This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jajce article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to ask everyone to please stop adding their own approximations of the demographic situation. Is there a census to confirm the claims? DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
(thanks, Thewanderer) Visca el barca, I have included a (sourced) government approximation. I have stated it was this, there was no need for you to remove it and the source. I hate to sound threatening, but thiat's pure vandalism on a national basis...
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Look people, it clearly states that this is an approximation, not 100% reliable info, but it is a GOVERNMENT approximation and it should be included. I personally DO NOT CARE who forms the majority in that beautiful town, but the approximation should be included. Deletion of sourced info is vandalism. If it is removed I will report the guy to the Admins. When will you people stop fighting each other?!
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fixed the reference on the 2004 approximation subsection. Now it is correctly referenced. This reference does not concern sex or age, but nationality.
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 10:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the matter? Why did you revert, Duja? DIREKTOR ( TALK) 10:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict, I was typing the explanation):
In sum, I think we'd better be without data than with suspicious data. Duja ► 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's messy: see this interview (before it expires from google cache, not sure what happened with the original) with Asim Kunić
[2]:
„Povratak u Jajce se odvijao u tri faze. Prvo su ušli Hrvati, zatim jednim dijelom Bošnjaci – to je bio pilot projekat, koji je bio više provokativan, ljudi su se brojali maltene kao stoka, ko će doći, ko neće i tako dalje, tada se vratilo 200 familija. Treća faza je bila povratak ostalog dijela Bošnjaka, iz srednje Bosne. Bošnjaci iz Jajca su se većinom nalazili po srednjoj Bosni (Kakanj, Zenica, Travnik i Bugojno). Nakon toga se desio i povratak Srba.[...]
RSE: Koliko se ljudi vratilo u Jajce?
„Imamo 8.000 do 10.000 izbjeglica iz Jajca u skandinavskim zemljama. Među njima je najveći broj Bošnjaka. To su građani koje smo izgubili zauvijek, više ih nikada nećemo moći vratiti. Ja imam dvije sestre i brata koji su sada Šveđani i normalno da se neće nikada vratiti. Postali su turisti u svom vlastitom gradu. Jajčani srpske nacionalnosti se uglavnom nalaze u Brčkom i Banjaluci. Veći broj njih je prodao svoje stanove i kuće. Od ukupno 41.000 stanovnika, koliko je u Jajcu bilo prije rata, sada baratamo nekakvom cifrom od 28.000, sa selima. Nije više u pitanju bezbjednost, već ljudi sebi traže selameta u drugim gradovima – odlaze tražiti posao u Travniku, Bugojnu, Sarajevu… U pitanju je egzistencija. Što se tiče bezbjednosti, što se tiče slobode kretanja, tu više nema problema, ljudi sarađuju. Običan svijet hoće da živi zajedno. Postoji bezbroj primjera komšijske saradnje i u najtežim momentima povratka. Ljudi su željeli da se što prije vide, da što prije uspostave kontakt. Ali je politika odrađivala svoj dio posla – povratak je blokiran, određivan je broj koliko se familija može vratiti. U povratku je bilo zaista teških momenata.“
We'd better wait for a census or an official estimate. Duja ► 11:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So do you agree not to put the 2004 approximations on the article even though it is on the Jajce website and the information is from the federal government. PS: I also noticed a ethnic map of bosnia on wikipedia which cleary says Croats are the majority in the Jajce municipality. Franjo r 02:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Vladimir Peric doesnt have info or sources, he said it was based (wrongly) on the election result. Visca el barca 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Its time to challenge this great serbian and croatian nationalism that occurs both in real life and in Wikipedia. Mostar, Jajce and other articles are beeing vandalised by nationalist muslimhaters who doesnt accept the fact that Jajce is Muslim, Mostar is Muslim and such. Terrible! Visca el barca 09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Look Visca, peace of advace. Try to be objective. O B J E C T I V E. You know, put yourself in others skin. Think. And try to give some proofs of your statments. Because, you are the one who is acting like vandal. Ceha 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
First of all I want to point out to Ceha that you cant say that the Federation is dominated by bosniaks and croats while one of those compromise 80 % and the other 17 %. I have reverted that part.
As for Jajce, those estimates are not source at all, simply because you can only find them on the jajceportal site which have taken it from a non existant place. And if we go after those estimations then I can write that we bosniaks form absolute majority in the municipality of Jajce.
