Talk:Jajce

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demographics[edit]

I would like to ask everyone to please stop adding their own approximations of the demographic situation. Is there a census to confirm the claims? DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well no, however in the latest municipality election, bosniak parties got over 50 % of the votes. Visca el barca 10:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


And in Uskoplje, a Croat was elected for major. That does not mean anything Ceha 07:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


(thanks, Thewanderer) Visca el barca, I have included a (sourced) government approximation. I have stated it was this, there was no need for you to remove it and the source. I hate to sound threatening, but thiat's pure vandalism on a national basis... DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Gornji Vakuf is 65 % bosniak while Jajce is around 55 % bosniak. Visca el barca 12:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There are no proufs for your second claim. It could be just that at that elections Croats abstinated more than Bosniacs at the elections, couldn't it? As similar scenario happend in Uskoplje while electing town major.
You are mixing oranges with apples.
Ceha 17:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dude, I am born in Jajce, and I spend about 1 month in the city each summer and I can assure you that we form absolute majority, there are not many croats left in Jajce, they are all leaving cause they dont want to live with the "turks".
We form over 55 % maybe even over 60 % and that I take not only from the election but my personal experience too. Visca el barca 11:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I can't believe this guy. Once again PLEASE DON'T DELETE SOURCED INFORMATION. Franjo r 13:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Look people, it clearly states that this is an approximation, not 100% reliable info, but it is a GOVERNMENT approximation and it should be included. I personally DO NOT CARE who forms the majority in that beautiful town, but the approximation should be included. Deletion of sourced info is vandalism. If it is removed I will report the guy to the Admins. When will you people stop fighting each other?! DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It is important cause it is a clear LIE that croats form majority!
It is like saying serbs are majority in Knin?
Anyway I wrote that it is estimated bosniaks form majority in Jajce now in 2007. Visca el barca 21:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


But you are not a reliable source. This is an encyclopediae and your personal opinion is POV. If you continue pushing your POV you will be reported to the admins
Ceha 08:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I've reported toVisca el barca to admin Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. Hope this stops now.
Ceha 07:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]


OMG (zamijenite prethodno sa odgovarajućom količinom psovki). F**king 2 minutes of Google search reveals Federal Institute of Statistics website, with the link to [1], which is the official census or estimate or whatever for 2007; it shows 17,380 Bosniaks, 15,811 Croats and 8,663 Serbs (in the municipality I suppose, one must do some math to get the town data). The previous source http://jajceportal.com/modules.php?name=Content&pid=145
is not WP:RS — to me, it seems that a leading "1" was inadvertently or conveniently deleted from the Bosniaks figure. Whatever it was, I'll substitute the real source now. Duja► 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm; my bad. Those were 1991 data. However, there are 2007 data, http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/ProcPrist/stalno.pdf, which do present the prevalence of Croats.
The fact that Bosniak parties perhaps have the majority can be explained by the fact that displaced persons are allowed to vote, but that doesn't mean that they're permanently settled in the town: for example, many could still live abroad. I'll enter the info with the proper source now. Duja► 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


IS THIS A JOKE OR WHAT?
That is a AGE/SEX demographics!
And the municipality of Jajce contains of 15 bosniaks and 10 croats. That is a 60-40 situation. Visca el barca 10:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, fixed the reference on the 2004 approximation subsection. Now it is correctly referenced. This reference does not concern sex or age, but nationality. DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter? Why did you revert, Duja? DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict, I was typing the explanation):

  • It's sourced from a forum on Jajce portal, not a reliable source
  • As Visca points out, I made a (honest) mistake in interpreting the reference: I had some 5-6 documents opened at the time, and mistook the by-age numbers in http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/ProcPrist/stalno.pdf for the ethnicity data
  • The other document I had was http://swordfish.altcontrol.nl:8096/FederationSwordsite/Federation/downloads/general_info_municipalities.pdf, and the data on Jajce portal come from that. However, note the URL: it's some web site in the Netherlands, and the said document cannot be found on the www.fzs.ba website. It appears genuine, but I can't explain why it isn't published on www.fzs.ba.
  • As Visca points out, there's huge discrepancy in a) 1991 census results, b) Election results and c) the said data. There are some 10,000 Bosniaks missing in the count. Perhaps they're all displaced across BiH and western countries, but it's quite a large number.
  • There's a discussion on the topic at http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=192444; it's not a reliable source either, but some apparently good-faith contributions there suggest that Visca is right.

