Wikipedia

Talk:Doboj/Archive 1

< Talk:Doboj
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

[Untitled]

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Sources for the Bosnian War are ICTY INDICTMENTS rather than ICTY JUDGMENTS. This practice leads to a misleading view of the war. Improve article by citing sources that could verify the factual state of the matters.

Overall a bad article that could be improved. The section on Bosnian War is too long and should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.121.160 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sure, there is your source: http://www.unhcr.ba/handbook/eng/cantons/doboj.htm "20,000 displaced Bosnian Serbs arrived from Canton 3 and Canton 4." I guess they liked Doboj touristic attractions so they fled from their homes and settled in this region. Or maybe Serbs forced them to leave? Serbs committed genocide and ethnic cleansing on Serbs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.111.197.202 (talk) 18:06, August 21, 2007 (UTC)


As I know that you don't consider as relevant any documents that don't suit your agenda, I'd rather not. Nikola 13:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said before, just a propaganda. Emir Arven 13:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


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

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


I AM LEAVING THIS MESSAGE AGAIN. AS I SAID IN THE PREVIOUS MESSAGE, THE PART ON DOBOJ AND BOSNIAN WAR IS FRADULENT. YOU ARE DENYING THE GENOCIDE THAT TOOK PLACE IN DOBOJ. CLOSE TO TWO THOUSAND PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN DOBOJ BY THE CHETNIKS AKA REPUBLIKA SRPSKA SOLDIERS. THESE WERE INNOCENT PEOPLE. PEOPLE FROM DOBOJ DID NOT LEAVE THEIR TOWN. SOME WERE KILLED, OTHERS SENT TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND MANY EXPELLED. YOU NEED TO CHANGE THIS PART, OTHERWISE I WILL ALSO SEND COMPLAINTS TO THE WIKIPEDIA STAFF. THIS IS DENIAL OF GENOCIDE THAT TOOK PLACE IN DOBOJ. IT IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW!!!!

Genocide? Maybe, but think again

Source? According to Research and Documentation Center Sarajevo http://www.idc.org.ba/aboutus/Overview_of_jobs_according_to_%20centers.htm 2311 people were dead or missing. Extremist Bosniak site http://bosnjaci.net/search.php?id=282&from=erk_historija claims there were 388 muslim victims. So, yes - there was a genocide. One committed on Serbs that were surrounded by muslim extremist drafted to fight for Jihad. They committed terrible atrocities on nearby mountain Ozren (see videos on Youtube, not for those with bad stomach). About 400 died from mortar shells, because town was surrounded and bombarded on daily basis. Doboj was Serbian version of Sarajevo, and that's story to be told. Don't want to disrespect Bosniak (Bosnian Muslims) victims, by when someone tells horrible lies like that one above, nothing else remains than to call such person a liar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.111.197.202 (talk) 17:56, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Bosniaks in Bosnia

