Talk:Sarajevo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Sarajevo is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 11, 2004.
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
Sarajevo is part of WikiProject Former Yugoslavia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Former Yugoslavia and its nations, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovenia. If you would like to participate, you can this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Is the flag supposed to resemble a sad smiley face?

(

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old short article

This page could use a good going over. Too much history, and not enough about contemporary life User:Alcarillo 19:53 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What the heck? This is an encyclopedia article, and you want to trim the history? Contemporary life needs some mention of course, but there's a likelihood of POV with that. However, the history is vital. Ambivalenthysteria 05:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I meant that the balace was too much on history. For example, there is nothing about the city architecture (both historical and modern), postwar developments, tourism, culture or economics. I think that's far more important than the historical sketch which takes up half the article. Of course, there are going to be POV issues with just about anything written about this place, which is why the good folks here will probably keep an eagle eye on it. But as the article stands now, it's of little value, and certainly doesn't do this remarkable city justice. Look at Zagreb and you'll see what I mean. User:Alcarillo 15:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) edt bla blah bla
As the person responsible for the present layout of Sarajevo article - I fully agree with Alcarillo. I however don't have the time or knowledge to do that. Article on architecture IMO needs to be scientific and substantiated and personally I'm not into architecture, I'm a computers guy myself ;) There needs to be a section on culture and cultural events (Sarajevo Film Festival, Sarajevo Winter, Jazz Festival etc.) but it also needs some thought and time.
Vedran 08:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I read your discussion and agreed. I then spent two weeks working on an article for Sarajevo, and the June 24th version of this page is what I've come up with. Sarajevo is my hometown and, in my opinion, the greatest city in the world. I hope this page sattisfies those who wanted a better article for Sarajevo. My goal was to make it better than the page for New York City. It should also be noted that I wrote the articles for the two suburbs, four municipalities, and the history of Sarajevo main article. I thank Vedran and past contributors for establishing the core of the current article.
Asim Led 22:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sarajevo To Do List

Status: Introduction and geography are done. Now to do history. I should finish it up fairly quickly, but I have in mind splitting it into a series of "History of Sarajevo" articles. I'll probably do that. But first just the basics of history, which should be done fairly quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Led (talk • contribs) 09:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Introduction
    • Add City Flag
    • Add City Seal
    • Check/Create Links
      • Capital
      • Bosnia and Herzegovina
      • Balkans
      • 1991
      • Census
      • Ottomans
      • 1461
      • 1914
      • Archduke Franz Ferdinand
      • Austria-Hungary
      • Black Hand
      • Extremist
      • World War I
      • 1984 Winter Olympics
      • 1992
      • 1995
      • Siege of Sarajevo
      • Yugoslav Wars
      • Canton Sarajevo
      • Cantons of Bosnia
      • Gazi Husrev-Beg Mosque
      • Cathedral of Jesus' Heart
      • Sarajevo Film Festival
      • Bascarsija Nights
      • Sarajevo Winter Festival
      • Sarajevo Jazz Festival
    • Placement and Lay-out
    • Final template check

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Led (talk • contribs) 11:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Geography and Climate
    • Update text
    • Check/Create Links
      • Bosna river
      • Miljacka
      • Vrelo Bosne
      • Ilidza
      • Bjelasnica
      • Igman
      • Jahorina
      • Trebevic
      • Treskavica
      • Butmir
    • Find picture
    • Nitpicking and minor edits

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Led (talk • contribs) 04:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • History
    • Update text
    • Check/Create Links
      • Butmir Culture
      • Isa-beg Ishakovic
      • Gazi Husrev-beg
      • Travnik
      • History of Sarajevo
    • Nitpicking and minor edits

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Led (talk • contribs) 07:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV notice for "aggression"

Nikola Smolenski wrote: NPOV notice; Bosnian Serbs are referretd to as "agressors"; that is Bosnian government propaganda and not neutral.

