| This is the former talk page of an image, Image:Bih 1991.jpg, which subsequently got deleted. Preserved here because of ongoing discussion about several related images. |
| Please keep it polite, people. |
Where did you get this, Ceha? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Found it on the net. It should show ethnical structure of BiH in 1991, it is not much different from 1981 ethnical map and it should also be posible to fint it on the libraries concering 1991 BiH Census. What do you think is wrong with it? Ceha (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this map modified?
I think so. It's is obviously modified and it's not accurate. Follow this link for original version of this map.[1]. And there is another ethnic map of Bosnia in 1991. [2] Compare differences --Duxi (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/bosnia-karta2b.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/map2.gif){kind=link}
Modified for sure
This map is for sure a cheap copy of the original 1981 map of the University of Begrade's Geography department. It is clearly obvious. The line goes straight through at the same place where it does in the 1981 map, as it is folded in the book. I have the book, and that page is folded. We can see this fold in 1981 and this 1991 one. We can also notice that part of it has been cut off, the border to be precise. Now that we see that it is fake, we can actually move on to question other things. What is going is a typical example of how to lie with maps. I suppose that the person who made this read Mark Monmonier's book, how to lie with maps. We can pinpoint some stuff here, that being that the number of croats has been expanded on this map, as well as bosniaks. Well, it just so happens that this is done in very peculiar ways. There are more croats in places which croats claim. Therefore I think it is fair to say that this is a product of Croat propaganda. I have the original map from 1991, and it has only one author, not four like in 1981. This map is here for specific reasons, to lie. No offense intended to anyone, but cartography is very important. I have uncovered the fraud behind the false map of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, which showed more serbs than there is. In that one too people have abused these maps of the university of belgrade. I propose that this gets deleted. I do not know how to upload my map, for it is part of a book. Is it therefore legal for me to upload it? Any advice please? (LAz17 (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Laz, you are oppening an old discussion. Which never ended as you can see at [3] and [4]. If you have a scanned image of that map, put it on the commons, and if it is correct next step would be to update this image. After a conformitation from discussion ofcourse.
- --Čeha (razgovor) 00:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This map is determined to be a fraud and has no place in any wikipedia article. Thanks for your cooperation. Here is the real one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bosnia1991ethnic.jpg (LAz17 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)).
- I agree. Due to errors on this map it should be deleted. However Laz, try to upload your map in a higher resolution. Some of settlemens are not visible, inter-municipal borders are somewhat murky and contrast is to high. I would like to make a color version of it, as in [5] but just with correct data.
--Čeha (razgovor) 09:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Color map will be discussed on the color map page. As for this map, the real version that I have in real life is very light, unlike the versions of 1981. Therefore it is hard to see some differences. I put the contrast more so that there would be more clear differences so that people can know who is where better. I find very troubles at how you defend this map, when it is clearly obvious that there are so many mistakes, so very many. This is in fact a propaganda map. Now that we have determined that it should be deleted, lets get onto that. For requests of better images of the 1991 map, it is best to do it on the page of the 1991 map, not this one that is going to be deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Which map do I defend? Your english is sometimes very hard to understand (or my comprehenshion is wrong). As for BiH_1991.jpg , this is the discussion page, I don't see anything similar to your claimes. As for BiH_1991_colors.jpg there is another discussion on it's discussion pages [6] . I don't understand. No paranoja :) [7] [8] are god pages to read. You should try to look it up...
- Color map will be discussed on the color map page. As for this map, the real version that I have in real life is very light, unlike the versions of 1981. Therefore it is hard to see some differences. I put the contrast more so that there would be more clear differences so that people can know who is where better. I find very troubles at how you defend this map, when it is clearly obvious that there are so many mistakes, so very many. This is in fact a propaganda map. Now that we have determined that it should be deleted, lets get onto that. For requests of better images of the 1991 map, it is best to do it on the page of the 1991 map, not this one that is going to be deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)).
- I agree. Due to errors on this map it should be deleted. However Laz, try to upload your map in a higher resolution. Some of settlemens are not visible, inter-municipal borders are somewhat murky and contrast is to high. I would like to make a color version of it, as in [5] but just with correct data.
- This map is determined to be a fraud and has no place in any wikipedia article. Thanks for your cooperation. Here is the real one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bosnia1991ethnic.jpg (LAz17 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)).
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Bih_1991_colors.JPG){kind=link}
- --Čeha (razgovor) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You give me this thing for neutral point of view, yet people tell you of the vast problems of the 1991fraud map. Despite this you claim that it is easy to fix these problems and simply deny anybody's criticism of the map as being something that can easily be fixed. Well no, it can not be easily fixed. The map is a clear propaganda map which you have been promoting. With clear reasons as to why it should be deleted... you ignored it. You are the one that is biased. You have banned in the past I believe, for a temporary time, due to nationalism regarding croatians in bosnia. Therefore I have concluded that you are a nationalist who uses maps in order to promote your biased point of view. People have given you several good reasons that prove that this map is a fake and an edit of the 1981 map - the fold is the clearest most obvious reason as to why/how it is a fraud. You continually support this map until I put up the real one. You do this with nationalist agenda, wanting to show that there were more croats in herceg bosna and posavina. That is my problem, that this is a disgrace and that your motives behind things are not neutral, but very biased. Ignoring criticism on this map is such proof. (LAz17 (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Your POV is clearly shown here. Also, please do not lie. I was never baned for the reasons of POV or giving false data. If your english is so bad that you can not comprehend and read wikipedia articles than you don't belong on this wikipedia.
- As for this map, my god, it was I who puted information on the map that it could have inaccuracies, and welcomed your fixing it. What ignoring criticism? What nationalistic agenda? Have you even read the bias article that I've given to you?
- Wikipedia is not a place for personal attack's[9] and if you do not stop with your behaviour, you'll be reported to administrators. Also try to read more carefully articles and improve your english so you will not come into position of lying in the future.
- --Čeha (razgovor) 15:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I found this, which is evidence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ceha#Blocked . But anyways, I think that events are progressing well. It was put that there could be errors, but you did absolutely nothing to go about fixing them when someone told you what errors and where. The reason why is because it is impossible to fix such a map that has no borders whatsoever, no real areas. There is a difference between talk and action. Sure, wikipedia is not a place for personal actions, but there has been too much POV against me and some things that I am involved with. But don't worry, so far I have been correct. Hopefully this trend will continue. Bad maps got deleted. A couple more are getting ready to go. Defend them all you want, fact remains they're bad, so they go. No POV, just reality. (76.29.100.8 (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)). - ah sorry, it was me. (LAz17 (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Read that again. Those there write anything about NPOV or nationalistic views? Do you even know what is 3R rule?
- Read something about basic wikipedia rules before you make another false accusation again. I'm not a administrator nor I can delete some map. If I find an error I can made info on it and warn user, or try to cooperate with somebody to fix the error.
- As for your ego trps , I'm really sorry but that is your own problem, don't trouble me with it.
- --Čeha (razgovor) 15:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Read that again. Those there write anything about NPOV or nationalistic views? Do you even know what is 3R rule?
- Don't worry, I found this, which is evidence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ceha#Blocked . But anyways, I think that events are progressing well. It was put that there could be errors, but you did absolutely nothing to go about fixing them when someone told you what errors and where. The reason why is because it is impossible to fix such a map that has no borders whatsoever, no real areas. There is a difference between talk and action. Sure, wikipedia is not a place for personal actions, but there has been too much POV against me and some things that I am involved with. But don't worry, so far I have been correct. Hopefully this trend will continue. Bad maps got deleted. A couple more are getting ready to go. Defend them all you want, fact remains they're bad, so they go. No POV, just reality. (76.29.100.8 (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)). - ah sorry, it was me. (LAz17 (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Your POV is clearly shown here. Also, please do not lie. I was never baned for the reasons of POV or giving false data. If your english is so bad that you can not comprehend and read wikipedia articles than you don't belong on this wikipedia.
- You give me this thing for neutral point of view, yet people tell you of the vast problems of the 1991fraud map. Despite this you claim that it is easy to fix these problems and simply deny anybody's criticism of the map as being something that can easily be fixed. Well no, it can not be easily fixed. The map is a clear propaganda map which you have been promoting. With clear reasons as to why it should be deleted... you ignored it. You are the one that is biased. You have banned in the past I believe, for a temporary time, due to nationalism regarding croatians in bosnia. Therefore I have concluded that you are a nationalist who uses maps in order to promote your biased point of view. People have given you several good reasons that prove that this map is a fake and an edit of the 1981 map - the fold is the clearest most obvious reason as to why/how it is a fraud. You continually support this map until I put up the real one. You do this with nationalist agenda, wanting to show that there were more croats in herceg bosna and posavina. That is my problem, that this is a disgrace and that your motives behind things are not neutral, but very biased. Ignoring criticism on this map is such proof. (LAz17 (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)).
- --Čeha (razgovor) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Okay guys, this is quite confused now.
Can we first clarify how many such maps we have now, and what their relations are?
- Image:Bosnia1991ethnic.jpg (scanned from a print publication, agreed to be authentic)
- Image:Bosnia-ethnic-map.jpg (similar to #1, but from 1981)
- Image:Bih 1991.jpg (unknown source)
- Image:Bih 1991 colors.JPG (partly re-drawn on the basis of #3)
- WWW version from 1981?
- Image:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif (added, see below)
- Image:Bih_Stan_1991.GIF Another copy of bad map 1991, no.3
- Image:BH1991.jpg A correct version of the 1991 map, similar to no.1, but not copyrighted.
- WWW national geographic map for 1991, similar to no.1 and no.8 - published in May 1996 issue
- Image:BH1991ethnic.jpg Copyrighted and correct version, based off of map 8.
- Image:Nationalgeoraphicmapbosnia1991.jpg uploaded onto wiki because Ceha does not trust the website that uploaded map9... I scanned this to prove that it is real and legitimate, and that his maps are lies/frauds that portray POV and biased data, as they are propaganda maps. -LAz17
- Image:Bosnia1991ethnic2.jpgMap 1 brought back temporarily, to resolve the issue... delete after the dispute is done. -LAz17
- http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/nationalgeoraphicmapbosnia1991.jpg National Geographic map from scan is back, but I uploaded it this time on another site. - LAz17
- http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/bosnia1991ethnic2.jpg 1991 map again - LAz17
My questions and remarks:
- What's the copyright status of these maps? Some of the files have been marked as "public domain", why? Is there any reason to think they aren't copyrighted? In that case, we'll have to delete them, all.
- Is it agreed, at this point, that #3 is somehow inaccurate, or are we dealing just with different versions from different sources? If there was "falsification", who manipulated it and how?
- Please don't throw around accusations of "fraud". There is no reason to believe at this point that any wikipedian intentionally introduced false information with any of these maps.
- Can somebody inform me, in two or three sentences, what the alleged inaccuracies in this map are, and what POV they are supposedly designed to be "propaganda" for? Is one ethnicity somehow underrepresented or what? Which, and where?
- To whoever wants to propose these for deletion: please follow the full nomination process, including the listing at WP:IFD. I've removed a few deletion tags where this apparently wasn't done. But maybe it's better to first discuss things here anyway, and if there turns out to be a copyright issue we can simply agree to delete here.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions.
The 1981 map is from http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/spasovski-zivkovic-stepic-bosnia.html , a book published by the University of Belgrade's Geography department. It has since been released online and can be found on that site there. The 1991 map is from another book, but this book is not all online for free.