Latest comment: 13 years ago32 comments8 people in discussion
Serbian and Montenegro changed its earlier name SR Yugolsavia to Serbia and Montenegro. The same thing has happened with Bosniaks. See constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Term Bosniaks is the historical name of Bosnian Muslims. All earlier Muslim related documents are now using the term Bosniaks as well as Serbia and Montenegro doesnt use old name SR Jugolsavija. --Emir Arven 15:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Ako želiš Holy prvo prepravi članke koji govore o Srbima, a koji su obični falsifikati, pa onda negiraj nečiju naciju. Ako ti nećeš mogu i ja to uraditi. --Emir Arven 15:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You are really, really pathetic and again lying behind my back. You are trying to deny Bosniaks, as Serb war criminals did during the genocide that they commited in Srebrenica. I asked admin to stop this vandal to destroy articles related to Bosnia and Bosniaks (including a constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina). He is spreading incorrect information, lying (as I showed earlier to admins). Muslims nowdays dont exist in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because they returned their historical name:Bosniaks, but you keep spreading incorrect nationalistic information, showing that you are the kind of nationalist that supports policy that Radovan Karadžić and other war criminals conducted.--Emir Arven 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Invented by Hungarians in the Habsburg monarchy? The word, in its present form, has been around for centuries. Read Elvija Čelebi's accounts of his travels through Bosnia - you'll find dozens of mentions. Asim Led 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Because census categories change and nations don't. The Bosniak people, who (as an ethnic community) remained relatively unchanged in Bosnia throughout the Yugoslavian period, on the census went from only having the "Serb" "Croat" or "Undeclared" options, to being Muslims in the sense of nationality, to being Muslims with a capital M. By your logic, if we listed the census from the 1950s we'd have to say that 90% of Cazin's population was "ethnically undeclared". If we applied this standard elsewhere on wikipedia, we'd have to make hundreds of complicated edits concerning mentions of various people based on whatever terms they were officially known by in that particular time period. This is simply misleading. The page on Bosniaks clearly explains the census situation in the 20th century, so linking to it would be sufficient in that regard as well. Asim Led 22:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
If nations don't change, does that mean that you agree that Montenegrins are still Serbs? And if nations don't change, how could Bosniak people remain relatively unchanged?
Desperately grasping for some logical fallacy, aren't we? The first sentence was a fairly general statement that wasn't mean to be deeply scrutanized - it applies in this case because the people were Bosniaks then as they are now, regardless of what they registered as on the census. The second sentence refers to basic cultural development through time of any people - the same definition used for Bosniaks today would apply to them fifty years ago.
You follow Estavisti's logic exactly. If we listed the census from the 1950s we'd have to say that 90% of Cazin's population was "ethnically undeclared". Anything other would be pure speculation. We can't possibly know how much of those undeclared people would have declared as Bosniaks if they have had been allowed to declare freely.
And, as I said, if we were to follow this logic elsewhere on wikipedia, we would be required to carry out hundreds of complicated and potentially confusing edits based on changes in census categories as opposed to historiographical reality. We are dealing with statistical information from 15 years ago and, as we do for censuses from centuries earlier, we must, when possible, interpet it from a modern perspective. A simple historiographical analysis makes it safe to say that these people were Bosniaks, regardless of whether they registered as "Muslims by nationality" in 1971 or as undeclared in the 1950s. Asim Led 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, no. Show me some cases of those hundreds of complicating and potentially confusing edits. And, let's stop beating around the bush: a historiographical analysis which saya that is incorrect. Nikola 23:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
To the contrary; a historiographical anlysis such as that would be far more honest than your subverse attempts at propaganda on wikipedia. As to your question, you can start here. Despite changes in census category and official/appropriate terminology, all census data are taken to refer to the same people. Asim Led 00:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
What that link has to do with hundreds of complicating and potentially confusing edits??? Nikola 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The page on Muslims by nationality also clearly explains the same thing, so that argument is irrelevant. Nikola 09:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
No. the page on Muslims by nationality does a poor job expalining the same thing, particularly in comparison to the Bosniaks page. Asim Led 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Right, so now I'm apparently a fascist. Asim Led 18:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
He didn't say that. One fascist remark doesn't mean that you are fascist overall. Nikola 10:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to be fasist, you are = even more selfdetermination proofs :))) HolyRomanEmperor 13:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Holy I suggest you to drop it. Your cynicism is not helping the issue. --Dado 15:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

In Bosnia "aggression" is the more common word.

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

You are wrong. Use of term "aggression" is most common in Bosnia as an attempt to sassociate Serbia and Montenegro from the participation in what was civil war in Bosnia. I however agree that simply "war" is NPOV, though don't see what you mean with "for now" - how could it suddenly become POV after some time? Nikola 04:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
And what exactly does "sassociate" mean?[1] Asim Led 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that many of you don't know what the term "genocide" means. As for what happened in Doboj, that was not genocide, and no government will punish me for saying such a thing. I am in no way denying that ethnic cleansing on behalf of the Serbian military occured in Bosnia during the war, but completely ignoring the fact that thousands of Serbs were displaced and killed is ignorant to say the least. Atrocities happened on both ends and whether you're Serbian or Bosniak, you really need to accept that and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domarina (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

/* Ethnic cleansing and mass killings */ This entire section needs to be moved to the "Doboj Massacre" and/or "Bosnian War" page(s). It has no place on the city page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.210.152 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Doboj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doboj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doboj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doboj/Archive_1&oldid=954528903"