Talk:Prijedor/Archive 1

name

 * Serbian and Montenegro changed its old name SR Yugolsavia to Serbia and Montenegro. The sam thing is with Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 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 14:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse it does. We cannot forge history! What was once SRJ will remain SRJ in that period of time. Besides, I see no connection, since you are trying to deny the Muslims their own nation. Also, could you show me the constitution (source)? HolyRomanEmperor 16:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a significant difference between a nation and a statistical category. One stays relatively constant while the other is open to radical changes depending on the socio-political circumstances of the time. This is just an attempt to sidestep an earlier agreement to refer to Bosniaks on wikipedia as "Bosniaks" regardless of the time period or state of nationalization. Asim Led 17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, everyone knows that Montenegrins were Serbs, but population census simply claims that the are not. It is simple as that. HolyRomanEmperor 22:42, 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 23:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please state wehen did I "deny" the Bosniak nation? And additionally, when did I "lie"? :))) You're more and more funny with every passing day. :))) Additionally, it is proved that Bosniak is the archaic adverb of Bosnian; unfortunatly, Bosniak propaganda spreaders used that fact to claim that all of Bosnia is "historically" theirs (when the term was actually used for citiznes of Bosnia...) HolyRomanEmperor 13:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Montenegrins, when compared to Serbs, have their own language, unique traditions, history, culture, folklore, and national interests. The same can not be said for a comparison between Bosniaks and Muslims by nationality. Asim Led 23:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

20% of the global Montenegrin population speak the Montenegrin language; others speaks Serbian language. Under international status the Montenegrin language is a dialect of the Serbian language (just as it is with the Zlatibor language). HolyRomanEmperor 12:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Traditions, culture and folklore of the Montenegrin people are completly (almost in every way) the same. The two nations shared union for 400 years until the Ottoman arrival, after which Serbia and Montenegro were seperated, but remained in close ties to each other. During the Ottoman domination Montenegro was the craddle of Serbian nationalist ideologies. Montenegro joined Serbia after the aftermath of the First World War (in 1918) and is still in union with it. Anyone claiming that Serbia and Montenegro don't have one history, does not know it well. HolyRomanEmperor 12:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

...and I have no idea what you meant by national interests... HolyRomanEmperor 12:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And yet, dozens of thousands of Montenegrins would strongly disagree with you. Once again, regardless of your own personal opinion, Montenegrins exist as a unique and noticeable ethnic group, seperate from Serbs, outside the census. This is evident in their ethnic organizations, cultural manifestations, etc. The same can't be said for "Muslims" and Bosniaks, who are identical outside of the census. Asim Led 22:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You said it nicely - thousands of people who feel to be Muslims by nationality would disagree with you. Nikola 07:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I said that Montenegrins would disagree with HolyRomanEmperor that they do not have their own language, unique traditions, history, culture, folklore, and national interests, seperate from Serbs. You then said that thousands of "Muslims by nationality" would claim that they have a seperate national language, unique traditions, history, culture, folklore, and national interests, seperate from Bosniaks. Care to provide us with some examples of a national language, unique traditions, history, culture, folklore, and national interests that seperate "Muslims by nationality" from Bosniaks? Furthermore, upon giving your assesment on these issues, could you please provide some direct proof that "Muslims by nationality" consider themselves to have their own national language, unique traditions, history, culture, folklore, and national interests seperate from Bosniaks? Also, note that all proof and assesments must concern people who consider themselves "Muslims by nationality" in Bosnia and Herzegovina, relative to people who consider themselves Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thank you. Asim Led 20:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For one thing, a number of Muslims by nationality in Montenegro declared that they speak Montenegrin language. I might take your challenge, but would you first tell me some examples of a national language, unique traditions, history, culture, folklore, and national interests that separate Montenegrins from Serbs? You started the topic after all. Nikola 21:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For one thing, you might want to read what I say. First of all, I asked specifically for Bosniaks and "Muslims by nationality" in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nowhere have I disputed those who registered themselves as "Muslims by nationality" in Montenegro on the latest census, so your point is irrelevent and a bad attempt to present my arguement as something that its not. As for your own request, I feel this would be shifting the issue elsewhere and avoiding the question. I would ask that you first answer mine, seeing as I asked first. Asim Led 01:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Basically, we can't know, because there was no recent census in Bosnia. We don't know how many people would declare as Muslims nor what would be specific for them. Nikola 21:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry; not buying it. A people can't just disappear in between censuses. Surely if "Muslims by nationality" constitute a seperate people from Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina then there will be numerous and wide-spread traces of their presence that attest to their uniqueness and individuality. Asim Led 22:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to say that there are numerous and wide-spread traces of the presence of Bosniaks that attest to their uniqueness and individuality? Nikola 08:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For any nation in a particular country one should be able to find numerous and wide-spread traces of their presence that attest to their uniqueness and individuality. Now stop pussyfooting around the question and answer it. Asim Led 21:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is "pussyfooting" an insult?