Well, that is indeed the opinion of the Bosnian government, but if a three year siege is not a sign of aggression, I don't know what is. I can barely find a definition of the term in the dictionaries that doesn't perfectly fit in this case. --Joy [shallot] 23:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is the official position of the Bosnian government, as well as numerous international politicians. Bosnian Serb forces set up a blockade of Sarajevo prior to any actual provocation, fired the first military shots, and knowingly deprived the city of essential things such as water, shipments of food, electricity, heating, and medicine. If you somehow believe the siege of sarajevo was not an agression, please explain on this page before positng a npov notice on an otherwise perfectly good page. Asim Led 12:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Pick your battles, Nikola. Don't try to rewrite history. People have been convicted in the Hague for this.
From 1992-1995, Sarajevo endured over three years of siege by the Bosnian Serb forces during the Yugoslav wars.
On April 6, 1992, Sarajevo was surrounded by forces of Bosnian Serbs. The warfare that lasted until the October of 1995 resulted in large scale destruction and dramatic population shifts (See Siege of Sarajevo for details).
Considering the prosecutions for crimes against humanity that followed, methinks that's fairly neutral - and fairly undisputable. Ambi 17:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, how can it be Bosnian government propaganda like Nikola claims when almost 50% of Bosnian government ministers are Serbs, including Defense and Foreign Affairs. Are they some kind of “traitors” according to Nikola? What happened to Sarajevo was not some kind of a “legitimate siege” as the Hague’s tribunal has shown, of course, maybe Nikola doesn’t acknowledge the Hague’s tribunal. Even Milosevic once said it (the siege) was an overkill. GeneralPatton 22:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] map

The less terse discussion about this thing is at the history of Sarajevo Canton and Talk:Sarajevo Canton. I'll also need to find the archive of FAC to see if there's further discussion there. --Joy [shallot] 12:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] numbers

"Its population was 429,672 according to the 1991 census, and is estimated to be around 300,000 residents today" is misleading since most of what now is Sarajevo Canton was used to be counted as city in 1991. You also have to account for areas now in RS... The actually population of the city itself has actually increased, not declined. GeneralPatton 13:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually 429,672 was the population of the city itself (novi grad, novo sarajevo, stari grad, centar), with the metro area having more than 500,000. In the federation the city now has 300,000 people (metro area about 400,000). Regarding the regions in Republika Srpska, so called Serb Sarajevo is pretty small, (It can't even really be considered a city, more of a municipality), and official statistics (if any exist) are probably unreliable. Either way it is technically a completely seperate city so either way. Asim Led 17:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FA excerpt

This doesn't appear in the main article, but on the "featured article" except it says that Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by "Serbian agents." He was killed by a lone nut gunman, and although other would-be assassins made their own attempts that day, each was acting alone. - TJSwoboda 03:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Somebody added that to make it fit better on the front page. I agree its pointless, and it looks almost pov to have Serbs mentioned that way twice on the front page. Im going to go remove it. Asim Led 04:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Urban stereotypes

I wonder if the sentence "If one were to describe the stereotypes of Sarayliyas in one word, it would be cosmopolitan. Sarayliyas are known for being modern cultured city dwellers. Bosnians from outside Sarajevo are thought to have the sense that Sarajevo receives too much attention, but this is more of a sibling rivalry than an actual dislike for Sarajevo and its people." really belongs in there. I am not saying that it is true or untrue, having never visited Bosnia myself. However I don't think it really adds anything the article, especially since the same thing could be said of any capital city in the world, and it is not part of an encyclopedic style text.

UnHoly 00:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with UnHoly. This can be said of most other large cities. I removed the text. --Maintain 08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is partly true. Most Bosnians consider Sarajlijas different from the rural majority who come from small towns, villages; where life is centered around the farm. People from Sarajevo are seen as snobs, stuck up, basically like the "elitists" of Bosnia. I don't know if you should add that back in, but there is some truth to that, ask any Bosnian what they think they'll say something like that.

Gamer112 (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main picture?

Which of these is better for the main picture? Asim Led 04:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Sarajevo10.PNG
Sarajevo as seen from the east.
Downtown Sarajevo and the Miljacka river.
Downtown Sarajevo and the Miljacka river.


[edit] Football

"The two football clubs, FK Sarajevo and NK Željezničar Sarajevo, both have a long tradition of competing in European and World Cups tournaments." - but the World Cup is for national teams? Something's wrong here, not sure what it should be corrected to though! --VivaEmilyDavies 07:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correct. FIFA World Cup is a national team competition. Željo and Sarajevo only competed in European Cup tournaments: Cup UEFA, UEFA Champions League, and UEFA Cup Winner's Cup. --SaninSaracevic 17:15, 09 Dec 2005 (IST). 11:44, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The alleged ethnic cleansing

Among the more controversial topics regarding the siege of Sarajevo is the alleged ethnic cleansing that took place at the time. Namely, after several years in the 1990s characterised by denial of the widely held view of the Serb role in the Yugoslav wars, a trend has developed in the 2000s where Serb nationalists have attempted to draw Bosniak and Croat parallels to such infamous examples of attrocities as Banja Luka and Srebrenica. Regarding Sarajevo, the typical claim is that between 1992 and 1995, 150,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Sarajevo, with several thousand killed. The allegations were brought to the media forefront in early 2005 when the premier of Republika Srpska, Pero Bukejlović, claimed that genocie was committed against Serbs during the siege of Sarajevo that exceeded that of the Srebrenica massacre.