In sum, I think we'd better be without data than with suspicious data. Duja► 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I see... Well, I suppose you're right then, sorry for reverting you. The estimate does really look genuine, though. As for the 10,000 missing Bosniacs, the city was taken over by Serbs after Bosniac/Croat fighting erupted in the town, in other words it was a HUGE mess so you can well expect that such a change could have occured (these are the Balkans, after all ;) . DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, it's messy: see this interview (before it expires from google cache, not sure what happened with the original) with Asim Kunić [2]:

„Povratak u Jajce se odvijao u tri faze. Prvo su ušli Hrvati, zatim jednim dijelom Bošnjaci – to je bio pilot projekat, koji je bio više provokativan, ljudi su se brojali maltene kao stoka, ko će doći, ko neće i tako dalje, tada se vratilo 200 familija. Treća faza je bila povratak ostalog dijela Bošnjaka, iz srednje Bosne. Bošnjaci iz Jajca su se većinom nalazili po srednjoj Bosni (Kakanj, Zenica, Travnik i Bugojno). Nakon toga se desio i povratak Srba.[...]

RSE: Koliko se ljudi vratilo u Jajce?

„Imamo 8.000 do 10.000 izbjeglica iz Jajca u skandinavskim zemljama. Među njima je najveći broj Bošnjaka. To su građani koje smo izgubili zauvijek, više ih nikada nećemo moći vratiti. Ja imam dvije sestre i brata koji su sada Šveđani i normalno da se neće nikada vratiti. Postali su turisti u svom vlastitom gradu. Jajčani srpske nacionalnosti se uglavnom nalaze u Brčkom i Banjaluci. Veći broj njih je prodao svoje stanove i kuće. Od ukupno 41.000 stanovnika, koliko je u Jajcu bilo prije rata, sada baratamo nekakvom cifrom od 28.000, sa selima. Nije više u pitanju bezbjednost, već ljudi sebi traže selameta u drugim gradovima – odlaze tražiti posao u Travniku, Bugojnu, Sarajevu… U pitanju je egzistencija. Što se tiče bezbjednosti, što se tiče slobode kretanja, tu više nema problema, ljudi sarađuju. Običan svijet hoće da živi zajedno. Postoji bezbroj primjera komšijske saradnje i u najtežim momentima povratka. Ljudi su željeli da se što prije vide, da što prije uspostave kontakt. Ali je politika odrađivala svoj dio posla – povratak je blokiran, određivan je broj koliko se familija može vratiti. U povratku je bilo zaista teških momenata.“

We'd better wait for a census or an official estimate. Duja► 11:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


(Interesting interview...) Yes, we'd better wait then... DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree not to put the 2004 approximations on the article even though it is on the Jajce website and the information is from the federal government. PS: I also noticed a ethnic map of bosnia on wikipedia which cleary says Croats are the majority in the Jajce municipality. Franjo r 02:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


That's just it, while it really probably is a government approximation, we can't confirm this. I personally really do think, based on current info, that Croats form the majority. However, I also think we really need to defuse this situation. In such controversial articles it is generally best only to include 100% verifiable census info. DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Croats do not form majority in Jajce.
First of all, I am from Jajce mr Franjo.
Second, we have the municipality election where bosniak parties got far more than 50 % of the votes.
Third, we have the "vijecnici" in the municipality where 15 out of 25 are ethnic bosniaks from three bosniak parties, SDP, SDA and SBIH. 15 out of 25 is 60 %. Visca el barca 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we should talk more about the first thing I wrote, is that I am in Jajce each summer and although my personal experience does not count as veriable source, then also that false source you posted are also not veriable.
I am in Jajce every summer! I know how things are! And the thing is that we do form majority, almost 60 %.
And the municipality election says everything! Visca el barca 15:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