 * Don't worry Nikky. I wouldn't give you that pleasure.


 * You are fighting a battle which you can't win. If you want to accept individual self-determination as definitive, you have to accept than in 1991 census people have individually self-declared as Muslims. If, however, you want to accept a historical view of a nation, you know that they are all converted Serbs or Croats so they are not a separate nation anyway.


 * Well I'm glad that at least you're no longer trying to hide your real agenda. Asim Led 17:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think that writing correct and factual Wikipedia articles is an agenda, then yes, I was never hiding that. Nikola 10:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll let your above statement and track-record speak for themselves. Asim Led 17:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Having said that, difference between people who declare as Bosniaks and as Muslims in Montenegro and Serbia is mostly in their political and historical views. For example, in Montenegro Bosniaks tend to favor independence of Montenegro, while Muslims tend not to. So, they are probably divided among similar lines in Bosnia as well. Nikola 09:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Along similar lines"? Not only an assumption, but from a completely different context. Try again. Asim Led 17:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The number of Montenegrins that would disagree with me is around 100,000, althoug I fail to see why (if you do, state please why) and around 300,000-400,000 Montenegrins would agree with me (those that are not among the minority that likes to alter history to its own bidding) Also, there are at least 20,000 Muslims in Western Bosnia that are Serbophobes (Fikret's guys) A part of them feels quitte natagonistic with the view of an independent Bosniak nation... Additionally, Gorans are Muslims, but have nothing whatsoever to do with Bosniaks. HolyRomanEmperor 16:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about Gorani? We're dealing with Bosnia and Herzegovina; not southern Kosovo. Asim Led 01:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The point was = > Gorans declared themselves as Muslims; and some STILL do... So, it would be assimilating (abusive) to change the population census. HolyRomanEmperor 18:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Emir tried to make same changed on several Kosovo-related articles. Nikola 21:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Then ask Emir. Asim Led 22:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In the case of Kosovo, I agree with you. It would not be safe to make the historigraphical assumptions that I mentioned earlier. In much the same way, we cannot say anything about the people registered as Yugoslavs. However, in the case of "Muslims by nationality" in Prijedor, I disagree. Knowing the circumstances, we can safely say these were Bosniaks. Asim Led 20:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I wikified the article somewhat (history section is still pretty inarticulate) and changed Muslims by nationality to Bosniaks, leaving the footnote as a kind of compromise; the same pattern is used in all BiH town articles (I looked at approx. half of them) and I don't see why it shouldn't be followed here. I also think that Emir's vandalisms on Serbs-related data should not (and can not) be cured by vandalizing Bosniak-related data. (see Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) (However, I don't think that "each nation should edit theirs" is a good policy either.). Duja 12:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In 1991 census, those people were called Muslims. If we present census data here, we cannot change this data because people now changed name. There is one name for this kind of change - a falsification. We can write that they are (mostly) called Bosniaks today, but if we present census results, we simply must write names and numbers that are written in that census. Besides, we even do not know how many former Muslims by nationality today consider themselves Bosniaks since there was no any census in BIH after 1991. I believe that one part of them will still declare themselves as Muslims by nationality in the next census and some also will declare themselves as Bosanci (Bosnians) instead of Bosniaks. PANONIAN   (talk)  16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an old problem that appears occasionaly. I agree that the best solution is to use designation used in the original census. Nikola 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is then only this article point of contention? The same notation (Bosniaks) in the 1991 census is used in a hundred more articles about BiH towns. Would someone be bold then, and change them all please? While I agree that the census data should not be "falsificated", have in mind that we're making this encyclopedia for readers. Pointing them to Muslims by nationality article is confusing. I don't intend to revert-war about this article to death, but please be consistent. The issue is primarily that the changes were (rightfully, I'd say) received by Bosniak editors as bad faith ones (judging on personalities of editors), and seen as an attempt to confuse the issues and deny the usage of Bosniak name. The designation "Muslims by nationality" has significantly survived only in Montenegro (mostly by ones who distance themselves from "Bosniak national awakening"). As for the supposed "part of them who will still declare as Muslims by nationality" in BiH, the honest answer is: few if any.Duja 10:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Would someone be bold then, and change them all please?" Believe me, I've tried. I don't understand your problem with this. If someone declares as a Muslim by nationality at a certain point in time, that's how he declared at that point in time. It has no bearing on the fact that most Muslims by nationality switched to declaring as "Bosniaks" soon after. --estavisti 12:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Heck, I don't have a personal problem with either version; but Bosniaks do, and I have a respect for that position. An undecided question is: where do we draw the border? Since the name "Bosniak" was not in wide use before 1990s, are we also going to revise the ethnic affiliation of historic Bosnian Muslim people (dunno, Mak Dizdar, Himzo Polovina, Mehmed Spaho) just because the term wasn't in use at the time, so, hypothetically, we can't tell what ethnic affiliation they would have and link them to Muslim instead? Does the change to factually correct Muslim by nationality significantly improves the clarity of the article? No. Does it offend Bosniak people? Yes. Don't do it, then. There are many more useful things to do here. On the other hand, I assure you I'll equally vigorously oppose Bosniaks' attempts to monopolize Bosnian history . Duja 14:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem that Bosniaks have is with themselves. They trying to create their ethnic identity, thus they rewritting history to be in accordance with their current identity. No matter if they like or dislike who they were and how they called themselves 15 years ago, their current opinion about this will not change census results. Statistics is exact science and cannot be changed like this. I mean, if we change names used in census, what stoping us to change numbers too? If we follow this changing logic, we can simply change numbers and write who ever we want as ethnic majority in the municipality. But it is not how things work. PANONIAN   (talk)  19:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And by the way, is it the purpose of Wikipedia to present facts and not to change these facts if somebody do not like what he see? If we start to delete facts that some people do not like to see, we will delete half of the content of entire Wikipedia. And finally, to be little sarcastic, but perhaps we should declare that Bosniaks are mentioned under this name in the Holy Bible 2000 years ago and that name Muslims by nationality was never used at all. PANONIAN   (talk)  20:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't intend to play a devil's advocate. Road to hell is paved with noble ideas, I guess. Duja 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