Map number 3 was falsificated by editing the image of map 2. We can see that they just cut off what year it was, and cut off a few other things. We can also notice that there is the exact same fold in the map that we can notice in the 1981 map. It is clearly the same map just edited. We can see that there are two things at play in this map. Showing that there are less serbs in many places in the map, showing that there are more bosniaks in serbian places, and showing that there are more croats in places that the croats have territorial claims upon. We can notice how there are far more croats in settlements/census tracts in what was herceg-bosnia and towards the central part, in the southwest, and in the north/northeast, a region called posavina. This map is a propaganda map aimed at showing that there are more croatians in the croat claimed lands, more bosniaks in the serb claimed land, and less serbs in general. It was probably made by a croatian nationalist. This is not the first time that nationalist based maps have been used for ill purposes. I have uncovered a fraud map of croatia, which was showing that there were more serbs in croatia than there really were, also a map that was edited, but originally created by the belgrade university. They have good maps, and look good especially if edited for certain a certain purpose. My concern is that we will again see people making a fraud of the 1991 map that I uploaded, and the 1981. The 1991 is easier to fraud if it is in good condition, because it does not have that fold in the page. (LAz17 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)).
The 1991 map might be copywritted. That is not my concern. My concern is that the 1991 bad ones are deleted and never to show up again. Let all of them be deleted, as long as the 1991 bad ones are gone forever. Let the 1981 go too, though it is available online and has been for years. This is what we call "inat", which means regardless of the consequences... I do not care about the consequences as long as these bad maps be removed. That is my inat. So sure, delete them all if needbe, but we must not have "bad maps" floating around, because they spread wrong information and thus wrong conclusions. But the 1981 is pretty legitimate I believe. So I suppose that it's okay to keep the 1981 one and delete the other three. (LAz17 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Okay, thanks for the explanation. Yes, I think I'd agree there are indications that #3 was electronically edited on the basis of the same file as #2, not scanned afresh from a different version of the print source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Therefore 3 and 4 should be deleted... is this correct? What about the real 1991 one? It is perhaps up for deletion to? We do not know what copywrite status it has. I am okay with deleting it as long as the wrong ones go away first. (LAz17 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)).
- I now notice there's also Image:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif, based on this one according to its description. That one should be okay copyright-wise, but can somebody check its correctness? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- As Laz said, 1981 map (Bosnia-ethnic-map.jpg) is good sourced map. Map Bosnia-ethnic-map.jpg is also a good map, which he puted on the net and I did not thought there are some copryth isues (as I did not have anything with it I don't know anything on it's copywright status). Image Bih 1991.jpg is map with errors (list of possible errors was on it's info page, and I thought that copywright status is GNU) and Image Bih 1991 colors.JPG is colored previous map to make more accent on ethnic's without municipal lines. Problem was in Laz17 fraud and accusation atitude.
In all of discusion I tried to cooperate in discussion and fix some problems (inaccuracies on the map). Bih 1991.jpg is inacurate and it should have been deleted. Image Bih 1991 colors.JPG could have been fixed (if Laz17's map Bosnia1991ethnic.jpg has good copywrite and can be listed as a source for changes).
That' would be that.
Image BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif also has some errors (similar as Image Bih 1991.jpg) I'll try to correct those, but I'll would like to know what is the status of Laz17's copywright status, and can it be used as source from changes.
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This fifth map, Image:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif , is based off the bad 1991 map. It should be deleted as soon as possible too. As for reproducing the 1991 original belgrade map - there is absolutely no need to do it. The only time that settlement borders get tkaen out is when too big of an area is represented, as was the case when belgrade univeristy mapped the entire yugoslavia - as can be seen here - http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/spasovski-kicosev-zivkovic-sfry.html . But even there the municipal boundaries remain. There is abolustley no reason to delete the municipal boundaries, and if we are dealing with ONLY bosnia and herzegovina, then there is no reason to take out the settlement borders. I am strongly against the reproduction of these belgrade maps. They were made by professionals and we do not need these useless reproductions. (LAz17 (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)).
Another bad map has been found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bih_Stan_1991.GIF It should also be deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).
- I am strongly against use of maps from Internet library of Serbian cultury (http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/spasovski-kicosev-zivkovic-sfry.html). Second problem is with wikipedia reliable sources rules. In my thinking it is not possible to use books published on Serbian university about Serbs of Bosnia during Bosnia-Serbia war ?
- Fut.Perf. we are having other of Bosnian maps which are having copyright problem, but they are on commons. For example I will user this. Copyright status is very clearly writen. Map is published by company Svjetlost from Sarajevo for use in History schoolbooks. In my thinking map must be deleted.
- Reason for my comming to this discussion are your comments on user:Kubura talk page which is on my watch list (Kubura is knowing that)--Rjecina (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- These maps are not from the serbian cultural library. Quite the opposite, it is that website that has shown the book that was published from Belgrade University. Therefore if you are against those maps, then you are against the academia of the Geography department of belgrade univeristy - and I am sure that they are more qualified than you are when it comes to those maps. The Belgrade University maps are perfectly fine as they directly portray data from the census. They are not propaganda maps; in fact I have gotten serbian propaganda maps deleted. The fact is that serbian propaganda maps are made from these balgrade maps, just like Ceha's propaganda maps were also made from these. Hence both croat and serbian nationalists are not happy with these belgrade maps, and both nationalists will want to show different onces. Here is a common example of the serbian propaganda map - http://www.srpskapolitika.com/Meni-1-V/Mape-karte/velike-mape/SRJ-3.jpg - this map shows an excess of serbs in bosnia, croatia and in kosovo. Therefore this map is not good, and it is such plagiarized maps that are problematic. There is absolutely no problem with the original belgrade maps. But of course, croat and bosniak nationalists feel threatened when people can see that there were substantial populations of serbs in their countries. That should be our concern, if they do not like the truth to be known. People can make conclusions, such as where are those people now and why are they not where they were. It is these questions that you do not want people asking, and this is why you are in support of deleting these maps. It is just like a dozen of croats were strongly in support of expunging data for the former republic of serbian krajina - saying that information about this entity should not exist because the entity was bad - where you guys get your logic I really do not know. (LAz17 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Rastko project is a greater serbian site. As for SANU and similar, their memorandum and similar things are from warmangering and are on of the stuff which started the war (I'm not going further into this discussion). Laz I ask you one more time to forgot your serbian bias (and whatever you've got) and try to cooporate. That last map has no copyright problems as I made it. If you have some map (or a source) to which I could fix errors on it, I call upon you to give it, if not it is not in your power to delete contributions of other users. Again I ask you not to behave as a troll.
- Rastko project is a greater serbian site. As for SANU and similar, their memorandum and similar things are from warmangering and are on of the stuff which started the war (I'm not going further into this discussion). Laz I ask you one more time to forgot your serbian bias (and whatever you've got) and try to cooporate. That last map has no copyright problems as I made it. If you have some map (or a source) to which I could fix errors on it, I call upon you to give it, if not it is not in your power to delete contributions of other users. Again I ask you not to behave as a troll.
- These maps are not from the serbian cultural library. Quite the opposite, it is that website that has shown the book that was published from Belgrade University. Therefore if you are against those maps, then you are against the academia of the Geography department of belgrade univeristy - and I am sure that they are more qualified than you are when it comes to those maps. The Belgrade University maps are perfectly fine as they directly portray data from the census. They are not propaganda maps; in fact I have gotten serbian propaganda maps deleted. The fact is that serbian propaganda maps are made from these balgrade maps, just like Ceha's propaganda maps were also made from these. Hence both croat and serbian nationalists are not happy with these belgrade maps, and both nationalists will want to show different onces. Here is a common example of the serbian propaganda map - http://www.srpskapolitika.com/Meni-1-V/Mape-karte/velike-mape/SRJ-3.jpg - this map shows an excess of serbs in bosnia, croatia and in kosovo. Therefore this map is not good, and it is such plagiarized maps that are problematic. There is absolutely no problem with the original belgrade maps. But of course, croat and bosniak nationalists feel threatened when people can see that there were substantial populations of serbs in their countries. That should be our concern, if they do not like the truth to be known. People can make conclusions, such as where are those people now and why are they not where they were. It is these questions that you do not want people asking, and this is why you are in support of deleting these maps. It is just like a dozen of croats were strongly in support of expunging data for the former republic of serbian krajina - saying that information about this entity should not exist because the entity was bad - where you guys get your logic I really do not know. (LAz17 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Map 6 and 7 are reproductions of fraud map3. Therefore they have to go. I have uploaded the 1991 original map. The book by the university of belgrade is a geographic book that was uploaded on the site. Those maps there are reality that serbian nationalists are not happy with and want to show that there is even more serbs than there are on those maps. The Belgrade maps are perfectly legitimate, unlike your fraud map and your subsequent maps that are based off of your fraud map. My 1991 map was proof of how awful your fraud maps are, but it got deleted. Should I upload in order to have your 6 and 7 be expunged from wikipedia? (LAz17 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).
- In my thinking this problem is solved :)
- Office of the High Representative and the EU special representative site are having very good maps. Because you both have edited maps earlier I do not see problem in creating new map and adding colors to towns (and other administrative units) like on map Ethnic composition before the war in BiH [10] ? --Rjecina (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have got to be kidding - if you are talking about deleting the 1981 map. That map there is of the municipalities, and we already have such a map if not a few on wikipedia. The Belgrade maps show census track or settlements, so they go in beyond the municipality level. It's like with the Canadian election maps of 2008 - one shows the winners in provinces and one shows the winners in districts. Similarly we need these two here, where one shows the population at the smaller units and one at the larger units. This is very simple to understand and I am worried why you are bringing this up. Or perhaps there is some misunderstanding. If you mean a map for the municipalities for 1991, then we already have it. But the 1981 settlement map must stay. We could use a 1981 municipality map too come to think of it. (LAz17 (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC))
- Map 6 and 7 are reproductions of fraud map3. Therefore they have to go. I have uploaded the 1991 original map. The book by the university of belgrade is a geographic book that was uploaded on the site. Those maps there are reality that serbian nationalists are not happy with and want to show that there is even more serbs than there are on those maps. The Belgrade maps are perfectly legitimate, unlike your fraud map and your subsequent maps that are based off of your fraud map. My 1991 map was proof of how awful your fraud maps are, but it got deleted. Should I upload in order to have your 6 and 7 be expunged from wikipedia? (LAz17 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).
I do not speak about 1981 map. In earlier discussion comments are that wikipedia is without good 1991 map of Bosnia and Herzegovina from reliable source ? My proposition will solve that problem.
About Rastko map for 1981 my only comment is that this map will be deleted on 25 November. To tell you truth I can't understand why users from Serbia are demanding that we use in articles about Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslav Wars demography maps from 1981 and not from 1991 ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is no Rastko map. The Rastko orgnaization never made any maps. We are dealing with University of Belgrade's Geography department maps and Ceha's problematic ones. You came too late to see the 1991 map from the good source, which was also from University of Belgrade but not online anywhere. I uploaded it and it was deleted. We have a 1991 map already, which is here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ethnic_relations_1991.GIF . I have no idea where you get the idea that the 1981 map should be deleted, for it is perfectly okay and is used in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_demographics_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina . (LAz17 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Your concern about why it might be used in the war thing is a plausible concern. I was purging some pages of Ceha's fraud map which got deleted. Anyways, I replaced one of them with the 1981 by mistake. That is the only reason why that map showed up in the main bosnia and herzegovina page under the war. I moved it to the appropriate location, to the 1945 to 1981 place. (LAz17 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Good news. I found a correct map, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BH1991.jpg (LAz17 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)).