The only thing we can do is to wait for the census which by the way will not come before year 2030. Lets stick to whats official because if we are going for estimations, then we might as well go for the estimations that bosniaks as off 2007 forms 60 % of the populaion in Jajce.
Those informations comes from the election result and that is as off today the only source we got and since we know for sure that 70 % or even more off all votes that arrives from abroad are from Croatia then we also know that 70 % off the votes from abroad are croats voting for croat parties. This and the fact that bosniak parties got around 60 % of the votes clearly shows who is majority in both the city and municipality.
But as I pointed out early, we must stick to what is official and wait for the new census that will never happen because 57 % of the Bosnian parliament does not want a new census. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Elections are not argumentative for ethnical census (se the discusion from above). Which is the connection between jajce portal and official municipal portal? Ceha ( talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong!
In 6 of them bosniaks form majority, that is Una Sana canton, Tuzla canton, Zenica-doboj canton, Sarajevo canton, Gorazde canton and central bosnian canton. In central bosnian canton bosniaks form 65 % majority and if that isnt majority for you, than you have some problem.
And cantons have nothing to do with population or power. You know, 80 & of the parliament of the Federation is bosniak and thats the population too.
In Jajce official municipality portal as you point out, you can clearly see who is in charge and who is majority, why else whould 60 % of the municipality members be bosniak? Because croats didnt voted? Because many voted abroad? Bosnianjustice ( talk) 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets talk credibility since you talk about that as a main reason for removal of sources. First of all lets talk about central bosnian canton government.
65 % of the government of that canton as you reffer to as mixed is bosniak. Why? Is it because croats dont vote?
As an answer to that is that they do vote just as much as bosniaks do.
And as for the vote abroad I can surely say that 70 % of the votes in Jajce for example abroad comes from Croatia and that says everything.
This is the same for both Jajce and Central bosnia canton.
Jajce is bosniak majority and central bosnia canton is bosniak majority and not mixed as you say. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
According to wikipedia policy data from election's isn't valid as ethnical data. So all of your conclusions are wrong:D At the time of making the Federation (1994) 2 cantons were planned as mixed. Central-bosnian and Herzegovina-Neretvan. To my knowledge there were no amadmans on Federation constitution which changed that. And as for Jajce, wikipedia is not a place for making your own "conclusions". Please stick to the official data, according to wikipedia policy. If something has changed will see that in the next census>:) Ceha ( talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The thing is that you are the one who are putting up demographics without sources despite the fact that it isnt official. And when I say majority bosniak canton then I mean majority and if we form 65 % then we are majority and thats it. Central Bosnia canton can not be mixed if somebody form clear and absolute majority.
It is the same with the Federation, it is only a Federation by name, since there are 3 contitutional groups in the entity and one of them forms 80 % of the population and have the power in all federal institutions. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There are territories (cantons) in federation in which one of the nations has majority(or which are mixed). Bosniacs don't form majority in the whole territory of Federation. Mixed cantons were formed as a means to prevent those majorisation.
Somebody could make 99,99 % of population of one country and live in just one city. Other nation could make 0,01% percent of the country and live in the entire rest off the country. That country would still be binational.
Central Bosnian canton is mixed according to the federal constitution. Google it out.
And please do not mantra more about your estimation of bosniac percantage in the city of Jajce or Central Bosnian canton without some proofs. This is an encyclopediae. Not forum.
Ceha (
talk) 07:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well serbs dont form majority on the whole territory of Republika Srpska either.
However Central Bosnia canton is not a mixed canton, it is a multikultural canton where there are 3 contitutional nations which means that serbs have the same status as croats since both of them are constitutional and are populationaly a minority.
Dont forget that according to the law croats in the Federation have the same status as croats in Republika Srpska. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 12:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Central Bosnia is according to its contitution mixed canton. Category population minority does not exist in those constitutions. Ceha ( talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
ITS CONSTITUTION STATES =
3 CONSTITUTIONAL PEOPLE IN CENTRAL BOSNIA CANTON
Do you get it now? Do you?
So according to you the entire Bosnia is mixed. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to put this in simpler words, maybe you re going to understand it then.
Anything clearer to you? And who saw yelling in the encyclopediae pages? Ceha ( talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Bosniaks form majority in Jajce too, either you forgot that or you are simply a stupid croat.
And in Herzegovina Neretva canton you forgot East Mostar which is bosniak majority too.
