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.
Status: Introduction and geography are done. Now to do history. I should finish it up fairly quickly, but I have in mind splitting it into a series of "History of Sarajevo" articles. I'll probably do that. But first just the basics of history, which should be done fairly quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Led (talk • contribs) 09:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This page could use a good going over. Too much history, and not enough about contemporary life
User:Alcarillo 19:53 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What the heck? This is an encyclopedia article, and you want to trim the history? Contemporary life needs some mention of course, but there's a likelihood of POV with that. However, the history is vital. Ambivalenthysteria 05:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I meant that the balace was too much on history. For example, there is nothing about the city architecture (both historical and modern), postwar developments, tourism, culture or economics. I think that's far more important than the historical sketch which takes up half the article. Of course, there are going to be POV issues with just about anything written about this place, which is why the good folks here will probably keep an eagle eye on it. But as the article stands now, it's of little value, and certainly doesn't do this remarkable city justice. Look at Zagreb and you'll see what I mean. User:Alcarillo 15:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) edt bla blah bla
As the person responsible for the present layout of Sarajevo article - I fully agree with Alcarillo. I however don't have the time or knowledge to do that. Article on architecture IMO needs to be scientific and substantiated and personally I'm not into architecture, I'm a computers guy myself ;) There needs to be a section on culture and cultural events (Sarajevo Film Festival, Sarajevo Winter, Jazz Festival etc.) but it also needs some thought and time.
I read your discussion and agreed. I then spent two weeks working on an article for Sarajevo, and the June 24th version of this page is what I've come up with. Sarajevo is my hometown and, in my opinion, the greatest city in the world. I hope this page sattisfies those who wanted a better article for Sarajevo. My goal was to make it better than the page for New York City. It should also be noted that I wrote the articles for the two suburbs, four municipalities, and the history of Sarajevo main article. I thank Vedran and past contributors for establishing the core of the current article.
Everyone, how hard is it to use good photos of Sarajevo represent the city on this page? The ones that are up here are absolutely terrible in quality and utterly unflattering to the beauty that Sarajevo represents. Please do not remove the photos I am about to post because I take I take quality of the photos in a serious light. User:Zyklonic 19:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The alleged ethnic cleansing
Among the more controversial topics regarding the siege of Sarajevo is the alleged ethnic cleansing that took place at the time. Namely, after several years in the 1990s characterised by denial of the widely held view of the Serb role in the Yugoslav wars, a trend has developed in the 2000s where Serb nationalists have attempted to draw Bosniak and Croat parallels to such infamous examples of attrocities as Banja Luka and Srebrenica. Regarding Sarajevo, the typical claim is that between 1992 and 1995, 150,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Sarajevo, with several thousand killed. The allegations were brought to the media forefront in early 2005 when the premier of Republika Srpska, Pero Bukejlović, claimed that genocie was committed against Serbs during the siege of Sarajevo that exceeded that of the Srebrenica massacre.
Such claims are, upon careful analysis, fairly easy to refute. First of all, the often cited number of 150,000 ethnically cleansed Serbs is impossible, considering that there were only around 150,000 Serbs in Sarajevo. For such ludicrous claims to be true, every single Serb in the entire Sarajevo region would had to have been ethnically cleansed. The mere existance of some 40.000 Serbs in the Sarajevo area today refutes this. Furthermore, the number of killed and wounded in the siege of Sarajevo has been carefully documented. Out of 12,000 people killed, around one fourth were ethnic Serbs or people of Serbian ancestry. Taking into account civilian and military deaths, the number of Serbs killed is relatively proportional to the percent of the Sarajevo population they made up at the time.
Asides from these documented victims there were, according to the international red cross[1], only 242 ethnically Serb missing persons in the Sarajevo area. Granted this is a significant number nontheless, but when it's taken into account that the number of missing persons for various towns in East Bosnia is in the thousands, the popular nationalist claim is proven baseless. Furthermore, the ability of the bosnian government to stage a genocide of such a magnitude while under siege and being perpetually bombarded is highly questionable. The Hague has yet to make any accusations for individuals that had a role in the alleged Sarajevo genocide, which cannot be said of most major centers of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Commander Musana Topalovic Cace did commit crimes against Sarajevo citizens in 1993, but he was quickly liquidated by the government. Certainly it is plausible that some Serbs were ethnically cleansed, but more than likely these were isolated incidents and not a consequence of direct government action or strategy. Tellingly, though hundreds of mosques in Republika Srpska were demolished, no orthodox church was harmed during, or following, the siege of Sarajevo.