Such claims are, upon careful analysis, fairly easy to refute. First of all, the often cited number of 150,000 ethnically cleansed Serbs is impossible, considering that there were only around 150,000 Serbs in Sarajevo. For such ludicrous claims to be true, every single Serb in the entire Sarajevo region would had to have been ethnically cleansed. The mere existance of some 40.000 Serbs in the Sarajevo area today refutes this. Furthermore, the number of killed and wounded in the siege of Sarajevo has been carefully documented. Out of 12,000 people killed, around one fourth were ethnic Serbs or people of Serbian ancestry. Taking into account civilian and military deaths, the number of Serbs killed is relatively proportional to the percent of the Sarajevo population they made up at the time.

Asides from these documented victims there were, according to the international red cross[1], only 242 ethnically Serb missing persons in the Sarajevo area. Granted this is a significant number nontheless, but when it's taken into account that the number of missing persons for various towns in East Bosnia is in the thousands, the popular nationalist claim is proven baseless. Furthermore, the ability of the bosnian government to stage a genocide of such a magnitude while under siege and being perpetually bombarded is highly questionable. The Hague has yet to make any accusations for individuals that had a role in the alleged Sarajevo genocide, which cannot be said of most major centers of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Commander Musana Topalovic Cace did commit crimes against Sarajevo citizens in 1993, but he was quickly liquidated by the government. Certainly it is plausible that some Serbs were ethnically cleansed, but more than likely these were isolated incidents and not a consequence of direct government action or strategy. Tellingly, though hundreds of mosques in Republika Srpska were demolished, no orthodox church was harmed during, or following, the siege of Sarajevo.

Of course the question remains; what happened to the 100,000+ Serbs who are no longer in the city? It must be noted that following the siege of Sarajevo the population of the city had srunk by around 250,000 people, meaning that besides Serbs 150,000 former citizens of Sarajevo of different ethnicities were also no longer there. Ethnic cleansing had certainly occured in areas of the city held by Serb radicals; Ilidza, for example, had 9 detention camps for non-Serbs. It is no secret that Karadzic's intention was to split the city into two at a point that would have required the ethnic cleansing of over 150,000 Bosniaks and Croats. Once the war was over and Sarajevo firmly in the hands of the Bosniak-Croat federation, it is understandable that many Serbs would not have wanted to stay in a city where they would have been viewed with suspicion and been a clear minority. In the communities of Grbavica and Ilidza, seized by Serb radicals during the siege, Serbs looted and destroyed what was left of the area to make life harsher for returning Bosniak and Croat refugees. Upon the return of the ethnically cleansed, the remaining Serb community was harrased and looked upon with suspicion, pushing many more to leave the city as well[2]. Thousands of the Serbs who had left the city by then went to what is today "East Sarajevo", a politically distinct Sarajevo suburb that in reality is virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the city and home to a couple dozen thousand Serbs. Leading up to the siege itself, the Serb forces surrounding the city had allowed many Serb citizens to leave while forcing members of other nationalities to stay behind.

Today, Sarajevo citizens of all nationalities generally take accusations of ethnic cleansing in Sarajevo during the war as a highly offensive insult. In response to premier Bukejlovic's statement, many have demanded a public apology to all Sarajevo citizens. The president of the Serb citizens council/Citizen's movement for equality, Mirko Pejanovic, stated that "Nobody, not even Bukejlovic, can change or cover up the truth for the sake of current political needs. In Sarajevo, during the four year siege carried out by Karadzic's military forces and the SDS, there were deaths of Sarayliyas of all ethnicities. The people were both suffering and dying from hunger, cold, they were being killed by mortar shells... among the 12,000 killed Sarayliyas recorded in the war, at least one fourth were members of the Serb nation or had Serb ethnic ancestry. Thus, we can not talk of an extermination or genocide of Serbs, but of a responsibilty of the SDS and Karadzic's military forces for the overall extermination of Sarajevo and Sarayliyas, and within that of the Serb people" Asim Led 20:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Alleged" ?

