Austrian-Hungarian bureaucrtaic documents and the Catholic Encyclopaedia, of all sources, had absolutely no reason to favour Orthodox Serbs over Roman Catholic Croats. It was simply stating a fact. All those people were identified as Serbs.

And this is just a historic source. Nothing to do with today. A source from the past. A document. Constant removal of that source by you and your sockpuppets and/or cronies like vandal Drmies only cripples Wikipedia, it does not make the fact that 98% of Bosnia-Herzegovina inhabitants were Serbs then (not now, then!) go away.

Thomas.W is right and the IP is not. Perhaps it's time to block this vandal? Timbouctou (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou is a pro-Ustasha vandal who has been specifically implicated in the great scandal when there were talks on Meta-Wikipedia of closing down Wikipedia in Croatian language altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.161.56 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130919000210/https://www.fzs.ba:80/Dem/Popis/PopisiStanB.htm to http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/Popis/PopisiStanB.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)