- BH1991.jpg is a false map made by originaly made (and sourced) by banned user PaxEquilibrium. That map and 1991.png map should both be deleted as soon as possible.
- Moreover, Laz, I made [11] map. And for fraud and similar accusations, I'm affraid I can not help you. If you have something to contribute to this discussion (like valid source from which I can fix errors on mentioned map) you can help me and cooporate with me, else I'm not going waste my precious time with you. So long.
--Čeha (razgovor) 19:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- BH1991 is an accurate map, and it shows the same results as the official 1991 belgrade map. Therefore that map is correct. It should not matter who made it or why, but it is correct - that is what matters. I have the correct source and I compared it, and it is legitimate. therefore this Image:BH1991.jpg should be used along with the municipality level map. I however do not see why we need to mention the municipality map, for that authenticity is easily verifiable. This topic is for the map that shows settlement data, which goes in beyond the municipalities. This Image:BH1991.jpg should be used. (LAz17 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).
- I'd upload the 1991 belgrade to confirm that this one is accurate, but it got deleted once, so there is no reason to upload it again. We now need to get rid of your maps which were based on your bad map 1991 that was deleted. Puno pozdrava/many regards. (LAz17 (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).
- No it is not. It is unsourced, which is the prime reason why it should be deleted. Second reason is that it is inaccurate. Also settlments lines are systematicly shown as serbian territories, and in difference between Croats and Bosniaks as Bosniak one, which shows clear bias. Third reason is that it was made by banned user, which just to itself should be enough.
Laz this map differs even from your map (look eastern Bosnia). Was your map false also?
:::--Čeha (razgovor) 08:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Your maps are unsourced as well. The map is totally accurate. There is no bias to that map in my opinion. It looks very much like the map that I had from 1991 which was agreed to be accurate. However, all of your maps are based upon that fraud 1991 map, which shows more croats in herceg bosna/posavina and more bosniaks in eastern bosnia and cazinkrajina. Your map was determined to be bad, and so it was deleted. Furthermore, your other maps are based off of that one miserable one that you had which was deleted. It need not matter who made the map. The user was banned for other reasons. His map is far more accurate than any of your maps. But of course, when your goal is to show that there are more croats, that always being your only goal, then how could you accept this map? It's always wrong for you. You can't even accept the fact that your two maps were deleted and thus your other ones based off of those should go as well. Don't worry, they will go, you like it or not. It's about time that POV and propaganda went out of wikipedia's maps. (LAz17 (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC))
- National Geographic pubilshed a very similar map in 1996, that is about Bosnia for 1991. You can see it here, http://srpska-mreza.com/MAPS/Ethnic-groups/map-NatGeogr-1996.html - granted that this site srpska mreza might not be one from where we should get direct data, but we can see that they put national geographic's map up on their site. Therefore are we going to condemn national geographic, an accredited institution/magazine? The map which you speak of being bad is based off of this national geographic one, in my opinion. It's high time that you got into reality and left your nationalism and POV when it comes to maps. We can clearly see the issue in Posavina, Eastern Bosnia, and Herceg Bosna. The conclusion is that your maps are bad and that we have others which are correct and thus need to replace yours. (LAz17 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Do you know how to tell what is the source of the map? It clearly says on it's page. Do read it somethimes.
- That is a map from srpska-mreza and not national geographic. Please don't imagine things.
- --Čeha (razgovor) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I own a copy of that 1996 national geographic. It is the exact same map. Srpska mreza may interpret it in various ways, but the fact is that they are showing that map FROM the National Geographic. They had a whole section in that 1996 issue, with a few maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Off the top of my head I remember that they also had stuff in that issue about Toronto - that waso n the cover of that magazine. If you can not believe that, I'll scan several copies to prove that to you. Well I guess this here proves that you are most definitely a POV nationalist. (LAz17 (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).
- And here it is from national geographic's own site, taht they did publish such an issue - http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/kosovo/9606.html - now all I need to do is to upload some photos or scans of the 1996 map that is uploaded onto srpska mreza, if the administrator wants that to be done. You can buy that 1996 national geographic on ebay too ya know. I'd recomend you do that, and then write to national geographic that they are biased. They are pretty good really. Your sources are bad, and I know that it is hard to face the reality, but trust me, it's not so bad to do this. (LAz17 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Croat nationalists tried to delete the map8 already. It has been decided that map8 will stay. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Bih_Stan_1991.GIF (LAz17 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).
- No it haven't. Laz, is your english realy so bad? That is a request to delete the right picture...
- 'Prljava belosvetska zavera', no? Laz, please make up your mind about sub-municipal borders [12] or you'll just change it when it suits you?
- As for National geographic, please give me a valid source on wich I can check it out. I'm not going to spend money on it, and I obviously don't trust you.
- --Čeha (razgovor) 23:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I feel that submunicipal borders are important, but alas I have come to the conclusion that there is no non-university of Belgrade map that has them. Therefore we are faced with having to comply with these no-borders, as it seems that people do not have these settlement borders. So therefore we have to deal with what we have. We currently have correct and incorrect maps up. We deleted some incorrect ones and need to get rid o the remaining ones that were based off of the already deleted ones. (LAz17 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Map 8 is very similar to the national geographic map, and it is very similar to the accurate belgrade map no.1 which was agreed to be authentic. your maps however, maps 4, 6, and 7 are all based off of map 3 which was determined to be wrong. Map 4 was deleted, and now the correct procedure is to remove these other wrong maps, that being maps 6 and 7. For some reason you are acting as if you did not see map no.1 off of which it is totally apparent the maps are wrong.
- As for the national geographic, you may trust me on it. However, you say you do not. So what do you suggest? I can upload pictures from this national geographic. I have the actual copy of that national geographic. You will see that it is the same as the file that is map9. (LAz17 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Map 10 uploaded. It looks good, but I would prefer if someone uploaded it OVER map 9. I was not able to, but here it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BH1991ethnic.jpg (LAz17 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Map 10 has serious copywrite issues (some of them are similar to those on which [13] got deleted). Laz17 you can not just download other map and put it on other name. You still haven't given checkable sources for eather of the maps.
- --Čeha (razgovor) 08:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have a natinoal geographic source. I will take a photo today to prove that to you. But technically you could again say that this is false, couldn't you? You clearly do not want to accept okay sources. Instead you like your maps that are made because of bad sources. Your maps were not deleted because of copyright status, they were deleted because they were frauds that portray wrong information. (LAz17 (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Map 10 has serious copywrite issues (some of them are similar to those on which [13] got deleted). Laz17 you can not just download other map and put it on other name. You still haven't given checkable sources for eather of the maps.
- Do you know how to tell what is the source of the map? It clearly says on it's page. Do read it somethimes.
- No it is not. It is unsourced, which is the prime reason why it should be deleted. Second reason is that it is inaccurate. Also settlments lines are systematicly shown as serbian territories, and in difference between Croats and Bosniaks as Bosniak one, which shows clear bias. Third reason is that it was made by banned user, which just to itself should be enough.
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk%3ABih_1991_colors.JPG&diff=252040321&oldid=251933041){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Bih_1991_colors.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Čeha in my thinking you are making 1 mistake. For Wikipedia it is not important how map is used but only if it is created on real document. In my thinking Belgrade University map is created on real documents from 1981. Maybe they have added few misleading informations (in your thinking), but it is created on real documents ! Only possibility for deleting are copyright problems and orphan map. I do not see problems in creating situation of orphan map when we delete this map from all War articles. Only place where it is possible to use this map is article about Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina (this is my advice to Laz17 ).
My advice to Čeha is to ask Office of the High Representative if we can use map in question (map of 1991) on wikipedia. If they say yes this map will be used in all articles about Bosnian situation in 1991-92, because of reliability rules. Who knows maybe we will use this map near to national geographic map of setlements in 1991 (wiki version of this map) because wikipedia is always looking for compromises, but this will be solved by further discussions on talk page of articles.
If you 2 want to continue this discussion on commons (question on talk page) there is need for creation of commons account and then start discussion about deleting on commons. When picture/map is deleted on commons it will be deleted on wikipedia.--Rjecina (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Map 3 and 4 have been deleted. Ceha's maps are almost identical to those. Therefore why does he insist on them staying? They have been determined to be wrong. Also, do you know if it is legal for me to upload the national geographic map? (LAz17 (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).
- If you upload map with information selfmade (but it is not) or without any copyright information map will be deleted after few days and everything is OK. Every day we are having many, many pictures which are deleted because of copyright problems and nobody is having court problems. On other side users which are adding many pictures/maps with copyright problems will recieve upload ban from Fut.Perf.. --Rjecina (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well here, I uploaded this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nationalgeoraphicmapbosnia1991.jpg - the only purpose of uploading it is to prove to Ceha that the map9 is correct, and that his map should be deleted. I just scanned it from the magazine a few minutes ago. I uploaded it so that we can proceed with the deletion of nationalistically motivated POV propaganda maps that Ceha had made based off of maps that were deleted because they were inaccurate. I could upload the belgrade map from 1991 again, if need be. His fraud must go. The natinoal geographic and the map made based off of national geographic by panonian is correct. (LAz17 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).
- If you upload map with information selfmade (but it is not) or without any copyright information map will be deleted after few days and everything is OK. Every day we are having many, many pictures which are deleted because of copyright problems and nobody is having court problems. On other side users which are adding many pictures/maps with copyright problems will recieve upload ban from Fut.Perf.. --Rjecina (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe I am making mistake but this is now dispute aboute census data. Because of that I have created page User:Rjecina/Bosnian census in my user space. Can we please continue discussion in my user space. After consensus page will be deleted.--Rjecina (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it's a related topic... we could discuss that there, as it there is some difference, but the result of that will directly impact this discussion. (LAz17 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
Mistakes
We (Fut.Perf. and I) are having problems with your dispute. Can somebody please give us examples why any of map in question is wrong. For example Čeha words will be: On this map Prijedor is given to Serbs, but in reality there is Muslim/Bosniak majority. Then we all will look this part of map and say: "He is right. This map is wrong"--Rjecina (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Plausible demand, but I already said what is wrong. I'll go into more detail this time.
- First of all, there are places where nobody was a majority. This is not included on Ceha's map. Problem? Definitely.
- Sanski Most is both a municipality and a town/settlement. The maps in question are settlement maps, and indeed, Sanski Most town did not have a majority. In Ceha's map it shows bosniaks as having the majority in it, while in fact serbs were the plurality majority. You can see so for town data for Sanski Most at Sanski Most. The Serbs were the biggest group with 46% of the people, just for the town itself. So therefore your Sanski Most claim there is false, this is false on Ceha's map.
- Kljuc. This municipality is totally muslim in Ceha's maps, or at least the part that is in the federation. As the deleted belgrade map and the national geographic map showed, this is not the case.
- Kupres This municipality on Ceha's maps has too few serbs.
- Tomislavgrad Also, the serbian place is left off.
- Glamoc There are not that many bosniaks in glamoc, especially in the south part. That area is too large.
- Livno Northwest Serbian are is too small.
- Kiseljak Many more muslims in Kiseljak.