And we are going for whats official and whats written in the constitution. Central bosnia canton is not a mixed canton it is a bosniak majority canton with 3 constitutional groups.
And croats dont form majority in 7 municipalities in central bosnia, they form majority in 5 municipalities. Dobretici (which btw practically doesnt exist), Vitez, Busovaca, Kiseljak and Kresevo. In Novi Travnik it is equally divided. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 09:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a census or report from some goverment agency which says so? To repeat once again, elections are not valid demografic data. Eastern Mostar is part of Mostar municipality in which Croats form majority. Similar to villages around Nova Bila in Travnik municipality. Cb canton is a mixed canton. Please give me some source if you wish to claim otherways. Btw, for a thousand time let me repeat you. This is an encyclopediae. Not a place to insult somebody, or its nationality. If you're going to break this rule you'll be reported to the moderators. Ceha ( talk) 12:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually you are the one who are writing unsourced articles and as for what you said about Mostar, not only is it untrue, since croats form less than 50 % of the Mostar municipality, but also without any source or evidence.
Can you provide absolutely any evidence croats are majority in Mostar? Can you? I have the election to go after, what have you? Nothing?
If you are continuing you are to be reported.
As for Travnik thats riddicilous, the entire municipality in muslim, all the way from Turbe to Vlasic mountain, to the city Travnik, to Dolac na lasvi and Gluha bukovica.
Once again, I have at least the election to go after, you have nothing. Nothing at all. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please report me. I haven't broke any of the wikipedia rules. As for Mostar and Travnik, google it out. If I had links to any official data about them I've would puted them on theirs pages. To repeat again (thousand and one time:) this is not a forum, nor a place for a speculations. According to wikipedia policy elections are not valid for evaluation of demographic data. Ceha ( talk) 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is, mainly because its the only thing we got to go after but also its credibility.
We all know now that bosniaks are majority in Jajce and even the croats there know it since they are so heavily moving out of the city to live in Croatia. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipediae is not a place for personal conclusions or investigations. And according to its [3] election results are not valid for demographic data. Ceha ( talk) 08:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what? I feel so proud to the fact that bosniaks for majority in Jajce and other places. You can say whatever you want, but the elections doesn lie. Simply as that.
Especially considering the fact that 70 % of the votes abroad came from Croatia. And this is not what I made up, this is what it says in www.izbori.ba site. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 10:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Good for you. This is not a place for toasing out your private emotions. This is an encyclopedie, for the thousand and one time again:) And you should try to check official data for your status:) Ceha ( talk) 12:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The only official facts we have to go after is the election.
You lose in every way. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Than go to some forum were your "facts" are going to be recognized. And for losing and wining, I would strongly recomened you to find a job:) Ceha ( talk) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I founded resaults on one forum (there are not valifaded data for article, but are good for talk;). HDZ-33,23% (9) SDA-31,20% (9) SDP-14,31% (4) SBIH-9,09% (2) HSS/NHI-4,39% (1) It will be also interesting to see this years electional resaults from the same town. In Jajce 6 426 people woted, from that 470 in emmigration and of that persons 416 (8% of electional body) was Bosniacs by nacionality. Ceha ( talk) 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute...Jajce...isn't that slang for balls?
Where I am from jajce is slang for balls. Croatian/Serbian slang for testicles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.57.202 ( talk) 23:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering if this slang is used anywhere and if people in the town know this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.57.202 ( talk) 03:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
What in the world has Jasenovac got to do with Jajce." People from Jajce were sent to Jasenovac - And". It's like saying Croats & Serbs were killed or converted to islam in Jajce during the ottoman era-is this really relevant. The whole Jasenovac sentence should be erased as it has no purpose. This also can't be veryfied as Tito communists drew on their own conclusions about Jasenovac. I want to know about Jajce -The town the people the culuture and not some Serbian mythical belief to discredit the proud people of Jajce BiH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 ( talk) 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jajce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Small point, but I don't think the roads to Jajce are poor (travelled there last week from Travnik by bus). There's a lot of hairpin bends, admittedly, but in terms of road surface quality, lack of potholes etc that road was a lot better than the roads where I live in England! PS Forgot to sign... The Old Trout ( talk) 17:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Jajce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.visitjajce.com/en/index.php/homepage/offers/first-offer/192-jajce-tourism-service-packageWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jajce article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to ask everyone to please stop adding their own approximations of the demographic situation. Is there a census to confirm the claims? DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
(thanks, Thewanderer) Visca el barca, I have included a (sourced) government approximation. I have stated it was this, there was no need for you to remove it and the source. I hate to sound threatening, but thiat's pure vandalism on a national basis...