First of all, your (as well as mine) personal experiences and oppinions are totally irrelevant in this matter.
Second, an election is very far indeed from a census, and cannot be counted as one in any context whatsoever.
Third, the numbers of the "vijećnici" are even less relevant than election results.
Relax, no unverifiable info will be included. You should really cool it with the "I'm from Jajce so what I say has to be right" attitude. Your (and mine) personal oppinions and experiences don't count at all. Wikipedia does not work that way, please understand. DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


But this franjo guy has the right to claim jajce as a croatian city without any proof or evidence? Visca el barca 20:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, to be frank, the evidence supporting the Croatian majority claim is somewhat stronger than Bosnian majority claim. Let's have an objective look at the matter:
The Bosnian majority claim has only the election results, wich simply cannot be counted as demographic info of any sort. Why?
1) Most importantly, it has nothing to do with the demographic situation and is therefore not acceptable by Wikipedia policy, (see WP:RS).
2) There are other nationalities in Jajce (Serbs, for example).
3) Emmigrants are allowed to vote, and there are many emmigrants from Jajce.
4) Croats could have (hypothetically) voted for Bosniac parties and vice versa.
5) Not everyone votes in the elections.
The Croatian majority claim has the Federal Government demographic approximation from the Jajce portal. Though as yet unverified, it does specifically refer to the demographic situation in 2004. DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


False, false and false!
The election result is indeed reliable source because not only that it clearly shows the current situation but it also shows the current trend in Jajce. For example in 1998 croatian parties got over 80 % of the votes, in 2002 croatian parties got around 60-65 % and in 2006 they got around 43-44 %.
That is very reliable and if you look at the izbori homepage you will se that barely anyone voted aboard.
And no, WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE CROATS FORM EVEN CLOSO TO 50 %.
Can you stop humiliating your nation by saying such thing? You lost control of Jajce and now it is clearly under absolutely total bosniak control and whatever we want now we will get in Jajce cause 60 % of the municipality is bosniak.
There will never ever be croatian flag in Jajce, never ever croatian symbols, never ever will Jajce in any mean be part of your nationalist campaign. You lost, its over now. Visca el barca 23:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, we have 440 votes that came from abroad, that is 2,2 % of all total vote. Which mean that even if everyone, of them were bosniak (which is highly not the case) then we bosniaks will go from 60 % of population to 58 %.
And as you see, it doesnt change anything. And NOT everybody abroad are bosniaks. Visca el barca 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I really don't know what to say... All I did was point out exactly why any elections are considered unreliable as demographic sources. And let me add another reason: 4) Not everyone votes in the elections. You did not disprove my reasons (except the second one), or add a new source. You instead proceded to insult me, and accuse me of spreading nationalist propaganda.
Let me clarify my position to the fullest extent: I consider the very existence of this meaningless dispute riddiculous and unnecessary since there is no census. I consider the entire Bosnian conflict (along with the one in Croatia) the outright stupidest war in the history of humanity. Never did people with cultures so simmilar proceed to massacre and severly impoverish each other so brutally for so little possible gain.
So you see, I honestly personally don't care who has the majority in Jajce, I am only trying to do my best to stop these conflicts, and improve Wikipedia to the best of my abilities, jasno? DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You clearly pointed out that the election is not at any time right way to compare with current demographics but then said that the franjo guy probably has right when he without any sources claimed Jajce as a croatian city.
That is nationalism.
And the war had nothing to do with culture, it was an all out war on Islam, where serbs from Serbia commited genocide on muslim albanians in kosovo, and serbs from serbia and bosnia commited genocide on bosniaks in eastern bosnia and Prijedor area of western bosnia while croats commited the worst crime ever made on a besieged city in Mostar, what croats made in Mostar in even worse than what serbs did in Sarajevo.
614 destroyed mosques in Bosnia, both cultural genocid and real genocid and you say it is same culture? Ha! Visca el barca 17:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