- Drvar Wrong border, plus muslim location where there should not be - it is exclusively a serbian municipality back in 1991.
- Banja Luka Croat majority in a region where there were NO PEOPLE. Far too big croat area in northeast of the municipality, and Banja Luka city itself did not have a croat majority as is suggested, but was one of those no majority areas.
- Bosanska Dubica No Muslim majority in bosanska dubica in 1991.
- Bosanska Gradiska Muslim community in wrong place, and where their place is it's too big.
- Kotor Varos Too many croats in kotor varos municipality.
- Bosanski Brod Too many croats there - (posavina region)
- Derventa Too many croats too, no majority it town itself in reality thoug, also posavina region
- Modrica Muslim majority in city itself, too many croats, fewer serbs than there were, also posavina region
- Bosanski Samac Also wrong, too many croats, like 80% of area, when it should be closer to 50. Also posavina region.
- Jablanica Too few muslims. Too many croats.
- Prozor Muslims more like 40% of area, not 10%.
- Novi Travnik Serbian small area on map, it is not there in reality. What is this guy doing?
- Konjic Too many croats in west part of municipality, too few bosniaks in same area.
I will get to the Eastern Part of Bosnia later. Map is complete peace of propaganda POV. (LAz17 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).
Let me first answer to this accusations. All of data can be found on [14] by local communities (mjesne zajednice). If town is not complitely surraunded by one color that means that there where also citizens of other nationalities in it.
- Sanski Most didn't have apsolute majority of neather of nacionalities in settlemnt and on left bank majority had the Serbs, and on the right Muslim [15]. Most of the souranding settlments had Muslim majority.
- Kljuc, most of the villages in part of municipality wich went to Federation BiH had Muslim majority and most of it which went to RS had Serbian (municipality was divided, which is clearly seen on all of the maps).
- Kupres had cca 50% of Serbs, 40% of Croats, and the rest were Muslims and others. Hower local community which included central part of municipality (including the city itself) included 70% of population and had Croat majority.
- Tomislavgrad; Serbs did not have majority in any of the local communities as they made just 1,91% of population (576) people.
- Glamoc; Although Muslims did not made majority in any of the local communities, they were majority in villages of Biličić, Draganjić, Karajzovci, Kovačevci, Mladeškovci, Opačić and Vidimlije which lie in the southern part of municipality.
- Drvar; map border of municipality is from 1995, on [16] there are only Serbs in prewar municipal borders and on [17] there is one little point which is an errorr, and which I'm going to fix when this discussion is done.
- Banja Luka Laz maps also show that big bulge north of Banja Luka, the only difference is that in maps which I made the no majority areas is split. City itself did not have Croat(nor Serbian) majority, which is clearly visible from the maps.
- Bosanska Dubica Muslims made majority in local community of Centar.
- Bosanska Gradiska Muslims made majoty in local communities of Centar, Dubrave, Liskovac, Obradovac, Orahova, Rovine and Tekija.
- [[[Kotor Varos]]; Croats made majority in local communities of Kotor Varoš, Obodnik and Zabrđe which is 3 out of 10 local communities. On maps they cover about 20% of municipality?
- Bosanski Brod there are 7 majority croatian local communities and 4 serbian ones.
- Derventa; I can not see diference betwen maps which I made and maps from banned user Paxequilibrium, maybe only that he gave some border croatian settlments to serbian side. 15 local communities had croatian majority and 13 serbian one. City of Derventa itself was mixed, with strong muslim population which can be seen on maps. Serbs made majority in south and east, and Croats on the north and west.
- Modrica Croatians had majority in 9 local communities and Serbs in 7. City itself had Muslim majority.
- Bosanski Samac On maps which I made, Serbs are shown to inhabit cca 30% of municipality. On maps which made banned user PaxEquilibrium they inhabit 80% of municipality. 'Rugala se sova sjenici'. But alas, I think there is an error (13:12 is local comunity ratio). I'll fix it.
- Jablanica Croats made majority in just one local community (Doljani) out of 9. That same part is marked as Croatian even on the banned user PaxEquilibrium map.
- Prozor; Out of 9 local communities Croatians were majority in 6. In those 6 resides 90% of population. Muslims were majority in communities of Gračanica, Hudutsko and Šćipe.
- Novi Travnik; Serbs were majority in Maršala Tita, local community (which included parts of the town). They were premarly employed as workers in JNA arms factory.
- Konjic; Croats were majority in 5 local communities and in settlments of ;Bare, Budišnja Ravan, Bukovica, Bušćak, Buturović Polje, Crni Vrh, Donja Vratna Gora, Donji Nevizravci, Došćica, Falanovo Brdo, Galjevo, Goransko Polje, Gornja Vratna Gora, Gostovići (relative majority), Homatlije, Javorik, Jošanica, Krtići, Lukšije, Ljesovina, Mrkosvice, Obrenovac, Obri, Orlište, Ovčari (relative majority), Plavuzi, Pokojište, Požetva, Radešine, Repovica, Seonica, Sutlići (relative majority), Tovarnica, Trešnjevica, Trusina, Turija, Vrci, Zabrđe and Zaslivlje. They made 26,3 % of municipal population (Muslims made 54,3 % and were double numerous than Croats). On banned PaxEquilibrium maps it seems that Croats make less then 5% of Konjic municipal population.
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif){kind=link}
End of first part.
--Čeha (razgovor) 23:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Moving on then shall we?
- Kakanj Too small of a muslim area... there is also a small serbian area that is not there on Ceha's map. The croat area is again too big.
- Visoko There should be a few more small serbian areas, but they are left out and it looks like an exclusively muslim area.
- Ilidza This municipality has a huge area that has no majority. Ceha's data puts croats as the majority, and puts some serb and bosniak area on this one single unit.
- Bileca Not enough muslims on ceha's map, too many serbs.
- Gacko Muslim are is too big.
- Foca Not enough serb area and a larger muslim area for the most part. There is some serb area where there should be muslim area though, so these are double mistakes on this one.
- Olovo Serbian region too small.
- Vares Another Serbian are excluded.
- Visegrad Too large muslim area, too small serbian area.
- Rogatica Same as with visegrad, serbian area minimized.
- Bratunac Incorrect areas for where serbs and bosniaks are majorities.
- Srebrenica Not enough serb area, and at a place where there is serb area there should in fact be muslim area.
- Zepce Serbian area missing, smaller muslim area, larger croat area.
- Zavidovici Almost no serbian area while almost 50% is supposed to be serbian. One area where serbs are not a majority shows up as majority - an area that has NO serbs at all.
Well now that we have seen the numerous inaccuracies and clear POV showing more croats in Herceg-Bosna areas and Posavina, we can finally go about deleting his very inaccurate maps. (LAz17 (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).
These are not all the problems by the way, just some of the main ones. Some of the many others are that there is no serbian majority area in Neum municipality yet there is supposed to be... one muslim settlement too. Western Trebinje is wrong, and Ljubinje is 100% serb when in fact it has some muslim and croat areas. This map is really frightening if you think about what is really going on with it. (LAz17 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).
- Kakanj Croats made majority in 10 out of 36; Bjelavići, Bukovlje, Čatići, Haljinići, Kraljeva Sutjeska, Poljani, Seoce, Slapnica, Veliki Trnovci and Vukanovići. Serbs made majority in one; Bilješevo. That's one small village wich I did not notice(not one tenth of the municipality like on Equilibrium's maps). I'll fix it.
- Visoko Again Serbs made majority in one (1) local community out of 25. On Pax's map it is again 10% of municipality. Hm...
- Ilidza Croats vere majority in local community of Stup I (little area north of Ilidža). That is not shown on Pax's maps... In settlment itself there is an Muslim (relative majority) which should be fixed.
- Bileca In Bileća in all 5 local communities Serbs made majority. However, Muslims were majority in Đeće, Krivača, Njeganovići, Orahovice, Plana, Prijevor, Prisoje and Zaušje settlments.
- Gacko Muslims were majority in 3 out of 9 local communities; Bistrica, Gacko and Kula.
- Foca Muslim majority in 10 out of 23 local communities; Donje Polje, Jabuka, Jeleč, Kozja Luka, Kratine, Miljevna, Popov Most, Slatina, Ustikolina, Vikoč. Including cca 19 out of 40 thousand of population. Out of all the settlments 69 had Muslim majority and 47 Serbian one.
- Olovo Serbs made majority in one (1) local community out of 12; Olovske Luke.
- Vares Serbs made majority in three local communities out of 23; Brgule, Okruglica and Planinica.
- Visegrad Serbs made majority in 2 local communities out of 8; Dobrun and Vardište.
- Rogatica Serbs made majority in 3 local communities out of 11; Berkovići, Gučevo and Seljani.
- Bratunac Serbs made majority in 4 local communities out of 13; Fakovići, Hranča, Kravica and Osamsko.
- Srebrenica Serbs made majority in 3 local communities out of 19; Crvica, Orahovica and Podravno.
- Zepce Really, there is one small Serbian dot in local community of Ljeskovica (1 out of 11). Muslims were majority in 4 local communities;Begov Han, Golubnja, Željezno polje and Žepče.
- Zavidovici Serbs made majority in 2 local communities out of 22; Dolac and Stog.
Laz, I think that I deserve an appology. Just look on the data. Do I still need to prove that Pax's maps were wrong?
--Čeha (razgovor) 00:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
WHO IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL ??? ME??? Your data from this website, is bullshit data because there is no map attached to it. You want to know why? Because these data are as you said local communities. This is totally different from census track data. As we see, there is only about six communities in glamoc. Yet however there are some 30-40 census track areas. You are mixing up census tracks and community areas. You clearly do not have census track areas. That is your problem, not mine.
You say that serbs were not a majority anywhere in tomislavgrad. Think again. Municipality Baljci. Population 43 total, serbs constituting 40 in 1991, and croats the remaining 3.
Similar fraud that you are trying to pull is by saying muslims in glamoc being the majority in 7 census tracks. yes, that's true, but then you lie and say that they are all in the south. Half are in the center, half in the south, and there are another 40 er so serbian ones, and the serbs are in most of the ones that are down in the south.
I can not list all hundreds of municipalities from my CD that I have with all the census data information from every Yugoslav census from 1921 to 1991. The clear thing is that you are insane, because you are taking data from community areas. We have NO map of any community areas anywhere. We only have the map of the census and maps based off of that, at the small areas.
Take a good look at the belgrade maps... Here, I'll upload the 1991 map that was deleted again. You can see what census tracks are and then you can notice that there is no map in existence of your "community ares". There was no such subdivision of community areas. Your information there is biased because it was constructed on purpose to leave out all of these small census tracks. There never was a map that shows where any community area was. Therefore all your data is false.
Furthermore, all your maps are not based on any of these data. Your maps are based off of that 1991 map to which this talk page belongs, the map that got deleted.