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Look people, it clearly states that this is an approximation, not 100% reliable info, but it is a GOVERNMENT approximation and it should be included. I personally DO NOT CARE who forms the majority in that beautiful town, but the approximation should be included. Deletion of sourced info is vandalism. If it is removed I will report the guy to the Admins. When will you people stop fighting each other?!
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fixed the reference on the 2004 approximation subsection. Now it is correctly referenced. This reference does not concern sex or age, but nationality.
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 10:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the matter? Why did you revert, Duja? DIREKTOR ( TALK) 10:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict, I was typing the explanation):
In sum, I think we'd better be without data than with suspicious data. Duja ► 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's messy: see this interview (before it expires from google cache, not sure what happened with the original) with Asim Kunić
[2]:
„Povratak u Jajce se odvijao u tri faze. Prvo su ušli Hrvati, zatim jednim dijelom Bošnjaci – to je bio pilot projekat, koji je bio više provokativan, ljudi su se brojali maltene kao stoka, ko će doći, ko neće i tako dalje, tada se vratilo 200 familija. Treća faza je bila povratak ostalog dijela Bošnjaka, iz srednje Bosne. Bošnjaci iz Jajca su se većinom nalazili po srednjoj Bosni (Kakanj, Zenica, Travnik i Bugojno). Nakon toga se desio i povratak Srba.[...]
RSE: Koliko se ljudi vratilo u Jajce?
„Imamo 8.000 do 10.000 izbjeglica iz Jajca u skandinavskim zemljama. Među njima je najveći broj Bošnjaka. To su građani koje smo izgubili zauvijek, više ih nikada nećemo moći vratiti. Ja imam dvije sestre i brata koji su sada Šveđani i normalno da se neće nikada vratiti. Postali su turisti u svom vlastitom gradu. Jajčani srpske nacionalnosti se uglavnom nalaze u Brčkom i Banjaluci. Veći broj njih je prodao svoje stanove i kuće. Od ukupno 41.000 stanovnika, koliko je u Jajcu bilo prije rata, sada baratamo nekakvom cifrom od 28.000, sa selima. Nije više u pitanju bezbjednost, već ljudi sebi traže selameta u drugim gradovima – odlaze tražiti posao u Travniku, Bugojnu, Sarajevu… U pitanju je egzistencija. Što se tiče bezbjednosti, što se tiče slobode kretanja, tu više nema problema, ljudi sarađuju. Običan svijet hoće da živi zajedno. Postoji bezbroj primjera komšijske saradnje i u najtežim momentima povratka. Ljudi su željeli da se što prije vide, da što prije uspostave kontakt. Ali je politika odrađivala svoj dio posla – povratak je blokiran, određivan je broj koliko se familija može vratiti. U povratku je bilo zaista teških momenata.“
We'd better wait for a census or an official estimate. Duja ► 11:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So do you agree not to put the 2004 approximations on the article even though it is on the Jajce website and the information is from the federal government. PS: I also noticed a ethnic map of bosnia on wikipedia which cleary says Croats are the majority in the Jajce municipality. Franjo r 02:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Vladimir Peric doesnt have info or sources, he said it was based (wrongly) on the election result. Visca el barca 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Its time to challenge this great serbian and croatian nationalism that occurs both in real life and in Wikipedia. Mostar, Jajce and other articles are beeing vandalised by nationalist muslimhaters who doesnt accept the fact that Jajce is Muslim, Mostar is Muslim and such. Terrible! Visca el barca 09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Look Visca, peace of advace. Try to be objective. O B J E C T I V E. You know, put yourself in others skin. Think. And try to give some proofs of your statments. Because, you are the one who is acting like vandal. Ceha 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
First of all I want to point out to Ceha that you cant say that the Federation is dominated by bosniaks and croats while one of those compromise 80 % and the other 17 %. I have reverted that part.
As for Jajce, those estimates are not source at all, simply because you can only find them on the jajceportal site which have taken it from a non existant place. And if we go after those estimations then I can write that we bosniaks form absolute majority in the municipality of Jajce.