Have some respect when you write. Hitler denied his crimes and so did the Chetniks. Ask my family who was in the city if it was "alleged". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.184.239 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific government dates

Just one minor point. In the government section, it notes the "current" mayor and the "current" split of the City Council. Could someone change these into "As of ..." links, with the years specified? Also, could someone link in the proper political parties? --Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pigeon Square

Can somebody puh-leeze mention Pigeon Square? I can't remember the local term for it. You know, the place with the fountain and all the pigeons. Sebilj! That's it! I just remembered! But I know nothing about the fountain or its significance or if the pigeons are the Rock Apes to Sarajevo's Gibraltar or anything like that. I'm just a Canuck kid who lived in the city for 12 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.217.134 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Everyone, how hard is it to use good photos of Sarajevo represent the city on this page? The ones that are up here are absolutely terrible in quality and utterly unflattering to the beauty that Sarajevo represents. Please do not remove the photos I am about to post because I take I take quality of the photos in a serious light. User:Zyklonic 19:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Check?

This article seems to have more people watching it, so I'm going to ask here. An anonymous user recently changed the populations on the List of cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, changing Sarajevo's population rather drastically. I see no rational for the changes, but I don't want to just *assume* vandalism when I have no personal knowledge of the situation. Could someone who knows better than I do have a look? Thanks. MBlume 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sarajevo my home

i love what i've done with the article ;-)
now the world will see sarajevo's beauty, not 'political magazines' or war damage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosna 101 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] religion (4.1)

could someone please fix what i tried doing? in section 4.1 (demographics.. religion) i put up 4 pictures next to each other, but i noticed if i go to a higher resoultion (e.g. 1152X852).. then the ECONOMY section bounces up to the right of the 4 pictures.. how do i make it so ECONOMY section stays below ALL 4 pictures?

THANKS! Bosna 101 00:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions/suggestions

Starting from the bottom up:

  • In terms of ordering of sections, I believe WP:MOS suggests See Also, Notes, References, followed by External links last.
  • The website of the city is listed in References as well as External links. I believe anything listed as a Reference is not also listed in External links.
  • Twin cities is wikilinked in the heading: I think WP:MOS says to avoid that. It should probably have a main article template.

Sandy 15:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Joelr31 took care of this. What else can be done to change the remove notes on the FARC? --Maintain 06:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sarajevotramway.JPG

What is going on with Image:Sarajevotramway.JPG? I'm getting "no file exists", but it renders here without a problem. Is this some sort of bug? Jkelly 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is fine on my end, but all the links are suddenly underlined. Maybe a developer is experimenting with the codes. --Maintain 03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Must have been something like that, as it is now rendering properly for me as well. Jkelly 15:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound

Anyone care to record an .ogg of the local pronounciation as many other cities have? --Joffeloff 21:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a spoken wikipedia article for this article[3]. However, I uploaded it to wikipedia commons as many people have advocated, and the given procedures for linking to a Spoken Wikipedia article don't take that into account. If someone can educate me on how to link to it here and there and within the article that would be great. My regrets to any people from the Balkans who Balk at my garbled pronunciation, I tried my best :( Dan Carkner 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On population

The Federation government source is NOT VERIABLE! You say that Sarajevo has 308 000 citizen just because the Federal government is saying that.

But the federal government is also saying that Cazin has more citien than Bihac????

They are also saying that VELIKA KLADUSA has more citizen than Sanski most!?!?!?!?!?!?

I suggest to remove this source cause it is not veriable.