Just for starters, here are all the census tracks for tomislavgrad...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
REPUBLIKA ! ! ! ! ! ! !povr- ! {ifre
OP[TINA ! Ukupno !Hrvati ! Musli-! Srbi !Jugo- ! ostali!{ina ! op{t nase-
NASEQE ! ! ! mani ! !sloveni! ! (ha) ! ine qa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Tomislavgrad 29261 25347 3166 570 103 75 92821 103081
Baqci 43 3 0 40 0 0 1900 10308113492
Bla`uj 325 168 152 3 2 0 550 10308113506
Bogda{i} 405 405 0 0 0 0 1850 10308113514
Bor~ani 726 724 0 0 0 2 675 10308113522
Bukova Gora 131 131 0 0 0 0 1300 10308113549
Bukovica 910 906 2 0 2 0 1263 10308113557
Cebara 139 139 0 0 0 0 626 10308113565
Crvenice 757 757 0 0 0 0 2199 10308113573
]avarov Stan 66 66 0 0 0 0 450 10308113581
Dobri}i 472 471 1 0 0 0 2136 10308113590
Dowi Bri{nik 838 837 0 1 0 0 1055 10308113603
Tomislavgrad 4964 3134 1480 215 91 44 925 10308113611
Eminovo Selo 668 598 0 69 0 1 3278 10308113620
Gale~i} 275 275 0 0 0 0 1050 10308113638
Gorwa Prisika 56 56 0 0 0 0 549 10308113646
Gorwi Bri{nik 309 309 0 0 0 0 1500 10308113654
Grabovica 346 343 0 0 3 0 2652 10308113662
Jo{anica 215 215 0 0 0 0 550 10308113689
Kazaginac 298 296 0 0 0 2 680 10308113697
Kolo 638 638 0 0 0 0 876 10308113719
Kongora 856 846 0 6 0 4 18191 10308113727
Korita 178 178 0 0 0 0 800 10308113735
Kova~i 364 364 0 0 0 0 820 10308113743
Krwin 163 163 0 0 0 0 551 10308113751
Kuk 207 207 0 0 0 0 679 10308113760
Letka 663 662 0 0 0 1 1200 10308113778
Lipa 349 309 0 40 0 0 1800 10308113786
Liskova~a 191 191 0 0 0 0 2400 10308113794
Lug 260 260 0 0 0 0 1150 10308113808
Mandino Selo 450 301 112 37 0 0 2231 10308113816
Mesihovina 951 948 0 3 0 0 1923 10308113824
Mijakovo Poqe 179 179 0 0 0 0 925 10308113832
Mokronoge 550 278 272 0 0 0 1181 10308113859
Mrkodol 1055 1055 0 0 0 0 2000 10308113867
Omerovi}i 321 0 321 0 0 0 675 10308113875
Omoqe 665 665 0 0 0 0 912 10308113883
Ople}ani 426 76 308 36 0 6 1731 10308113891
Pasi} 128 128 0 0 0 0 700 10308113905
Podgaj 166 166 0 0 0 0 727 10308113913
Prisoje 1070 1063 0 0 0 7 3200 10308113921
Rado{i 201 201 0 0 0 0 625 10308113930
Ra{}ani 103 0 0 102 1 0 866 10308113948
Ra{eqke 416 415 0 0 0 1 750 10308113956
Ra{ko Poqe 1066 1066 0 0 0 0 2300 10308113964
Reni}i 181 181 0 0 0 0 470 10308113972
Ro{wa~e 100 100 0 0 0 0 850 10308113999
Sarajlije 397 392 4 1 0 0 1175 10308114006
Seonica 395 394 0 1 0 0 720 10308114014
Srdjani 274 260 0 14 0 0 840 10308114022
Stipawi}i 1230 830 395 0 1 4 2792 10308114049
[uica 1429 1303 119 2 3 2 3200 10308114057
Veda{i} 651 651 0 0 0 0 1550 10308114065
Vinica 387 387 0 0 0 0 1625 10308114073
Vojkovi}i 332 332 0 0 0 0 1375 10308114081
Vrawa~e 22 22 0 0 0 0 825 10308114090
Vrilo 168 167 0 0 0 1 1000 10308114103
Zaqi}e 75 75 0 0 0 0 850 10308114111
Zaqut 22 22 0 0 0 0 940 10308114120
Zidine 39 39 0 0 0 0 208
Here is data for Glamoc...
REPUBLIKA ! ! ! ! ! ! !povr- ! {ifre
OP[TINA ! Ukupno !Hrvati ! Musli-! Srbi !Jugo- ! ostali!{ina ! op{t nase-
NASEQE ! ! ! mani ! !sloveni! ! (ha) ! ine qa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Glamo~ 12543 184 2243 9969 116 31 109716 103591
Babi}a Brdo 67 0 0 67 0 0 623 10359116858
Bili~i} 179 3 127 48 0 1 546 10359116866
Crni Vrh 281 0 0 280 1 0 5500 10359116874
]iri}i 75 0 15 59 1 0 176 10359116882
]oslije 147 15 0 131 1 0 2120 10359116904
Dolac 64 0 0 64 0 0 5828 10359116912
Dragwi} 121 9 75 34 2 1 2299 10359116939
Dubrave 43 0 0 43 0 0 1201 10359116947
Djuli~an 147 20 26 100 0 1 300 10359116955
Glamo~ 4248 43 838 3266 90 11 1566 10359116963
Glavica 341 0 0 341 0 0 4912 10359116971
Halapi} 530 1 0 527 1 1 4233 10359116980
Hasanbegovci 153 0 0 153 0 0 6509 10359116998
Hasi}i 744 8 47 684 5 0 350 10359117005
Hotkovci 106 0 0 105 1 0 2457 10359117013
Hozi}i 132 0 32 100 0 0 450 10359117021
Hrbine 85 1 0 84 0 0 5450 10359117030
Isakovci 64 0 31 33 0 0 2400 10359117048
Jakir 142 2 61 75 4 0 490 10359117056
Kamen 178 1 8 169 0 0 444 10359117064
Karajzovci 45 3 39 3 0 0 1899 10359117072
Karlovac 22 0 0 22 0 0 1344 10359117099
Kopi} 64 18 13 33 0 0 2949 10359117102
Kori}na 0 0 0 0 0 0 369 10359117129
Kova~evci 420 45 244 129 1 1 460 10359117137
Krasinac 43 0 0 43 0 0 108 10359117145
Malko~evci 152 0 53 99 0 0 900 10359117153
Malo Selo 57 0 16 41 0 0 294 10359117161
Maslina Strana 38 0 0 38 0 0 1057 10359117170
Mlade{kovci 88 0 68 20 0 0 810 10359117188
Oxak 54 0 3 49 2 0 400 10359117196
Opa~i} 87 1 86 0 0 0 430 10359117200
Perduhovo Selo 75 0 0 75 0 0 1781 10359117218
Petrovo Vrelo 136 0 0 135 0 1 500 10359117226
Podglavica 35 0 0 35 0 0 769 10359117234
Podgradina 122 0 0 122 0 0 482 10359117242
Podgreda 98 0 0 98 0 0 379 10359117269
Podkraj 34 8 0 26 0 0 550 10359117277
Popovi}i 75 0 0 74 1 0 3950 10359117285
Pribeqa 233 0 0 233 0 0 8775 10359117293
Prijani 161 0 0 160 1 0 4150 10359117307
Radaslije 865 3 329 523 1 9 1500 10359117315
Raji}ke 36 0 0 36 0 0 348 10359117323
Reqino Selo 47 0 0 47 0 0 1026 10359117331
Rore 203 0 0 203 0 0 3700 10359117340
Rudine 10 0 0 10 0 0 1597 10359117358
Skucani 125 0 0 125 0 0 844 10359117366
Staro Selo 82 0 0 82 0 0 1351 10359117374
Stekerovci 349 0 0 344 4 1 6214 10359117382
[umwaci 238 0 0 238 0 0 3247 10359117404
Vagan 160 0 0 160 0 0 2640 10359117412
Vidimlije 150 2 132 14 0 2 1441 10359117439
Vrba 113 0 0 113 0 0 367 10359117447
Zaglavica 51 0 0 49 0 2 369 10359117455
Zajaruga 228 1 0 227 0 0 4862
Really eye opening stuff, isn't it? That's the difference between academic and pure amature peasants who do not know that community areas have no map associated with them. Your problem is that you do not have any map associated with any of these small municipalities. I know, it's hard to find these maps. I certainly am not giving them to you, for you clearly should not be involved in mapping.
Lets see what other municipalities you had issues with...
Lets speak about Prozor? Again, fuck the community areas as they do not correspond to anything.. .we need actual cenesus track data.. here we go, it's not 9 regions, it's more my messed up fellow wikipedian...
REPUBLIKA ! ! ! ! ! ! !povr- ! {ifre
OP[TINA ! Ukupno !Hrvati ! Musli-! Srbi !Jugo- ! ostali!{ina ! op{t nase-
NASEQE ! ! ! mani ! !sloveni! ! (ha) ! ine qa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Prozor 19601 12213 7173 49 99 67 47927 107661
Blace 181 83 88 0 0 10 381 10766137740
Borovnica 329 168 161 0 0 0 1102 10766137758
Dobro{a 202 202 0 0 0 0 394 10766137766
Dowa Vast 367 280 86 0 0 1 890 10766137774
Dowi Kran~i}i 156 19 137 0 0 0 333 10766137782
Dowi Vi{wani 77 1 76 0 0 0 480 10766137804
Dru`inovi}i 125 58 67 0 0 0 425 10766137812
Duge 344 119 222 0 3 0 677 10766137839
Gmi}i 867 812 50 0 0 5 347 10766137847
Gorica 192 82 109 0 0 1 721 10766137855
Gorwi Kran~i}i 202 197 5 0 0 0 334 10766137863
Gorwi Vi{wani 59 0 59 0 0 0 1211 10766137871
Gra~ac 315 218 94 0 0 3 7 10766137880
Gra~anica 117 31 86 0 0 0 30 10766137898
Grevi}i 187 48 139 0 0 0 480 10766137901
Heqdovi 127 12 115 0 0 0 497 10766137910
Here 270 0 269 0 0 1 94 10766137928
Hudutsko 87 84 0 1 2 0 170 10766137936
Ivanci 114 114 0 0 0 0 325 10766137944
Jakli}i 699 699 0 0 0 0 1091 10766137952
Klek 207 0 207 0 0 0 1020 10766137979
Kova~evo Poqe 146 0 146 0 0 0 829 10766137987
Kozo 105 105 0 0 0 0 2670 10766137995
Ku}ani 276 202 74 0 0 0 526 10766138002
Kute 331 23 308 0 0 0 1127 10766138029
Lapsuw 251 8 243 0 0 0 645 10766138037
Lizoperci 175 0 175 0 0 0 326 10766138045
Lug 651 247 402 1 1 0 840 10766138053
Qubunci 449 382 67 0 0 0 999 10766138061
Maglice 80 80 0 0 0 0 628 10766138070
Meopoto~je 85 85 0 0 0 0 359 10766138088
Mlu{a 165 164 0 0 0 1 315 10766138096
Ometala 464 425 35 0 0 4 205 10766138100
Ora{ac 686 578 108 0 0 0 4057 10766138118
Paji}i 89 89 0 0 0 0 532 10766138126
Paqike 303 236 67 0 0 0 126 10766138134
Parcani 109 0 108 0 0 1 463 10766138142
Paro{ 103 14 88 0 0 1 782 10766138169
Plo~a 265 265 0 0 0 0 199 10766138177
Podbor 602 556 46 0 0 0 614 10766138185
Proslap 314 310 3 0 0 1 3311 10766138193
Prozor 3581 1241 2176 43 92 29 1746 10766138207
Ravnica 42 0 42 0 0 0 303 10766138215
Ripci 582 542 40 0 0 0 417 10766138223
Rumboci 1650 1616 33 0 0 1 309 10766138231
Skrobu}ani 296 96 200 0 0 0 912 10766138240
[}ipe 285 43 238 4 0 0 1564 10766138258
[}it 166 166 0 0 0 0 288 10766138266
[erovina 52 52 0 0 0 0 456 10766138274
[limac 114 87 27 0 0 0 610 10766138282
To{}anica 204 31 173 0 0 0 677 10766138304
Tri{}ani 146 146 0 0 0 0 717 10766138312
Ustirama 519 472 39 0 0 8 1046 10766138339
Uzdol 481 481 0 0 0 0 936 10766138347
Varvara 604 238 365 0 1 0 3284 10766138355
Zahum 6 6 0 0 0 0 4100
Lets see what more you might want...
