Talk:Doboj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Nikola Smolenski deleted a part and wrote a new one:

"the non-Serb population fled from the town, while Serbs expelled from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina have settled in the town)."

Give us any evidence that the Serbs were expelled from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Any relevant document? Otherwise this is just a propaganda! Emir Arven 12:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

As I know that you don't consider as relevant any documents that don't suit your agenda, I'd rather not. Nikola 13:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, just a propaganda. Emir Arven 13:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Emir, actually, read the UNHCR reports about Serb displaced persons from Tesanj, Maglaj, Zenica, Gracanica, Lukavac, and you will find out about expelled Serbs in Doboj. Furthermore, the very recent interview by Mr. Dzavad Galijasevic, former Mayor of Maglaj, talks about banished Serbs and the settlement of the Mujahedin in the village of Bocinja (the "Welcome to Maglaj" sign was also written in Arabic). Furthermore, the entire region of the Mount of Ozren was completely ethnically cleansed from the Serbs after the 1992-95 War -- just look it up on Google. That's not propaganda, that's a dry fact -- just as the banishment of Muslims from Doboj is.

I have read this post about Doboj so many times and simply can't believe the things that had been said here. First of all choosing not to talk about victims killed by the Serbian forces(close to 2,000 in the city of Doboj alone) is unacceptable. This is not just an act of rewriting the history but is denying genocide and war crimes that took place in Bosnia. In some countries, I think this is punishable by law.

[edit] Bosniaks in Bosnia

Serbian and Montenegro changed its earlier name SR Yugolsavia to Serbia and Montenegro. The same thing has happened with Bosniaks. See constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Term Bosniaks is the historical name of Bosnian Muslims. All earlier Muslim related documents are now using the term Bosniaks as well as Serbia and Montenegro doesnt use old name SR Jugolsavija. --Emir Arven 15:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ako želiš Holy prvo prepravi članke koji govore o Srbima, a koji su obični falsifikati, pa onda negiraj nečiju naciju. Ako ti nećeš mogu i ja to uraditi. --Emir Arven 15:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Naravno, zelim da prepravimo sve falsifikate! :) Sada govoris mojim jezikom! HolyRomanEmperor 16:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The term Bosniaks is the historical name for citizens of Bosnia (Croats, Serbs, whomever). Could also state that part of the constitution (source)? HolyRomanEmperor 16:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No its not. The term Bosniaks has a variety of historical meanings. Throughout its history it had an ethnic connotation. At times, it even applied exclusively to the Muslim populace. Saying that its a "historical name for citizens of Bosnia" is a ridiculous oversimplification. Asim Led 17:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The term was invented by several Hungarian writers during Austro-Hungary to counter the Serbian domination of the province. Additionally; nothing can change what a certain cesus stated... HolyRomanEmperor 22:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You are really, really pathetic and again lying behind my back. You are trying to deny Bosniaks, as Serb war criminals did during the genocide that they commited in Srebrenica. I asked admin to stop this vandal to destroy articles related to Bosnia and Bosniaks (including a constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina). He is spreading incorrect information, lying (as I showed earlier to admins). Muslims nowdays dont exist in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because they returned their historical name:Bosniaks, but you keep spreading incorrect nationalistic information, showing that you are the kind of nationalist that supports policy that Radovan Karadžić and other war criminals conducted.--Emir Arven 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Invented by Hungarians in the Habsburg monarchy? The word, in its present form, has been around for centuries. Read Elvija Čelebi's accounts of his travels through Bosnia - you'll find dozens of mentions. Asim Led 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No one is trying to deny Bosniaks, it is simply a fact that those people registered as Muslims in 1991. Even if you don't like it is a FACT. This is quite possibly the most indisputable FACT, and yet you are disputing it. How can census results printed in black an white, be disputed? By the way, I'd appreciate it if people could stop justifying every other thing with refernces to Serb nationalism. Muchos gracias. --estavisti 09:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Because census categories change and nations don't. The Bosniak people, who (as an ethnic community) remained relatively unchanged in Bosnia throughout the Yugoslavian period, on the census went from only having the "Serb" "Croat" or "Undeclared" options, to being Muslims in the sense of nationality, to being Muslims with a capital M. By your logic, if we listed the census from the 1950s we'd have to say that 90% of Cazin's population was "ethnically undeclared". If we applied this standard elsewhere on wikipedia, we'd have to make hundreds of complicated edits concerning mentions of various people based on whatever terms they were officially known by in that particular time period. This is simply misleading. The page on Bosniaks clearly explains the census situation in the 20th century, so linking to it would be sufficient in that regard as well. Asim Led 22:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If nations don't change, does that mean that you agree that Montenegrins are still Serbs? And if nations don't change, how could Bosniak people remain relatively unchanged?