For you who doesnt know the difference between Velika Kladusa and Sanski most, please look up it on Google and you will se that Velika kladusa is not a bigger city than Sanski most. Thunderman 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong comment

There is a photo of a building with a comment "The Parliament building in Sarajevo nearing reconstruction completion." That is not a Parliament building, the P. building is just few meters from that building, but that building is supposed to be a place where all the ministries are (I do not know how you call it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.33.51 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. However, I do not know what it is called either. :\ Vseferović 22:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect information added to the first few sections

Kahriman, you told me to "check again" so I did. Once again, I'm reverting the page because virtually all the changes added since my last edit to that part of the article have been incorrect. "Olympic City" was a semi-notable designation, but it's not the most popular nickname; the European Jerusalem and Rajvosa are just two that are far more deserving. The city of Sarajevo is NOT part of Republika Srpska because this article and that infobox deal with the OFFICIAL city of Sarajevo - a political territory exclusively within the Federation of BiH. All the various numbers and statistics are flat-out false because the originals were obtained from the official city of Sarajevo website - it is incredibly exasparating to see random IP adresses super-sizing Sarajevo's "estimated" population to wild figures such as 800,000 and I'd strongly suggest protecting the page from anonymous users. The line about Herzegovina sometimes being spelled with a C is completely irrelevent and doesn't deserve mention in an article on Sarajevo. Live Forever 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing photo?

What happened to that great photo of Sarajevo at night? This one is lame, plus it looks too big. Also, the photo of a synagogue is from war. Since than it has been completely reconstructed (it is even different colour). And that is the ugliest representation of ćevapi I have ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.33.93 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Some Wikipedia members believe that there are copyright issues (Most likely true...) with the nice image of Sarajevo during nighttime.
Correct, that image of "ćevapi" has to be changed... :P Thanks, Vseferović 14:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mosques

It says in the article that Sarajevo has 186 mosques. 186!!!. Is that true? Why do you need that much mosques? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.180.235.72 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Uhh, quick guess, because the majority of Sarajevo are Bosniak muslims? Gamer112 (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population

The article states that the population as of December 2006 is 602,500 but the document that is cited for this figure gives the canton population as 418,891. Am I missing something? Cordless Larry 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the statistic to 418,891 for now, noting that this is the population for the entire canton. If anyone has a more accurate figure, please add it with a proper citation. Cordless Larry
This is the population data for the canton:
  • KANTON SARAJEVO 418,891
  • CENTAR 70,228
  • HADŽIĆI 22,089
  • ILIDŽA 52,290
  • ILIJAŠ 17,533
  • NOVI GRAD 122,636
  • NOVO SARAJEVO 73,297
  • STARI GRAD 37,975
  • TRNOVO 2,184
  • VOGOŠĆA 20,659

According to http://www.sarajevo.ba/en/stream.php?kat=78 the city is composed of Old City (Stari Grad), Center (Centar), New City (Novi Grad) and New Sarajevo (Novo Sarajevo). Adding those up gives a total of 304,136, but I'm not sure about the city definition, so some help would be appreciated. Cordless Larry 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to hell Larry. I've been working on this article on/off for months, and every time it's the same thing: anonymous editors come in, disregard present sources, and inflate the population figures by several hundred thosuands for no reason. It's been a while so I can't tell you what the population really is, but if you just go back to my last edit you should see the pre-vandalism figure. Live Forever 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm ready to take action, so let me know whenever it reoccurs and I'll semiprotect the page and/or block the respective culprit/s. Thx. El_C 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Who the f**k edited the population. Since when did Sarajevo' had more than 700 thousand inhabitants!?? DO NOT PUT LAME AND UNTRUE FACTS LIKE THAT, BECAUSE ITS BULLS**T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silventus (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth - Sarajevo

Can I use satelite photo of Sarajevo taken from Google Earth? Other folks used in in Belgrade article, I think it's a good idea. Any objections? Bosniak 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The one at Belgrade seems to come from NASA. Surely there would be copyright issues with a Google one? Cordless Larry 12:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kkbosna.gif

Image:Kkbosna.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Olimpiksarajevo.GIF

Image:Olimpiksarajevo.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Question

BiH Parliament Building's reconstruction completed this year. Does anyone know, when will the government move into this building? They are still using different building on different location. I wonder, when will the BiH Parliament Building again begin to be used by our government?Bosniak 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can anybody answer my question, I am still waiting for an answer??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniak (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are still decorating the interior and I am expecting that they will enter the building by the end of this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.143.54 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! The building is beautiful considering that it looked like this, click here to see Bosniak 05:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I live in Sarajevo. It is beautiful, although it could be more beutiful (it has weird glass).