Rogatica. Serbs a majority in only 3 and there are only 11 total? Well what do you know, genious has sat in shit again, here is the census tracks...
REPUBLIKA ! ! ! ! ! ! !povr- ! {ifre
OP[TINA ! Ukupno !Hrvati ! Musli-! Srbi !Jugo- ! ostali!{ina ! op{t nase-
NASEQE ! ! ! mani ! !sloveni! ! (ha) ! ine qa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Rogatica 21812 18 13169 8374 185 66 65380 107821
Agarovi}i 161 0 0 161 0 0 732 10782138932
Babqak 140 0 27 110 3 0 750 10782138959
Be}i 55 0 0 55 0 0 500 10782138967
Begzadi}i 103 0 21 82 0 0 750 10782138975
Behe}i 77 0 0 77 0 0 156 10782138983
Berkovi}i 109 0 66 43 0 0 625 10782138991
Bjelogorci 153 0 101 49 3 0 294 10782139009
Bla`ujevi}i 126 0 0 126 0 0 700 10782139017
Bora~ 37 0 12 25 0 0 600 10782139025
Borika 241 0 17 224 0 0 1075 10782139033
Borovac 145 0 145 0 0 0 470 10782139041
Borovsko 53 0 45 8 0 0 475 10782139050
Bo`ine 54 0 0 54 0 0 252 10782139068
Brankovi}i 174 0 0 174 0 0 825 10782139076
Br~igovo 198 0 195 3 0 0 625 10782139084
Brda 40 0 40 0 0 0 650 10782139092
Brezje 97 0 60 37 0 0 198 10782139106
Bulozi 22 0 0 22 0 0 900 10782139114
Burati 85 0 69 16 0 0 156 10782139122
^adovina 49 0 49 0 0 0 88 10782139149
^av~i}i 267 0 267 0 0 0 700 10782139157
^ubri}i 67 0 61 6 0 0 90 10782139165
Dobra~e 65 0 63 2 0 0 436 10782139173
Dobra{ina 92 0 38 54 0 0 390 10782139181
Dobromerovi}i 60 0 22 38 0 0 550 10782139190
Dobrou{~i}i 52 0 10 42 0 0 500 10782139203
Drobni}i 165 0 0 163 2 0 488 10782139211
Dub 103 0 103 0 0 0 475 10782139220
Dumawi}i 90 0 34 56 0 0 825 10782139238
Djedovi}i 43 0 36 7 0 0 1100 10782139246
Ferizovi}i 59 0 0 54 5 0 475 10782139254
Gazije 79 0 79 0 0 0 84 10782139262
Godomiqe 103 0 72 31 0 0 1450 10782139289
Golubovi}i 22 0 14 7 0 1 250 10782139297
Grivci 58 0 0 58 0 0 520 10782139319
Gu~evo 140 1 0 137 2 0 700 10782139327
Gu`deqi 99 0 0 99 0 0 180 10782139335
Jarovi}i 39 0 20 19 0 0 350 10782139343
Jasenice 57 0 41 16 0 0 1175 10782139351
Kamen 48 0 0 48 0 0 276 10782139360
Kara~i}i 58 0 58 0 0 0 210 10782139378
Kopqevi}i 58 0 58 0 0 0 362 10782139386
Kovaw 490 0 387 103 0 0 320 10782139394
Kozarde 56 0 56 0 0 0 535 10782139408
Kozi}i 98 0 87 11 0 0 120 10782139416
Kramer Selo 229 0 222 7 0 0 400 10782139424
Krvojevi}i 37 0 0 36 1 0 475 10782139432
Kujunxijevi}i 92 0 64 27 1 0 125 10782139459
Kukavice 482 1 454 14 5 8 545 10782139467
Kusuci 26 0 0 26 0 0 264 10782139475
Ladjevine 107 0 0 107 0 0 675 10782139483
Laze 178 0 158 20 0 0 1275 10782139491
Lepenica 140 0 104 36 0 0 126 10782139505
Lubardi}i 66 0 66 0 0 0 447 10782139513
Qubomi{qe 97 0 96 0 1 0 300 10782139521
Mahala 46 0 39 7 0 0 300 10782139530
Maravi}i 31 0 0 31 0 0 525 10782139548
Medna Luka 31 0 29 2 0 0 968 10782139556
Mesi}i 96 0 17 79 0 0 822 10782139564
Mislovo 80 0 0 80 0 0 1625 10782139572
Mrgudi}i 30 0 30 0 0 0 180 10782139599
Nahota 34 0 34 0 0 0 325 10782139602
Obrti}i 46 0 0 46 0 0 300 10782139629
Okruglo 131 0 95 36 0 0 624 10782139637
Orahovo 65 0 65 0 0 0 365 10782139645
Osovo 318 0 149 169 0 0 1846 10782139653
Otri~evo 47 0 47 0 0 0 385 10782139661
Pa{i} Kula 96 0 75 17 2 2 198 10782139670
Pavi~ina Kula 113 0 13 100 0 0 425 10782139688
Pe{uri}i 34 0 0 34 0 0 760 10782139696
Pijev~i}i 93 0 0 93 0 0 372 10782139700
Plawe 37 0 10 27 0 0 650 10782139718
Pqesko 99 0 0 99 0 0 642 10782139726
Pqe{evica 416 0 12 404 0 0 446 10782139734
Podgaj 73 0 0 73 0 0 150 10782139742
Pokrivenik 54 0 54 0 0 0 292 10782139769
Pribo{ijevi}i 89 0 29 60 0 0 260 10782139777
Pripe~ak 264 0 264 0 0 0 675 10782139785
Prosje~eno 57 0 57 0 0 0 324 10782139793
Purti}i 354 0 354 0 0 0 1275 10782139807
Radi~ 63 0 63 0 0 0 650 10782139815
Radjevi}i 57 0 11 46 0 0 1300 10782139823
Rakitnica 169 0 169 0 0 0 575 10782139831
Ribioc 77 0 77 0 0 0 250 10782139840
Rogatica 8883 16 5662 3015 139 51 926 10782139858
Rusanovi}i 45 0 0 45 0 0 415 10782139866
Seqani 463 0 161 297 5 0 850 10782139874
Sjeme} 42 0 4 38 0 0 1350 10782139882
Sjeversko 98 0 0 98 0 0 775 10782139904
Slap 80 0 80 0 0 0 200 10782139912
So~ice 59 0 56 3 0 0 180 10782139939
Stara Gora 221 0 64 157 0 0 1275 10782139947
Star~i}i 125 0 56 67 2 0 559 10782139955
Stari Brod 45 0 0 45 0 0 750 10782139963
Stjenice 56 0 29 27 0 0 57 10782139971
Stop 73 0 73 0 0 0 54 10782139980
Strmac 153 0 122 30 1 0 475 10782139998
Sudi}i 35 0 0 35 0 0 775 10782140007
Surovi}i 20 0 20 0 0 0 297 10782140015
[atorovi}i 112 0 112 0 0 0 422 10782140023
[ena Krena 53 0 26 27 0 0 84 10782140031
[eti}i 137 0 110 26 1 0 675 10782140040
[qedovi}i 47 0 47 0 0 0 210 10782140058
[qivno 25 0 25 0 0 0 300 10782140066
[tavaw 55 0 0 55 0 0 1350 10782140074
Trnovo 63 0 39 24 0 0 268 10782140082
Varo{i{te 212 0 137 71 2 2 625 10782140104
Vragolovi 179 0 161 18 0 0 450 10782140112
Vratar 280 0 280 0 0 0 675 10782140139
Vra`alice 76 0 22 54 0 0 2450 10782140147
Vrelo 96 0 96 0 0 0 76 10782140155
Vrlazje 88 0 35 51 0 2 513 10782140163
Zagajevi 14 0 3 11 0 0 270 10782140171
Zagorice 30 0 0 30 0 0 400 10782140180
Zakomo 178 0 30 145 3 0 800 10782140198
Zili~ina 37 0 0 37 0 0 450 10782140201
@epa 450 0 440 3 7 0 525 10782140210
@ivaqevi}i 94 0 69 25 0 0 250 10782140228
@ivaqevina 47 0 0 47 0 0 126
Many regards, and fuck the community areas, for all that is important is census tracks. You clearly do not have this data, and I am not willing to paste the thousands of census tracks onto this talk page.
(LAz17 (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).
Heck, here's sanski most, 'cause you mentioned that one too...