Of course the question remains; what happened to the 100,000+ Serbs who are no longer in the city? It must be noted that following the siege of Sarajevo the population of the city had srunk by around 250,000 people, meaning that besides Serbs 150,000 former citizens of Sarajevo of different ethnicities were also no longer there. Ethnic cleansing had certainly occured in areas of the city held by Serb radicals; Ilidza, for example, had 9 detention camps for non-Serbs. It is no secret that Karadzic's intention was to split the city into two at a point that would have required the ethnic cleansing of over 150,000 Bosniaks and Croats. Once the war was over and Sarajevo firmly in the hands of the Bosniak-Croat federation, it is understandable that many Serbs would not have wanted to stay in a city where they would have been viewed with suspicion and been a clear minority. In the communities of Grbavica and Ilidza, seized by Serb radicals during the siege, Serbs looted and destroyed what was left of the area to make life harsher for returning Bosniak and Croat refugees. Upon the return of the ethnically cleansed, the remaining Serb community was harrased and looked upon with suspicion, pushing many more to leave the city as well[2]. Thousands of the Serbs who had left the city by then went to what is today "East Sarajevo", a politically distinct Sarajevo suburb that in reality is virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the city and home to a couple dozen thousand Serbs. Leading up to the siege itself, the Serb forces surrounding the city had allowed many Serb citizens to leave while forcing members of other nationalities to stay behind.
Today, Sarajevo citizens of all nationalities generally take accusations of ethnic cleansing in Sarajevo during the war as a highly offensive insult. In response to premier Bukejlovic's statement, many have demanded a public apology to all Sarajevo citizens. The president of the Serb citizens council/Citizen's movement for equality, Mirko Pejanovic, stated that "Nobody, not even Bukejlovic, can change or cover up the truth for the sake of current political needs. In Sarajevo, during the four year siege carried out by Karadzic's military forces and the SDS, there were deaths of Sarayliyas of all ethnicities. The people were both suffering and dying from hunger, cold, they were being killed by mortar shells... among the 12,000 killed Sarayliyas recorded in the war, at least one fourth were members of the Serb nation or had Serb ethnic ancestry. Thus, we can not talk of an extermination or genocide of Serbs, but of a responsibilty of the SDS and Karadzic's military forces for the overall extermination of Sarajevo and Sarayliyas, and within that of the Serb people" Asim Led 20:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Alleged" ?
Have some respect when you write. Hitler denied his crimes and so did the Chetniks. Ask my family who was in the city if it was "alleged". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.184.239 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Fact Check?
This article seems to have more people watching it, so I'm going to ask here. An anonymous user recently changed the populations on the List of cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, changing Sarajevo's population rather drastically. I see no rational for the changes, but I don't want to just *assume* vandalism when I have no personal knowledge of the situation. Could someone who knows better than I do have a look? Thanks. MBlume 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
sarajevo my home
i love what i've done with the article ;-)
now the world will see sarajevo's beauty, not 'political magazines' or war damage
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosna 101 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
religion (4.1)
could someone please fix what i tried doing? in section 4.1 (demographics.. religion) i put up 4 pictures next to each other, but i noticed if i go to a higher resoultion (e.g. 1152X852).. then the ECONOMY section bounces up to the right of the 4 pictures.. how do i make it so ECONOMY section stays below ALL 4 pictures?
In terms of ordering of sections, I believe WP:MOS suggests See Also, Notes, References, followed by External links last.
The website of the city is listed in References as well as External links. I believe anything listed as a Reference is not also listed in External links.
Twin cities is wikilinked in the heading: I think WP:MOS says to avoid that. It should probably have a main article template.
Great, thanks. Joelr31 took care of this. What else can be done to change the remove notes on the FARC? --Maintain 06:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Sarajevotramway.JPG
What is going on with Image:Sarajevotramway.JPG? I'm getting "no file exists", but it renders here without a problem. Is this some sort of bug? Jkelly 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is fine on my end, but all the links are suddenly underlined. Maybe a developer is experimenting with the codes. --Maintain 03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Must have been something like that, as it is now rendering properly for me as well. Jkelly 15:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
On population
The Federation government source is NOT VERIABLE! You say that Sarajevo has 308 000 citizen just because the Federal government is saying that.