For the MILLIONTH time, he HAS a source: he has a Federal Government approximation source on the demographic situation from the Jajce, while you have nothing except (to be blunt) a worthless election result (WP:RS). That's why I think he's right, because his source is more believable, absolutely not beacuse I'm a Croat, FFS!
FYI, your religion is part of your culture. I am also fully aware of what happened during the war, thanks.
Read carefully, I did not say it is the same culture, I said the cultures are very simmilar. And that they undoubtably are. Or maybe you are of the oppinion you have more in common with the Arabs than other South Slavs?
Also, I hope you realise that the Serbs could have destroyed 1,000,000 mosques, and while that would be horrendous, it would not change the simmilarity your (and our) culture display. Are we talking about culture, or the horrible tents of war?
DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, yes we have more incommon with our arab brothers than other south slaves.
My source is very reliable, cause as I POINTED OUT CLEARLY, ONLY 420 VOTES ARE REGISTRATED ABROAD.
And that is 2,2 % of total votes which clearly shows that even if everyone who voted abroad were bosniaks, we are still over 55 % majority in Jajce. Visca el barca 22:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Arabs? :D LoL, if you say so... (your radical ethnic views appear to have deprived you of your objective reasoning)
Ok, but what about all the other reasons I listed for the unreliability of election results in detemining demographic facts:
1) Most importantly, elections have officially nothing to do with the demographic situation and are therefore not acceptable by Wikipedia policy, (see WP:RS).
2) There are other nationalities in Jajce (Serbs, for example).
3) Croats could have (hypothetically) voted for Bosniac parties and vice versa.
4) Not everyone votes in the elections.
DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1. Elections have much more to do with demographics fact than what croatian nationalists say without proofs.
2. No, serbs form around 1 % of the population in Jajce and this doesnt change anything. And thoose serbs who voted, they voted for serbian parties, not bosnian or croatian.
3. No, they dont. And bosniaks dont vote for croatian parties. And even if some would do that, it would be equall on both sides and nothing important would be changed.
4. No, but equal amount of croats and bosniaks vote in the election. Visca el barca 07:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, can you help me with the userboxes? Cause I want to have userboxes on my account but dont know how to do it. Visca el barca 07:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1) Like I stated about a million times, they HAVE proof.
2) How do you know this? (And even if they do 1% is more than enough.)
3) How can you be sure? (its a rethorical question, the elections are secret so you can't, really.)
4) LoL! I'm sure they do, how can you prove this?
I remind you that you're definetly NOT a reliable source.
Sure, you can read the Wikipedia:Userboxes, and Wikipedia:Babel articles for the basic info. Basically, you can make your own userboxes, or you can just add templates. If you have any specific questions, go ahead and ask. DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No they dont, they have no proof at all. That link they showed can only bee seen at jajceportal.net and nowhere else which makes the source completely not reliable. And there hasnt been any cencus nor government estimations, only croatian propaganda when HDZ were in power they had croatian flags on the fortress, on the streets and so on.
I know this because of the election result, and I am from Jajce and know that serbs form around 1 %
I am not sure, nothing is sure in the life. But why would 60 % bosniaks vote and 40 % croats vote?
As for the userboxes, can you just tell me fast how to make own userboxes? Visca el barca 09:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, as proved above, and as showed by the election result and its very reliable facts I am going to put the election result as a source for stating that bosniaks form majority in the municipality of Jajce.
Removal of this source or removal of this clear fact will be considered as vandalism. Visca el barca 09:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No you won't. It's already stated and sourced in the article, reference (4). Let the readers reach their own conclusions. And I don't find head-counting based on blood cells for the articles on municipalities particularly productive. You should also stop calling other good-faith editors vandals. Duja► 09:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know why, but I'll answer your "points" one more time:
While what you say is true, your source has nothing to do with demographics (an election is not scientific research) and theirs does. Anyway if you include yours, theirs should be included also.
You could be from Tokyo and I still wouldn't take your word for granted, will you get that allready!
I don't know, and neither do you, but it ia a very much present possibility!
Bosniaks could have hypothetically voted for Croatian paties and vice versa!
You proved absolutely nothing. Elections are not WP:RS for demographic info!!
I'm sure you'll consider it vandalism, but Wikipedia policy might disagree... Don't add it, it will start an edit-war.
DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Alright, however I am going to make my own municipality/demopraphic map today or tomorrow and then put it on wikipedia, replacing the old one.
I am doing this out of more than one reason, and the reasons is following:
1. Jajce as a majority bosniak city, where bosnian parties got 60 % of the votes deserves better then be listed along croat majority cities.
2. Cities like Mostar, Novi Travnik, Stolac, Vitez, Busovaca are ethnically divided, where non nation forms more than 55 % of the population, and those cities will be listed as yellow, as ethnicall divided.
In the case Mostar it will not be yellow cause the city is completely divided and not on any mean united, and I will make eastern Mostar bosniak and western Mostar croat.
3. Cities like Vares, Gornji Vakuf, Fojnica are bosniak, and bosniaks form 65 % which makes it just as bosniak as Sarajevo for example.
Visca el barca 12:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the completely false demographic map used today on Wikipedia shows Brcko as majority serb although the ethnical/entity line is no more in the District! It doesnt exist!
Then if it doesnt exist, then how can we have ethnical lines along the entity lines on the demographic map!
Thats why on my new demographic map the entire District Brcko will be yellow, as ethnical divided. Visca el barca 12:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your map will be based on your personal oppinion and it will be removed immediately (not just by me, mind you). You obviously refuse to acknowledge how Wiki functions. If you persist in causing edit-wars I'll see what the Admins can do about your edits. DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Vladimir Perics map is also ONLY BASED ON HIS PERSONAL OPINION. Visca el barca 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Don't add info without sources. You have no sources (forget the election). DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Peric doesnt have info or sources, he said it was based (wrongly) on the election result. Visca el barca 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its time to challenge this great serbian and croatian nationalism that occurs both in real life and in Wikipedia. Mostar, Jajce and other articles are beeing vandalised by nationalist muslimhaters who doesnt accept the fact that Jajce is Muslim, Mostar is Muslim and such. Terrible! Visca el barca 09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Visca, peace of advace. Try to be objective. O B J E C T I V E. You know, put yourself in others skin. Think. And try to give some proofs of your statments. Because, you are the one who is acting like vandal. Ceha 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Visca el barca (block log) Duja► 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Jajce and the Federation[edit]