REPUBLIKA ! ! ! ! ! ! !povr- ! {ifre
OP[TINA ! Ukupno !Hrvati ! Musli-! Srbi !Jugo- ! ostali!{ina ! op{t nase-
NASEQE ! ! ! mani ! !sloveni! ! (ha) ! ine qa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Sanski Most 60119 4267 28285 25372 1202 993 95447 108121
Batkovci 213 85 0 103 18 7 357 10812141224
Bjeline 48 0 0 48 0 0 250 10812141232
Boji{te 313 0 0 313 0 0 4387 10812141259
Bosanski Milanovac 274 0 0 273 1 0 1566 10812141267
Bo{waci 230 0 0 229 0 1 933 10812141275
Brdari 540 12 293 224 5 6 550 10812141283
Budimli} Japra 463 5 172 272 12 2 1872 10812141291
^apqe 1394 5 1157 226 3 3 736 10812141305
Demi{evci 496 0 495 0 1 0 650 10812141313
Dowa Kozica 598 1 1 589 7 0 1750 10812141321
Dowa Tramo{wa 173 0 0 173 0 0 725 10812141330
Dowi Dabar 787 1 0 786 0 0 4011 10812141348
Dowi Kamengrad 2337 1 2107 80 11 138 575 10812141356
Dowi Lipnik 285 0 0 285 0 0 725 10812141364
Duge Wive 57 0 0 56 1 0 258 10812141372
Xevar 688 52 375 261 0 0 717 10812141399
Djedova~a 79 0 0 79 0 0 300 10812141402
Djuri}i 96 0 0 93 0 3 625 10812141429
Fajtovci 363 0 183 167 0 13 378 10812141437
Garevica 137 127 0 9 0 1 657 10812141445
Glavice 309 0 0 309 0 0 1965 10812141453
Gorice 639 1 616 22 0 0 347 10812141461
Gorwa Kozica 140 0 0 140 0 0 2341 10812141470
Gorwa Tramo{wa 477 0 1 474 0 2 2525 10812141488
Gorwi Dabar 568 1 0 567 0 0 1450 10812141496
Gorwi Kamengrad 1386 0 1384 1 0 1 600 10812141500
Gorwi Lipnik 222 0 0 217 0 5 725 10812141518
Grdanovci 265 0 0 264 1 0 1163 10812141526
Hadrovci 76 0 0 76 0 0 560 10812141534
Halilovci 169 0 79 86 2 2 491 10812141542
Hazi}i 101 0 0 101 0 0 1394 10812141569
Hrustovo 1677 3 1672 0 2 0 1025 10812141577
Husimovci 1806 20 1188 565 18 15 525 10812141585
Ilixa 250 1 0 249 0 0 975 10812141593
Jela{inovci 598 0 0 597 1 0 5523 10812141607
Kijevo 1090 124 767 186 5 8 1425 10812141615
Kqevci 819 60 151 597 1 10 3900 10812141623
Koprivna 698 2 0 653 36 7 1744 10812141631
Kozin 92 0 0 90 2 0 694 10812141640
Krkojevci 303 12 0 276 15 0 378 10812141658
Kruhari 792 355 0 418 13 6 1810 10812141666
Lukavice 607 9 411 183 1 3 1244 10812141674
Lu{ci Palanka 1068 0 0 1046 15 7 2575 10812141682
Lu`ani 172 8 0 162 2 0 236 10812141704
Majki} Japra Dowa 217 1 0 214 0 2 1475 10812141712
Majki} Japra Gorwa 241 0 0 241 0 0 4367 10812141739
Marini 105 2 0 103 0 0 787 10812141747
Miqevci 368 0 0 368 0 0 1106 10812141755
Modra 578 0 509 0 0 69 500 10812141763
Mrkaqi 81 0 0 81 0 0 782 10812141771
Napreqe 825 0 769 53 2 1 579 10812141780
Okre~ 1089 2 1086 0 0 1 833 10812141798
O{tra Luka 827 33 7 767 17 3 1205 10812141801
Oti{ 270 0 0 270 0 0 1250 10812141810
Ovawska 249 235 0 13 0 1 679 10812141828
Podbrije`je 565 4 500 61 0 0 100 10812141836
Podlug 643 3 4 616 18 2 187 10812141844
Podovi 284 0 0 283 0 1 1213 10812141852
Podvida~a 673 0 312 359 0 2 1325 10812141879
Poqak 519 367 56 38 38 20 270 10812141887
Pra{tali 401 2 0 399 0 0 3518 10812141895
Sanski Most 17304 655 7377 7952 885 435 1985 10812141909
Sasina 1039 1012 4 2 0 21 1781 10812141917
Skucani Vakuf 1320 1 1289 30 0 0 1629 10812141925
Slatina 96 0 0 96 0 0 610 10812141933
Stara Rijeka 638 618 0 11 7 2 1728 10812141941
Stari Majdan 1201 98 1012 55 23 13 1469 10812141950
Suha~a 333 1 0 327 5 0 765 10812141968
[ehovci 960 3 853 30 12 62 400 10812141976
[krqevita 276 249 0 27 0 0 1251 10812141984
Tomina 1499 3 712 705 8 71 1125 10812141992
Trnova 976 92 829 30 3 22 1700 10812142000
Usorci 616 1 0 603 11 1 1450 10812142018
Vrhpoqe 1838 0 1814 0 0 24 875 10812142026
Zenkovi}i 193 0 100 93 0 0 866
Wtih more regards, here is the real community census tracks...
I reuploaded the map.
Have fun with it.
Therea re the areas as you can see on there. No, they are not all labeled, but they are the official things. This is an official publication and is accurate. We see similar stuff in the national geogrpahic. They are the damning proof that your maps are POV maps that must be erradicated from thi site ASAP! (LAz17 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).
Pardon, but Tomislavgrad has two serb areas, not one. My mistake. Yours too though. (LAz17 (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).
Laz, what color is city of Konjic on this map [18]? Orange? City had 6,697 Muslims, 3,026 Croats and 2,536 Serbs before the war. What kind of book is it when it does not have č, ć, š, ž, đ? My data is from Federal office of Statistics (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina). What is the source of your's data?
Some wild cd is not good enough answer.
--Čeha (razgovor) 02:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
![[18]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Bosnia1991ethnic2.jpg){kind=link}
The bosnian government has never carried out any census. Furthermore, it did not exist back in 1991. All the original data went to belgrade, to the National Statistics office. SAVEZNI ZAVOD ZA STATISTIKU is what the place was called in 1998. They made this Cd and publication in 1998. The problem with not having č, ć, š, ž, đ is because those letters were not compatible when it was transfered onto the cd format. Regardless, we see the data. Your data is b.s. which is in fact data that combined the census tracks to give your community area stuff. It's a bunch of miserable good for nothing propaganda source from the new government that broke off of Yugoslavia.
You asked about Konjic, here is the data...
REPUBLIKA ! ! ! ! ! ! !povr- ! {ifre
OP[TINA ! Ukupno !Hrvati ! Musli-! Srbi !Jugo- ! ostali!{ina ! op{t nase-
NASEQE ! ! ! mani ! !sloveni! ! (ha) ! ine qa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Kowic 43636 11354 23791 6645 1379 467 105947 105291
Argud 74 0 74 0 0 0 569 10529126659
Bale 132 0 132 0 0 0 483 10529126667
Bare 183 98 85 0 0 0 261 10529126675
Barmi{ 111 0 111 0 0 0 249 10529126683
Bijela 537 93 171 273 0 0 2462 10529126691
Bjelov~ina 200 18 16 161 4 1 271 10529126705
Blace 21 0 0 21 0 0 2403 10529126713
Blu~i}i 197 0 197 0 0 0 384 10529126721
Borci 254 42 22 187 3 0 4756 10529126730
Bo`darevi}i 168 7 161 0 0 0 505 10529126748
Bradina 665 33 16 604 12 0 2111 10529126756
Brdjani 436 0 183 252 1 0 1220 10529126764
Budi{wa Ravan 55 55 0 0 0 0 151 10529126772
Bukovica 179 179 0 0 0 0 760 10529126799
Bukovqe 183 18 165 0 0 0 715 10529126802
Bulatovi}i 97 10 87 0 0 0 219 10529126829
Bu{}ak 125 61 63 0 0 1 386 10529126837
Buturovi} Poqe 419 226 188 4 1 0 138 10529126845
Ceri}i 102 0 0 102 0 0 188 10529126853
Crni Vrh 94 94 0 0 0 0 1021 10529126861
^elebi}i 1220 263 579 322 36 20 596 10529126870
^elina 132 10 122 0 0 0 526 10529126888
^esim 0 0 0 0 0 0 850 10529126896
^i~evo 189 0 0 189 0 0 2066 10529126900
^uhovi}i 164 0 164 0 0 0 3141 10529126918
Dobri~evi}i 131 62 69 0 0 0 424 10529126926
Dolovi 73 0 0 73 0 0 823 10529126934
Doqani 85 0 85 0 0 0 651 10529126942
Dowa Vratna Gora 65 65 0 0 0 0 274 10529126969
Dowe Selo 344 76 0 264 3 1 160 10529126977
Dowe Vi{wevice 228 73 155 0 0 0 384 10529126985
Dowi ^a`aw 140 0 140 0 0 0 277 10529126993
Dowi Gradac 164 0 164 0 0 0 187 10529127019
Dowi Nevizdraci 17 17 0 0 0 0 126 10529127027
Dowi Prijeslop 92 28 62 0 2 0 457 10529127035
Do{}ica 41 41 0 0 0 0 178 10529127043
Dubo~ani 146 0 146 0 0 0 1400 10529127051
Dubravice 125 31 0 93 0 1 562 10529127060
Dudle 97 0 97 0 0 0 390 10529127078
Du`ani 52 0 52 0 0 0 548 10529127086
Xaji}i 220 2 218 0 0 0 712 10529127094
Xani}i 51 7 43 0 1 0 30 10529127108
Xepi 721 1 489 231 0 0 2675 10529127116
Falanovo Brdo 81 80 0 0 0 1 102 10529127124
Gaki}i 50 0 50 0 0 0 137 10529127132
Gaqevo 390 271 109 7 0 3 226 10529127159
Glavati~evo 535 70 381 70 13 1 1398 10529127167
Gobelovina 147 0 147 0 0 0 467 10529127175
Gorani 365 106 257 1 1 0 182 10529127183
Goransko Poqe 192 157 35 0 0 0 182 10529127191
Gorica 188 9 179 0 0 0 219 10529127205
Gorwa Vratna Gora 38 38 0 0 0 0 274 10529127213
Gorwe Vi{wevice 277 108 169 0 0 0 321 10529127221
Gorwi ^a`aw 52 0 52 0 0 0 130 10529127230
Gorwi Gradac 61 3 35 23 0 0 44 10529127248
Gorwi Nevizdraci 213 35 162 15 1 0 336 10529127256
Gostovi}i 76 30 20 26 0 0 138 10529127264
Grabovci 265 0 265 0 0 0 221 10529127272
Gradeqina 91 0 91 0 0 0 1185 10529127299
Gru{~a 368 0 358 10 0 0 2945 10529127302
Hasanovi}i 91 0 91 0 0 0 517 10529127329
Heri}i 105 0 105 0 0 0 230 10529127337
Homatlije 95 63 32 0 0 0 199 10529127345
Homoqe 204 2 202 0 0 0 250 10529127353
Hondi}i 26 0 23 3 0 0 219 10529127361
Idbar 435 9 395 31 0 0 4653 10529127370
Jasenik 407 50 357 0 0 0 1186 10529127388
Javorik 8 8 0 0 0 0 612 10529127396
Jezero 79 0 4 73 2 0 1825 10529127400
Je`eprosina 69 0 69 0 0 0 263 10529127418
Jo{anica 220 220 0 0 0 0 270 10529127426
Kale 46 12 34 0 0 0 138 10529127434
Kawina 181 78 94 9 0 0 351 10529127442
Ka{i}i 115 0 106 9 0 0 438 10529127469
Kowic 13744 3050 6678 2549 1209 258 717 10529127477
Kostajnica 420 419 0 0 0 1 437 10529127485
Koto 63 0 63 0 0 0 264 10529127493
Krajkovi}i 15 0 15 0 0 0 28 10529127507
Kralupi 350 12 218 0 1 119 333 10529127515
Krti}i 27 27 0 0 0 0 146 10529127523
Krupac 127 34 93 0 0 0 1025 10529127531
Kru{}ica 312 0 312 0 0 0 1037 10529127540
Kula 77 0 0 77 0 0 1492 10529127558
Ladjanica 58 6 52 0 0 0 537 10529127566
Lisi~i}i 237 5 231 0 1 0 139 10529127574
Lokva 77 0 77 0 0 0 195 10529127582
Luka 170 0 170 0 0 0 6013 10529127604
Lukomir 156 0 156 0 0 0 3523 10529127612
Luk{ije 126 103 23 0 0 0 109 10529127639
Qesovina 79 79 0 0 0 0 287 10529127647
Qubu~a 87 13 74 0 0 0 786 10529127655
Quta 77 8 33 33 3 0 494 10529127663
Mlade{kovi}i 351 157 25 167 1 1 504 10529127671
Mokro 33 8 25 0 0 0 286 10529127680
Mrkosovice 50 50 0 0 0 0 70 10529127698
Obrenovac 97 97 0 0 0 0 84 10529127701
Obri 283 257 24 2 0 0 352 10529127710
Oxaci 105 7 98 0 0 0 712 10529127728
Orahovica 908 371 515 2 17 3 1025 10529127736
Orli{te 22 22 0 0 0 0 138 10529127744
Otele`ani 205 12 193 0 0 0 352 10529127752
Ov~ari 758 356 292 91 12 7 254 10529127779
Pa~erani 19 6 12 0 1 0 112 10529127787
Parsovi}i 176 27 149 0 0 0 154 10529127795
Plavuzi 58 58 0 0 0 0 556 10529127809
Podhum 191 44 147 0 0 0 339 10529127817
Podora{ac 744 110 602 14 8 10 186 10529127825
Pokoji{te 250 167 5 75 3 0 177 10529127833
Poqe Bijela 1827 650 954 195 19 9 387 10529127841
Po`etva 63 60 0 3 0 0 2398 10529127850
Prevqe 36 0 36 0 0 0 79 10529127868
Rade{ine 116 114 0 2 0 0 394 10529127876
Raoti}i 104 14 90 0 0 0 415 10529127884
Rasvar 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 10529127892
Razi}i 158 7 138 12 0 1 1963 10529127906
Rexi}i 90 0 90 0 0 0 248 10529127914
Repovci 180 0 176 4 0 0 1006 10529127922
Repovica 195 169 3 23 0 0 252 10529127949
Ribari 169 0 124 45 0 0 400 10529127957
Ribi}i 552 0 546 0 6 0 501 10529127965
Seqani 159 36 114 7 0 2 168 10529127973
Seonica 252 145 101 1 4 1 136 10529127981
Sitnik 30 0 0 30 0 0 1286 10529127990
Slavkovi}i 133 58 75 0 0 0 1419 10529128007
Solakova Kula 176 82 94 0 0 0 510 10529128015
Sopot 40 6 34 0 0 0 408 10529128023
Spiqani 654 134 515 4 1 0 1447 10529128031
Stojkovi}i 110 0 102 2 0 6 1948 10529128040
Strgonice 24 11 13 0 0 0 223 10529128058
Studen~ica 155 8 147 0 0 0 276 10529128066
Sulti}i 209 105 104 0 0 0 148 10529128074
Svijen~a 116 0 116 0 0 0 740 10529128082
[uwi 315 0 315 0 0 0 400 10529128104
Tiwe 75 0 71 4 0 0 564 10529128112
Tovarnica 18 18 0 0 0 0 90 10529128139
Treboje 287 0 284 0 0 3 227 10529128147
Tre{wevica 96 95 0 1 0 0 579 10529128155
Trusina 303 149 152 0 2 0 223 10529128163
Tuhobi}i 146 12 134 0 0 0 879 10529128171
Turija 377 372 0 0 2 3 740 10529128180
Ugo{}e 52 0 52 0 0 0 513 10529128198
Velu{a 48 0 48 0 0 0 290 10529128201
Vini{te 53 19 0 30 4 0 337 10529128210
Vrbqani 126 0 126 0 0 0 710 10529128228
Vrci 237 134 103 0 0 0 347 10529128236
Vrdoqe 198 0 176 22 0 0 1634 10529128244
Zabrdjani 71 0 45 26 0 0 673 10529128252
Zabrdje 251 241 0 0 4 6 155 10529128279
Zagorice 204 0 65 139 0 0 400 10529128287
Zaslivqe 244 240 0 3 1 0 376 10529128295
Zuki}i 336 11 288 29 0 8 686 10529128309