[edit] Stop non-constructive deletions

Don't delete huge chunks of Sarajevo article without first discussing it. Bosniak 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Not I was that who deleted without discussing, you was that! I just reorganized bad picture placing. In History there is no need some very big picture about temples, but that picture (Image:Evstafiev-sarajevo-building-burns.jpg|thumb|200px|left|The parliament building in the centre of Sarajevo burns after being hit by tank fire during the siege in 1992.) what I place here about history you deleted (without first discussing). It a bad edition and I undid it. --Beyond silence 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with you? You are constantly reverting to YOUR version of the article. This is collaborative work. If you have something to ADD, then ADD it, don't revert to your version over and over again. DO NOT remove Jewish Synagoge. What do you have against Jewish Synagoge? Her place is next to Catholic Cathedral and Muslim Mosque and your constant removals of Synagoge are not helping the article at all. Bosniak 00:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It placed to the gallery. If you want place the gallery after the history, do it. But there is no enough place to four pictures about temples, because I take here a histical picture. WHY DO YOU DELETE IT? Not attack me, I am not delete your work, but you deleting my picture. The temples not close to theme of the Histroy, why need these picture at big size here? Please don't holler with me, but honor other's opinion, and think. "This is collaborative work. "

Your revision makes worsen the article, and I will undid it. Think about what I wrote, not write again your empty words! --Beyond silence 01:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:307514940 7ac3e8aa14-1-.jpg

Image:307514940 7ac3e8aa14-1-.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TSO

The Trans-Siberian Orchestra had a song called Christmas Eve/Sarajevo 12/24. I believe it should be in the links section, i decided to discuss before i place it in the article. Please offer you're opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.106.167 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


---Sarajevo climate----

That -29.2C of January 1963 is wrong ! I had corrected it few times, and there is still somebody who put it again. -29.2C was recorded on the top hills of Sarajevo, not in Sarajevo. The REAL absolute min. is -26.4C of January 1942...all other lower temperatrues were taken well outside the city,including the -29C of February 1929 and the -33C of january 1901. -26.4C is out of question the REAL lowest. I have checked all stations around Sarajevo since their forst observation up today. Please don t change it again. This is the correct value. Maximiliano H. www.mherrera.org/temp.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.141.40 (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History section violates NPOV

The History section is far from neutral and reads more like Serbian propaganda (in the section regarding to the Wars of Yugosla Dissolution). It needs to be rewritten immediately if any scrape of the truth is to be presented here. Wikipedia is not the place to spread political messages, it is a place to spread a neutral version of fact. Get a blog for political expression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAWGunner89 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was it necessary to translate Sarajevo on English page into a Cyrillic and add prefix Serbian? (Serbian Cyrillic: Сарајево)

Why was it necessary to translate Sarajevo on English page into a Cyrillic and add prefix Serbian? Please remove it totally.

Or are we going to translate Sarajevo and write it in arabic, turkish, latin, croatian, albanian as well? Sarajevo is multi-ethnic European city.

Readers are tired of Serbian prefixes on every single page in ex-Yu. Unless of course administrators of this page are "again" Serbs so they control the entire region of EX - YU on Wikipedia.

It's an ex for a reason. Please delete (Serbian Cyrillic: Сарајево) it looks stupid and pro-serb natioanlistic as usually.

Signature: Sarajevo --71.194.34.77 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally. If it is written in another's country language (Serbia) why not then to be translated also in Greek? In Arabic? Or any other? Is at least rediculous this to exists. Also, why the main picture changed? The current one is bit ugly, not to say is old. At least, Sa, as most beautifull Balkan city, has plenty of beautifull images, and im sure u can find or even take one (as i did in my trip last summer on Sarajevo).

Seeing what Serbs did to this city and its citizens (of every nationality and religion), i regret i called myself christian... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.249.187 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is rensponsible for this page, is asked to remove (Serbian: Сарајево). Is at least provokating. Replace it totally, or change it to (Cyrillic: Сарајево), though i dont see any reason for this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzordze (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pavaroti, "Miss Sarajevo", Richard Geer, Anderson Cooper and all celebrities needs to be mentioned on Sarajevo page!

These are just a few, please list all celebrities who visited Sarajevo and are in love with Sarajevo!

Pavaroti, "Miss Sarajevo" song, Richard Geer ( movie ), David Coperfield, Anderson Cooper ( CNN ) and these are only some.

Please list all movies, songs, artists, actors, famous scholars and celebrities ... and have a section on this with celebrity and known names including Nobel prize winners etc.

Signature: Sarajevo --71.194.34.77 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mosques and Religious Heritage

Does anybody have information how many mosques is there in Sarajevo? Bosniak (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)