First of all I want to point out to Ceha that you cant say that the Federation is dominated by bosniaks and croats while one of those compromise 80 % and the other 17 %. I have reverted that part.

As for Jajce, those estimates are not source at all, simply because you can only find them on the jajceportal site which have taken it from a non existant place. And if we go after those estimations then I can write that we bosniaks form absolute majority in the municipality of Jajce.

The only thing we can do is to wait for the census which by the way will not come before year 2030. Lets stick to whats official because if we are going for estimations, then we might as well go for the estimations that bosniaks as off 2007 forms 60 % of the populaion in Jajce.

Those informations comes from the election result and that is as off today the only source we got and since we know for sure that 70 % or even more off all votes that arrives from abroad are from Croatia then we also know that 70 % off the votes from abroad are croats voting for croat parties. This and the fact that bosniak parties got around 60 % of the votes clearly shows who is majority in both the city and municipality.

But as I pointed out early, we must stick to what is official and wait for the new census that will never happen because 57 % of the Bosnian parliament does not want a new census. Bosnianjustice (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federation is devided in 10 cantons/županijas. In 3 of them Croats are absolute majority, 2 of them are ethnichally mixed and in 5 of them Bosniaks forms majority. Federation is a Croat/Bosniak dominated enthity.

Elections are not argumentative for ethnical census (se the discusion from above). Which is the connection between jajce portal and official municipal portal? Ceha (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong!

In 6 of them bosniaks form majority, that is Una Sana canton, Tuzla canton, Zenica-doboj canton, Sarajevo canton, Gorazde canton and central bosnian canton. In central bosnian canton bosniaks form 65 % majority and if that isnt majority for you, than you have some problem.

And cantons have nothing to do with population or power. You know, 80 & of the parliament of the Federation is bosniak and thats the population too.