Data is available. I was willing to share this much of it. Hopefully this is proof that I know what I am talking about, and that you are using poor amateur sources. There is absoultely no map that shows where any of the community areas are that you speak of, while the maps that I have brought up clearly show where the census tracks are. Therefore you need to seriously re-evaluate what you're doing and perhaps give up your efforts completely, seeing how wrong they are. (LAz17 (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).
Clearly the new bosnian statistics organization did not want to deal with so many subdivisions, so they combined many. Do tell me though, where do you find a map that shows where which mesna zajdnica/community area is? There is no such map. So you're mapping data that can not be mapped. Absurd, ain't it? I must admit one thing, and that is that a person can go insane with so many census tracks. So have fun with those there. In the meantime your maps have to go and be replaced by correct informations. (LAz17 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).
BiH is the legal succesor of former SR BiH. [19] are it's official pages. Data which you gave here differs from it a lot.
For example Konjic; in your post it says it's a municipality with;
43636 people, 11354 Croats, 23791 Muslimans, 6645 Serbs , 1379 Yugoslavs and 467 others.
Hower FZS, claims that that municipality had;
43878 people, 11513 Croats, 23815 Muslimans, 6620 Serbs, 1358 Yugoslavs and 572 others.
This are the numbers which can be found also at [20] and which were recognized by all parties (with exception for Kupres municipaly) before the war started.
Laz, my dear, you've been hoxed. Somebody gave you false data... Or it is manufactured by Beograd's university (Milošević was still in power back then, wasn't he?).
--Čeha (razgovor) 03:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the examples you give, the differences are very small, on the order of several percents. Probably, one set of numbers are initial numbers given by the statistical office, and the other set are cleaned numbers with duplicates removed and so on. Nikola (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
None of my data is hoaxed. Your data is the data that is hoaked. You do not even have the census track data, which was available for every census in the former yugoslavia. I believe that it is retarded to be arguing over data that is off by 100 er so people for the municipality. The point is that the final numbers add up in the end. Furthermore, some settlement areas in this new bosnia data may very well use census tracks that are outside of the actual municipalities. My data is perfectly legitimate, and it came directly from the national serbian statistics office, which succeeded the yugoslav one. In fact Belgrade is the only one that has legitimate data for 1991. Call up Zagreb... they do not even have their own data for 1991, they say they do not have it. It was then that I turned to belgrade, and they have everything, and I got this everything. Fact remains, my data is detailed to the census track... your data is chicken shit that for example shows 6 areas in glamoc when there was more like 30 areas. Now, you did say that glamoc had 7 areas with muslim majority before I posted my data... that means that you have this data somewhere but are hiding it on purpose. You therefore know that your stuff is a fraud. Where is this data of yours? Where? Lets see any data for census tracks in bosnia, and if you find any they will be same ones as these. (LAz17 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).
One thing bothers me a lot. It is that the data that you give has no corresponding base map. Therefore the data is unreliable. They adjusted the data so that htey can make a basemap, this basemap - http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/maps/b-all-l.jpg
All your data is from the Bosnian US lobby people. They are the ones that put that data up. You can find it here, http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/maps.html
Your data is the bad data, not mine. (LAz17 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).
Your source for data is not the nation bosnia/herzegovina statistics office... your source is the office of the FEDERATION - Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina - this is totaly different from a national statistics office. There exists no national statistics office in Bosnia and Herzegovina !!! They never carried out any census, all the data went to belgrade and belgrade was the one that did the census. Now that that is settled, lets get about to solving this problem that is going on. nd lets do it in a constructive manner. You have only delayed anything good from happening. You are very disruptive and support your maps because you have your own agenda and POV, which is reflected very well in your maps. (LAz17 (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)). Tell me friend, do you have a basemap by which your settlement areas from your bad data set correlate to? I thought not, so since no basemap exists, lets move on to serious data. We have university of belgrade's map, and we have national geograhic's map... what more do you need do see that you are wrong? Must god tell you or something like that? (LAz17 (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).
Why si the 1991 map being deleted? We need it up at least a while longer in order to help solve this problem. I suppose that this map will have to do, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bosnia-ethnic-map.jpg , as it shows where the census tracks are, and this proves that my data is correct and that your data from the federation's statistic page is wrong. They do not include the census tracks as the belgrade maps show. (LAz17 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).
- The final solution we need is a SVG map of all municipalities and local communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Then it could be easily painted according to one set of data, or another set of data, and that would be undisputed. Nikola (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have never been able to find a blank map of census tracks or any level less than the municipality level. The only thing that I have found was those belgrade maps which show the boundaries, but not a blank map. I have been looking for a blank one for many years. It is probably available somewhere as a GIS file, but the fact is that even my contacts in Europe have nothing of the sort. (LAz17 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)).
- So we have got checkable data from Bosnian and Herzegovian official pages [[21]] and data which is claimed to be from Beograd's University and which is not equal to this. That is no dilema about that.
- Those maps from Pax (and Belgrade's university) got to go because of copywrith issues.
- If you have explicit reason to what is wrong with those two my maps please tell me and I'll change that.
- --Čeha (razgovor) 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- So we have got checkable data from Bosnian and Herzegovian official pages [[21]] and data which is claimed to be from Beograd's University and which is not equal to this. That is no dilema about that.
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/Image_discussion_Bih_1991.jpg){kind=link}
- The bosnian data is incomplete/not accurate enough. On the other hand the belgrade data is accurate and we can see exactly where the boundaries of census tracks are, whereas we have no idea where your so called community areas are, as there is no official such subdivision. Your data is flawed, the nice case being Glamoc as you said... it has only 6 areas in your data, but as we see there is more like 30 census tracks and they correspond to the belgrade map. Your map does not correspond to that data... you have no basemap to show, and have not been able to come up with one. So, we can accept your data to be false, as we have nothing to associate that data with.
- Your maps are bad and proof of that is the univeristy of belgrade 1991 map, as well as the national geographic map for 1991. therefore your map is clearly a POV map that shows more croats in certain areas that croats have claimed in bosnia, and more bosniaks too.
- Pax's map is released with copywrite okay status, as the rights are released I believe. Belgrade Univeristys map from 1991 is questionable, but the 1981 is fine.
- I have given you a big list of what is wrong with your maps... in return your answers are all flawful, as your data does not correspond to census tracks, but artitrary community areas, which are subdivisions that do not exist. You yourself claimed that serbs were not a majority anywhere in for example tomislav grad, but I got you data that they were. We had also issues with all those other municipalities, the south of glamoc for example. Do we really need to go over all those points in detail?
- I will see to getting the 1991 belgrade map uploaded onto some page, so that this can be available to the readers of this discussion. But, we can already see the national geographic map, which is very similar to the belgrade map. The conclusion is that your maps are wrong, and must go. Our good map is the map by paxequilibrium.
- Also, your data is not from any official bosnian and herzegovian page, as there is no official statistics place for the country. Your data is from the FEDEERATION, not the COUNTRY, and thus it is no wonder that your data includes never heard of community areas and major lack of census tracks. My data has census tracks, all of them actually.
- The mistakes in your map are so apparent... it must be that you do not believe data from the univeristy of belgrade, from the yugoslav census, and from national geographic. If your personal POV is blinding you from seeing the problems with your map, then that really is too bad. It is no reason to keep these bad maps up.
- (LAz17 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)).
- What is most bothersome is that all your maps are based off of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/Image_discussion_Bih_1991.jpg&action=edit , not any data, because that data does not correspond to any map anywhere. No boundaries. All your maps are redraws of the maps which were deleted. Therefore what are we talking about? We're talking about your source being wrong, and that source is not any data, it's that fraud map from 1991 which was the 1981 copy. (LAz17 (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC))
- LAZ sources don't agree with 1991 BiH census [22] . Also, there is another source "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. But that is not available online.
--Čeha (razgovor) 00:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)- My sources are official yugoslav sources, as I have them for years 1921, 1931, 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991. This is along with those. now, the wiki link source is, http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/census.html , and that website is a biased website. (LAz17 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
- this will help... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census (LAz17 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
- [23] are official pages of office of Federation BiH. For further discussion see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census .
- --Čeha (razgovor) 08:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- [23] are official pages of office of Federation BiH. For further discussion see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census .
- LAZ sources don't agree with 1991 BiH census [22] . Also, there is another source "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. But that is not available online.