location
There is a Wikipedia sign for "Prijedor" near the town of Daruvar, which is obviously mistake, because Prijedor is 100km more south, in other country, Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.0.147.23 11:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SEE THE NOTE ABOVE!!!!!!

Zanimljivo 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian doesn't exist
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BOSNIAN LANGUAGE. BOSNIAKS SPEAK A BOSNIAN DIALECT OF SERBIAN/CROATIAN LANGUAGE that used to be called ijekavski before all the post war nationalist rhetoric took over. Why people keep trying to feed into Bosniaks feelings of inferiority is beyond me. They speak a variant of Serbo-Croation or Croat-Serbian. They will never have a Bosnian language unless they can successfully change the Bosnian dialect of Serbo-Croatian into a brand new language. And no, borrowing Turkish worlds and inserting them into Serbian doesn't count as a new language. The Bosniaks should be ashamed of the linguistic theft they are committing and propagating it all over Bosnian Wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.12.113 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Prijedor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111117032639/http://www.opstinaprijedor.org:80/content.php?content_category=41 to http://www.opstinaprijedor.org/content.php?content_category=41
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715112746/http://prijedorcity.com/component/content/article/13-prijedor/5906-koricanske-stijene-ukupno-86-godina-zatvora to http://prijedorcity.com/component/content/article/13-prijedor/5906-koricanske-stijene-ukupno-86-godina-zatvora
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080101211125/http://www.opstinaprijedor.org:80/content.php?content_category=45 to http://www.opstinaprijedor.org/content.php?content_category=45

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Prijedor. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206012327/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/V.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/V.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625035817/http://www.koledzprijedor.org/index.php to http://www.koledzprijedor.org/index.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tenis-prijedor.com/tennis/index.php?toption=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=34
 * Added tag to http://www.elmundosefarad.eu/wiki/wiki/index.php?title=JEVREJI_PRIJEDORA
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222163221/http://www.visitprijedor.com/mapa-prijedora.html to http://www.visitprijedor.com/mapa-prijedora.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Prijedor 1992
It's extraordinary that the introduction to the article fails entirely to mention the reason why Prijedor is so well known to the wider world - the murderous ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population in spring/summer 1992 and the associated concentration camp system of Omarska, Keraterm, Manjaca and Trnopolje. Opbeith (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
Coat of Arms in the English Prijedor article is not the current Coat of Arms of this municipality, this is the prewar coat of arms, and I think it should be changed... It may be left but as a reminder of how it looked before... The picture of the current Coat of Arms can be found on all the other pages, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frayelysium (talk • contribs) 20:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph
It does not make sense to start the first paragraph literally avoiding the country. I kept everything from the first paragraph, but rephrased it into a wiki standard of writing about towns and municipalities, which keeping to neutrality.

Even the Banja Luka artcile which is the head town (capital) of the Republika Srpska entity mentions Bosnia-Herzegovina first, since it is in Bosnia and Herzegovina!

Nowhere do lower than state, in this case entity, geographic regions, come before the country when listed. I looked at several different towns such as Cologne, Paris, etc. The Country needs to be listed first and foremost, followed by political and other geographic distinctions. Thank you, Vseferović (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation request
Would someone translate the German wikipedia for the equivalent part of the city and settlement part?

for example, state that Omarska, Kozarac, Marićka is with in the municipality. Matthew_hk  t  c  14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)