In Jajce official municipality portal as you point out, you can clearly see who is in charge and who is majority, why else whould 60 % of the municipality members be bosniak? Because croats didnt voted? Because many voted abroad? Bosnianjustice (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets talk credibility since you talk about that as a main reason for removal of sources. First of all lets talk about central bosnian canton government.

65 % of the government of that canton as you reffer to as mixed is bosniak. Why? Is it because croats dont vote?

As an answer to that is that they do vote just as much as bosniaks do.

And as for the vote abroad I can surely say that 70 % of the votes in Jajce for example abroad comes from Croatia and that says everything.

This is the same for both Jajce and Central bosnia canton.

Jajce is bosniak majority and central bosnia canton is bosniak majority and not mixed as you say. Bosnianjustice (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia policy data from election's isn't valid as ethnical data. So all of your conclusions are wrong:D At the time of making the Federation (1994) 2 cantons were planned as mixed. Central-bosnian and Herzegovina-Neretvan. To my knowledge there were no amadmans on Federation constitution which changed that. And as for Jajce, wikipedia is not a place for making your own "conclusions". Please stick to the official data, according to wikipedia policy. If something has changed will see that in the next census>:) Ceha (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The thing is that you are the one who are putting up demographics without sources despite the fact that it isnt official. And when I say majority bosniak canton then I mean majority and if we form 65 % then we are majority and thats it. Central Bosnia canton can not be mixed if somebody form clear and absolute majority.

It is the same with the Federation, it is only a Federation by name, since there are 3 contitutional groups in the entity and one of them forms 80 % of the population and have the power in all federal institutions. Bosnianjustice (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There are territories (cantons) in federation in which one of the nations has majority(or which are mixed). Bosniacs don't form majority in the whole territory of Federation. Mixed cantons were formed as a means to prevent those majorisation.
Somebody could make 99,99 % of population of one country and live in just one city. Other nation could make 0,01% percent of the country and live in the entire rest off the country. That country would still be binational.
Central Bosnian canton is mixed according to the federal constitution. Google it out.
And please do not mantra more about your estimation of bosniac percantage in the city of Jajce or Central Bosnian canton without some proofs. This is an encyclopediae. Not forum. Ceha (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well serbs dont form majority on the whole territory of Republika Srpska either.

However Central Bosnia canton is not a mixed canton, it is a multikultural canton where there are 3 contitutional nations which means that serbs have the same status as croats since both of them are constitutional and are populationaly a minority.

Dont forget that according to the law croats in the Federation have the same status as croats in Republika Srpska. Bosnianjustice (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Bosnia is according to its contitution mixed canton. Category population minority does not exist in those constitutions. Ceha (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITS CONSTITUTION STATES =

3 CONSTITUTIONAL PEOPLE IN CENTRAL BOSNIA CANTON

Do you get it now? Do you?

So according to you the entire Bosnia is mixed. Bosnianjustice (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to put this in simpler words, maybe you re going to understand it then.

  • Central Bosnian canton is made up of 12 municipalities which are ether with Bosniacs majority (5 of them; Donji Vakuf, Bugojno, Uskoplje, Travnik and Fojnica) or Croat majority (other 7 municipalities). There are no Serb majority municipalities in the canton.
  • Saying that Central Bosnian canton (while in it are municipalities with Croat majority) is exclusivly Bosniac canton is equal as saying that Herzegovina-Neretva canton is exclusivly Croat (while in it are bosniac municipalities as Konjic or Jablanica)

Anything clearer to you? And who saw yelling in the encyclopediae pages? Ceha (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks form majority in Jajce too, either you forgot that or you are simply a stupid croat.

And in Herzegovina Neretva canton you forgot East Mostar which is bosniak majority too.

And we are going for whats official and whats written in the constitution. Central bosnia canton is not a mixed canton it is a bosniak majority canton with 3 constitutional groups.