The only thing we can do is to wait for the census which by the way will not come before year 2030. Lets stick to whats official because if we are going for estimations, then we might as well go for the estimations that bosniaks as off 2007 forms 60 % of the populaion in Jajce.
Those informations comes from the election result and that is as off today the only source we got and since we know for sure that 70 % or even more off all votes that arrives from abroad are from Croatia then we also know that 70 % off the votes from abroad are croats voting for croat parties. This and the fact that bosniak parties got around 60 % of the votes clearly shows who is majority in both the city and municipality.
But as I pointed out early, we must stick to what is official and wait for the new census that will never happen because 57 % of the Bosnian parliament does not want a new census. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Elections are not argumentative for ethnical census (se the discusion from above). Which is the connection between jajce portal and official municipal portal? Ceha ( talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong!
In 6 of them bosniaks form majority, that is Una Sana canton, Tuzla canton, Zenica-doboj canton, Sarajevo canton, Gorazde canton and central bosnian canton. In central bosnian canton bosniaks form 65 % majority and if that isnt majority for you, than you have some problem.
And cantons have nothing to do with population or power. You know, 80 & of the parliament of the Federation is bosniak and thats the population too.
In Jajce official municipality portal as you point out, you can clearly see who is in charge and who is majority, why else whould 60 % of the municipality members be bosniak? Because croats didnt voted? Because many voted abroad? Bosnianjustice ( talk) 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets talk credibility since you talk about that as a main reason for removal of sources. First of all lets talk about central bosnian canton government.
65 % of the government of that canton as you reffer to as mixed is bosniak. Why? Is it because croats dont vote?
As an answer to that is that they do vote just as much as bosniaks do.
And as for the vote abroad I can surely say that 70 % of the votes in Jajce for example abroad comes from Croatia and that says everything.
This is the same for both Jajce and Central bosnia canton.
Jajce is bosniak majority and central bosnia canton is bosniak majority and not mixed as you say. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
According to wikipedia policy data from election's isn't valid as ethnical data. So all of your conclusions are wrong:D At the time of making the Federation (1994) 2 cantons were planned as mixed. Central-bosnian and Herzegovina-Neretvan. To my knowledge there were no amadmans on Federation constitution which changed that. And as for Jajce, wikipedia is not a place for making your own "conclusions". Please stick to the official data, according to wikipedia policy. If something has changed will see that in the next census>:) Ceha ( talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The thing is that you are the one who are putting up demographics without sources despite the fact that it isnt official. And when I say majority bosniak canton then I mean majority and if we form 65 % then we are majority and thats it. Central Bosnia canton can not be mixed if somebody form clear and absolute majority.
It is the same with the Federation, it is only a Federation by name, since there are 3 contitutional groups in the entity and one of them forms 80 % of the population and have the power in all federal institutions. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There are territories (cantons) in federation in which one of the nations has majority(or which are mixed). Bosniacs don't form majority in the whole territory of Federation. Mixed cantons were formed as a means to prevent those majorisation.
Somebody could make 99,99 % of population of one country and live in just one city. Other nation could make 0,01% percent of the country and live in the entire rest off the country. That country would still be binational.
Central Bosnian canton is mixed according to the federal constitution. Google it out.
And please do not mantra more about your estimation of bosniac percantage in the city of Jajce or Central Bosnian canton without some proofs. This is an encyclopediae. Not forum.
Ceha (
talk) 07:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well serbs dont form majority on the whole territory of Republika Srpska either.
However Central Bosnia canton is not a mixed canton, it is a multikultural canton where there are 3 contitutional nations which means that serbs have the same status as croats since both of them are constitutional and are populationaly a minority.
Dont forget that according to the law croats in the Federation have the same status as croats in Republika Srpska. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 12:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Central Bosnia is according to its contitution mixed canton. Category population minority does not exist in those constitutions. Ceha ( talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
ITS CONSTITUTION STATES =
3 CONSTITUTIONAL PEOPLE IN CENTRAL BOSNIA CANTON
Do you get it now? Do you?
So according to you the entire Bosnia is mixed. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to put this in simpler words, maybe you re going to understand it then.
Anything clearer to you? And who saw yelling in the encyclopediae pages? Ceha ( talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Bosniaks form majority in Jajce too, either you forgot that or you are simply a stupid croat.
And in Herzegovina Neretva canton you forgot East Mostar which is bosniak majority too.
