Talk:Glamoč/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Nationalist Bigot has a say

What "ethnic cleansing" of Serbs ?

Sounds like someone badly needs an "eqvivalence of guilt".

- You are a kreten perhaps? We do not need your ignorance. (LAz17 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

current populatoin

It is not known. Please stop deleting figures. (LAz17 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

quote -The EU will finance the reconstruction of 70 returnee houses. The reconstruction work will start in spring 2003, when a mass return is expected," said Paripovic. Since the DPA was signed, approximately 4,500 inhabitants have returned to the area of the Glamoc municipality, 3,500 of whom are Serbs and about 1,000 Bosniacs. There are about 700 displaced Croats from several municipalities in BiH living temporarily in the area of this municipality. According to the 1991 census, the Glamoc municipality had a population of about 12,500, about 80% of whom were of Serb ethnicity. - from http://www.nato.int/sfor/media/2003/ms030319t.htm http://www.pineforge.com/isw5/overviews/pdfs/Slack_Article.pdf (LAz17 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

POPULATION DATA ATTACK

NATIONALIST PROPAGANDA IS BEING INFUSED ON SITE. KINDLY PLEASE STOP CLAIMING 2011 SOURCE LACKING DATA THANK YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MojGlamoc (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC) KINDLY STOP REMOVING GOOD DATA. (MojGlamoc (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)).

This ([1]) is not encyclopedical. So please stop deleting the content consistent with the rules of Wikipedia! Ioannes II de Granum (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You put lies and croat propaganda on how serbs minority in Glamoc. You put unreferenced data. No sorry for your input. Second, it is very wrong to separate data when it can be combined into one table. Most important, you remove 2006 data set! (MojGlamoc (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)).

You realy get it wrong. Data for the period 2006-2011 are insignificant and inaccurate (It is an estimate only.) Furthermore your data for 2006 show inconsistency. Municipality in 2006 had, apparently, 5900 inhabitants, and two years after, 4776 inhabitants. All other data indicate that the municipality does not lose population so quickly. Moreover, according to NATO, a municipality in 2003 had less than 5000 inhabitants, and yours data show that population of municipality in 2006 had increased by 1000 inhabitants. This never happened. This area, from the beginning of the century, loses population. If you want to prove you're right, state your arguments. Ioannes II de Granum (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Plz stop playing stupid game with me. a- data for 2006-2011 is okay data. It is official estimate. What is problem? b- you put incorrect data on nationality for 2011 year using link for data a. Now you say data a not relevant. You revert me earlier to put back false nationality data. c- data for 2006 is from official website. Population can go up, can go down, it is not my problem not your problem. Refugee come and go. See Drvar where serbish population varry big by estimate - 90% but some say 5.000 and some say 10.000. d- you remove data for 1953 and 1961 e- no reason to separate population year dates, it look better like this f- what more you want? (MojGlamoc (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)).

This really becomes tedious. It look better-well, this is not your private encyclopedia, so you do not just decide what is more beautiful. Also, I ask you to be polite. Thank you! Ioannes II de Granum (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic

This town is in the Federation, Yerevani Axjik why did you add a Serbian Cyrillic translation? Obviously this town does not have a huge Serb population.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Glamoč has an absolute Serb majority. In future, please check the facts, than start a discussion. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm Bosnian. I know Glamoč. I have family in that area. They aren't Serbs. Can you source that claim?--Sabahudin9 (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

FTW?! :D Are you kidding me? See census from 1991. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a small problem with Bosnian demographics which is that there has been no recorded census data since 1991 and everything remains a mere estimate. The notion that one knows what the people of Glamoč are is WP:Original research. So nobody can be 100% sure on how to handle it. If I am not mistaken, Bosnia as a country and the Federation too do take Cyrillic as a secondary script. If I were to apply some original research too, you see signs on national insignia in two scripts, and when you travel to Dubrovnik from Trebinje you enter the Ravno municipality before arriving at the Gornji Brgat crossing into Croatia, and that municipality is within the Federation (as opposed to Trebinje with is the Republic). The border village of Ivanica is presented in the modern method used by the Federation's authorities: two scripts, but Latinic first. So it is all right to have Cyrillic featured for Bosnian settlements, the question being whether to call it Serbian Cyrillic, or just plain Cyrillic. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable thing to do would be to use the Serbian Cyrillic, as Serbs make some 80% of the population (this is also clear from the election results, regardless of the census). Moreover, I doubt barely 5% of Bosniaks can undertand Cyrillic script, that's the funny thing. :) But still, Serbs are majority, therefore, we should use Serbian Cyrillic. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If they are a majority yes. Obviously the question of Bosniaks' general ability to read Cyrillic is not relevant here. If the state has adopted the script for the language albeit in second place then that script remains a property of the official language. As for majority, well yes this would lend stronger support for inclusion of Serbian Cyrillic though realistically, it only requires that there be a Serb population at all to include the Cyrillic. This is why you get Romanian and Hungarian translations of so many towns in Vojvodina even where there is a Serb majority. Whether there is a majority in Glamoč is something unknown though since there appears to be no information from the 2013 census. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glamoč. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glamoč. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)