And croats dont form majority in 7 municipalities in central bosnia, they form majority in 5 municipalities. Dobretici (which btw practically doesnt exist), Vitez, Busovaca, Kiseljak and Kresevo. In Novi Travnik it is equally divided. Bosnianjustice (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a census or report from some goverment agency which says so? To repeat once again, elections are not valid demografic data. Eastern Mostar is part of Mostar municipality in which Croats form majority. Similar to villages around Nova Bila in Travnik municipality. Cb canton is a mixed canton. Please give me some source if you wish to claim otherways. Btw, for a thousand time let me repeat you. This is an encyclopediae. Not a place to insult somebody, or its nationality. If you're going to break this rule you'll be reported to the moderators. Ceha (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are the one who are writing unsourced articles and as for what you said about Mostar, not only is it untrue, since croats form less than 50 % of the Mostar municipality, but also without any source or evidence.

Can you provide absolutely any evidence croats are majority in Mostar? Can you? I have the election to go after, what have you? Nothing?

If you are continuing you are to be reported.

As for Travnik thats riddicilous, the entire municipality in muslim, all the way from Turbe to Vlasic mountain, to the city Travnik, to Dolac na lasvi and Gluha bukovica.

Once again, I have at least the election to go after, you have nothing. Nothing at all. Bosnianjustice (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please report me. I haven't broke any of the wikipedia rules. As for Mostar and Travnik, google it out. If I had links to any official data about them I've would puted them on theirs pages. To repeat again (thousand and one time:) this is not a forum, nor a place for a speculations. According to wikipedia policy elections are not valid for evaluation of demographic data. Ceha (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, mainly because its the only thing we got to go after but also its credibility.

We all know now that bosniaks are majority in Jajce and even the croats there know it since they are so heavily moving out of the city to live in Croatia. Bosnianjustice (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediae is not a place for personal conclusions or investigations. And according to its [3] election results are not valid for demographic data. Ceha (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what? I feel so proud to the fact that bosniaks for majority in Jajce and other places. You can say whatever you want, but the elections doesn lie. Simply as that.

Especially considering the fact that 70 % of the votes abroad came from Croatia. And this is not what I made up, this is what it says in www.izbori.ba site. Bosnianjustice (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. This is not a place for toasing out your private emotions. This is an encyclopedie, for the thousand and one time again:) And you should try to check official data for your status:) Ceha (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only official facts we have to go after is the election.

You lose in every way. Bosnianjustice (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Than go to some forum were your "facts" are going to be recognized. And for losing and wining, I would strongly recomened you to find a job:) Ceha (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal elections of 2004 in Jajce[edit]

I founded resaults on one forum (there are not valifaded data for article, but are good for talk;). HDZ-33,23% (9) SDA-31,20% (9) SDP-14,31% (4) SBIH-9,09% (2) HSS/NHI-4,39% (1) It will be also interesting to see this years electional resaults from the same town. In Jajce 6 426 people woted, from that 470 in emmigration and of that persons 416 (8% of electional body) was Bosniacs by nacionality. Ceha (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. What do you want to say? -- j.budissin (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Wait a minute...Jajce...isn't that slang for balls?

Jaje... "eggs". -- j.budissin (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where I am from jajce is slang for balls. Croatian/Serbian slang for testicles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.57.202 (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it makes sense to answer yourself? Do you have a question or not? -- j.budissin (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if this slang is used anywhere and if people in the town know this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.57.202 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jasenovac?[edit]

What in the world has Jasenovac got to do with Jajce." People from Jajce were sent to Jasenovac - And". It's like saying Croats & Serbs were killed or converted to islam in Jajce during the ottoman era-is this really relevant. The whole Jasenovac sentence should be erased as it has no purpose. This also can't be veryfied as Tito communists drew on their own conclusions about Jasenovac. I want to know about Jajce -The town the people the culuture and not some Serbian mythical belief to discredit the proud people of Jajce BiH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 14:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism section[edit]

Small point, but I don't think the roads to Jajce are poor (travelled there last week from Travnik by bus). There's a lot of hairpin bends, admittedly, but in terms of road surface quality, lack of potholes etc that road was a lot better than the roads where I live in England! PS Forgot to sign... The Old Trout (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jajce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 04:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jajce&oldid=1207781861"