And we are going for whats official and whats written in the constitution. Central bosnia canton is not a mixed canton it is a bosniak majority canton with 3 constitutional groups.
And croats dont form majority in 7 municipalities in central bosnia, they form majority in 5 municipalities. Dobretici (which btw practically doesnt exist), Vitez, Busovaca, Kiseljak and Kresevo. In Novi Travnik it is equally divided. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 09:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a census or report from some goverment agency which says so? To repeat once again, elections are not valid demografic data. Eastern Mostar is part of Mostar municipality in which Croats form majority. Similar to villages around Nova Bila in Travnik municipality. Cb canton is a mixed canton. Please give me some source if you wish to claim otherways. Btw, for a thousand time let me repeat you. This is an encyclopediae. Not a place to insult somebody, or its nationality. If you're going to break this rule you'll be reported to the moderators. Ceha ( talk) 12:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually you are the one who are writing unsourced articles and as for what you said about Mostar, not only is it untrue, since croats form less than 50 % of the Mostar municipality, but also without any source or evidence.
Can you provide absolutely any evidence croats are majority in Mostar? Can you? I have the election to go after, what have you? Nothing?
If you are continuing you are to be reported.
As for Travnik thats riddicilous, the entire municipality in muslim, all the way from Turbe to Vlasic mountain, to the city Travnik, to Dolac na lasvi and Gluha bukovica.
Once again, I have at least the election to go after, you have nothing. Nothing at all. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please report me. I haven't broke any of the wikipedia rules. As for Mostar and Travnik, google it out. If I had links to any official data about them I've would puted them on theirs pages. To repeat again (thousand and one time:) this is not a forum, nor a place for a speculations. According to wikipedia policy elections are not valid for evaluation of demographic data. Ceha ( talk) 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is, mainly because its the only thing we got to go after but also its credibility.
We all know now that bosniaks are majority in Jajce and even the croats there know it since they are so heavily moving out of the city to live in Croatia. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipediae is not a place for personal conclusions or investigations. And according to its [3] election results are not valid for demographic data. Ceha ( talk) 08:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what? I feel so proud to the fact that bosniaks for majority in Jajce and other places. You can say whatever you want, but the elections doesn lie. Simply as that.
Especially considering the fact that 70 % of the votes abroad came from Croatia. And this is not what I made up, this is what it says in www.izbori.ba site. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 10:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Good for you. This is not a place for toasing out your private emotions. This is an encyclopedie, for the thousand and one time again:) And you should try to check official data for your status:) Ceha ( talk) 12:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The only official facts we have to go after is the election.
You lose in every way. Bosnianjustice ( talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Than go to some forum were your "facts" are going to be recognized. And for losing and wining, I would strongly recomened you to find a job:) Ceha ( talk) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I founded resaults on one forum (there are not valifaded data for article, but are good for talk;). HDZ-33,23% (9) SDA-31,20% (9) SDP-14,31% (4) SBIH-9,09% (2) HSS/NHI-4,39% (1) It will be also interesting to see this years electional resaults from the same town. In Jajce 6 426 people woted, from that 470 in emmigration and of that persons 416 (8% of electional body) was Bosniacs by nacionality. Ceha ( talk) 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute...Jajce...isn't that slang for balls?
Where I am from jajce is slang for balls. Croatian/Serbian slang for testicles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.57.202 ( talk) 23:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering if this slang is used anywhere and if people in the town know this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.57.202 ( talk) 03:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
What in the world has Jasenovac got to do with Jajce." People from Jajce were sent to Jasenovac - And". It's like saying Croats & Serbs were killed or converted to islam in Jajce during the ottoman era-is this really relevant. The whole Jasenovac sentence should be erased as it has no purpose. This also can't be veryfied as Tito communists drew on their own conclusions about Jasenovac. I want to know about Jajce -The town the people the culuture and not some Serbian mythical belief to discredit the proud people of Jajce BiH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 ( talk) 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jajce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Small point, but I don't think the roads to Jajce are poor (travelled there last week from Travnik by bus). There's a lot of hairpin bends, admittedly, but in terms of road surface quality, lack of potholes etc that road was a lot better than the roads where I live in England! PS Forgot to sign... The Old Trout ( talk) 17:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Jajce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.visitjajce.com/en/index.php/homepage/offers/first-offer/192-jajce-tourism-service-packageWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)