Desperately grasping for some logical fallacy, aren't we? The first sentence was a fairly general statement that wasn't mean to be deeply scrutanized - it applies in this case because the people were Bosniaks then as they are now, regardless of what they registered as on the census. The second sentence refers to basic cultural development through time of any people - the same definition used for Bosniaks today would apply to them fifty years ago.

You follow Estavisti's logic exactly. If we listed the census from the 1950s we'd have to say that 90% of Cazin's population was "ethnically undeclared". Anything other would be pure speculation. We can't possibly know how much of those undeclared people would have declared as Bosniaks if they have had been allowed to declare freely.

And, as I said, if we were to follow this logic elsewhere on wikipedia, we would be required to carry out hundreds of complicated and potentially confusing edits based on changes in census categories as opposed to historiographical reality. We are dealing with statistical information from 15 years ago and, as we do for censuses from centuries earlier, we must, when possible, interpet it from a modern perspective. A simple historiographical analysis makes it safe to say that these people were Bosniaks, regardless of whether they registered as "Muslims by nationality" in 1971 or as undeclared in the 1950s. Asim Led 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no. Show me some cases of those hundreds of complicating and potentially confusing edits. And, let's stop beating around the bush: a historiographical analysis which saya that is incorrect. Nikola 23:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary; a historiographical anlysis such as that would be far more honest than your subverse attempts at propaganda on wikipedia. As to your question, you can start here. Despite changes in census category and official/appropriate terminology, all census data are taken to refer to the same people. Asim Led 00:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What that link has to do with hundreds of complicating and potentially confusing edits??? Nikola 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The page on Muslims by nationality also clearly explains the same thing, so that argument is irrelevant. Nikola 09:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No. the page on Muslims by nationality does a poor job expalining the same thing, particularly in comparison to the Bosniaks page. Asim Led 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree; you must either state that nations change or don't change. Montenegrins clearly were Serbs, irrelevant if they originally were or currently are. I, as a great follower of self-determination and liberalism, think that Montenegrins are not Serbs (present tense; simply because nations are decided 99,99% on one merit - population censi) HolyRomanEmperor 16:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No important reason to alter data on wikipedia yet given... HolyRomanEmperor 20:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The last note of Asim Led is purely fascistic. Population censi do change. But 99,99% of your ethnicity is decided by you! Ivo Andric (Croat) was a Serb! Mesa (muslim) was a Serb. Stalin (Georgian) was a Soviet. Jovan Duchich (Cincar) was a Serb. Hitler (Austrian) was a German. Ataturk (Ottoman) was a Turk. Penkala (Dutch-Pole) was a Croat. "Ethnicities" do not exist. It is how you declare yourself rather. HolyRomanEmperor 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, so now I'm apparently a fascist. Asim Led 18:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

He didn't say that. One fascist remark doesn't mean that you are fascist overall. Nikola 10:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be fasist, you are = even more selfdetermination proofs :))) HolyRomanEmperor 13:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy I suggest you to drop it. Your cynicism is not helping the issue. --Dado 15:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nikola, save yourself and us time and quit reverting the article. The consensus has been reached. You are pushing POV that will not fly.--Dado 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What consensus? As far as I can see, you(Dado), Asim Led and Emir Arven have one POV and Nikola, Holy and myself have another. That is to say, equal numbers are supporting each view. I still think my version is most NPOV of all: saying how many Muslims there were in '91 and noting that the vast majority now consider themselves Bosniaks. You seem unable to accept that, despite a large overlap, a Muslim (by nationality) is not a Bosniak, nor to be able to accept what peoples' identities used to be(wahtever they are now). --estavisti 02:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The concensus that I was refering to was reached at the Talk:Cazin that is dealing with exactly same issue. Please refer to that talk page and refrain from rush conclusions about my position. --Dado 03:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's some very strange concensus with me and Estavisti not agreeing to it. Nikola 11:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term civil war is most common in Serbia and Montenegro as an attempt to disassociate them from the participation in the war and more specifically from case before the ICC that charges Serbia for agression.

In Bosnia "aggression" is the more common word.

Just "war" is NPOV for now.--Dado 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. Use of term "aggression" is most common in Bosnia as an attempt to sassociate Serbia and Montenegro from the participation in what was civil war in Bosnia. I however agree that simply "war" is NPOV, though don't see what you mean with "for now" - how could it suddenly become POV after some time? Nikola 04:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And what exactly does "sassociate" mean?[1] Asim Led 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)