But the federal government is also saying that Cazin has more citien than Bihac????
They are also saying that VELIKA KLADUSA has more citizen than Sanski most!?!?!?!?!?!?
I suggest to remove this source cause it is not veriable.
For you who doesnt know the difference between Velika Kladusa and Sanski most, please look up it on Google and you will se that Velika kladusa is not a bigger city than Sanski most. Thunderman 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Sound
Anyone care to record an .ogg of the local pronounciation as many other cities have? --Joffeloff 21:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I made a spoken wikipedia article for this article[3]. However, I uploaded it to wikipedia commons as many people have advocated, and the given procedures for linking to a Spoken Wikipedia article don't take that into account. If someone can educate me on how to link to it here and there and within the article that would be great. My regrets to any people from the Balkans who Balk at my garbled pronunciation, I tried my best :( Dan Carkner 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect information added to the first few sections
Kahriman, you told me to "check again" so I did. Once again, I'm reverting the page because virtually all the changes added since my last edit to that part of the article have been incorrect. "Olympic City" was a semi-notable designation, but it's not the most popular nickname; the European Jerusalem and Rajvosa are just two that are far more deserving. The city of Sarajevo is NOT part of Republika Srpska because this article and that infobox deal with the OFFICIAL city of Sarajevo - a political territory exclusively within the Federation of BiH. All the various numbers and statistics are flat-out false because the originals were obtained from the official city of Sarajevo website - it is incredibly exasparating to see random IP adresses super-sizing Sarajevo's "estimated" population to wild figures such as 800,000 and I'd strongly suggest protecting the page from anonymous users. The line about Herzegovina sometimes being spelled with a C is completely irrelevent and doesn't deserve mention in an article on Sarajevo. Live Forever 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Missing photo?
What happened to that great photo of Sarajevo at night? This one is lame, plus it looks too big. Also, the photo of a synagogue is from war. Since than it has been completely reconstructed (it is even different colour). And that is the ugliest representation of ćevapi I have ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.33.93 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. Some Wikipedia members believe that there are copyright issues (Most likely true...) with the nice image of Sarajevo during nighttime.
Correct, that image of "ćevapi" has to be changed... :P Thanks, Vseferović 14:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Google Earth - Sarajevo
Can I use satelite photo of Sarajevo taken from Google Earth? Other folks used in in Belgrade article, I think it's a good idea. Any objections? Bosniak 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The one at Belgrade seems to come from NASA. Surely there would be copyright issues with a Google one? Cordless Larry 12:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Kkbosna.gif
Image:Kkbosna.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Olimpiksarajevo.GIF
Image:Olimpiksarajevo.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
One Question
BiH Parliament Building's reconstruction completed this year. Does anyone know, when will the government move into this building? They are still using different building on different location. I wonder, when will the BiH Parliament Building again begin to be used by our government?Bosniak 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Can anybody answer my question, I am still waiting for an answer??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniak (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are still decorating the interior and I am expecting that they will enter the building by the end of this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.143.54 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! The building is beautiful considering that it looked like this, click here to seeBosniak 05:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I live in Sarajevo. It is beautiful, although it could be more beutiful (it has weird glass).
Stop non-constructive deletions
Don't delete huge chunks of Sarajevo article without first discussing it. Bosniak 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Not I was that who deleted without discussing, you was that! I just reorganized bad picture placing. In History there is no need some very big picture about temples, but that picture (Image:Evstafiev-sarajevo-building-burns.jpg|thumb|200px|left|The parliament building in the centre of Sarajevo burns after being hit by tank fire during the siege in 1992.) what I place here about historyyou deleted (without first discussing). It a bad edition and I undid it. --Beyond silence 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with you? You are constantly reverting to YOUR version of the article. This is collaborative work. If you have something to ADD, then ADD it, don't revert to your version over and over again. DO NOT remove Jewish Synagoge. What do you have against Jewish Synagoge? Her place is next to Catholic Cathedral and Muslim Mosque and your constant removals of Synagoge are not helping the article at all. Bosniak 00:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It placed to the gallery. If you want place the gallery after the history, do it. But there is no enough place to four pictures about temples, because I take here a histical picture. WHY DO YOU DELETE IT? Not attack me, I am not delete your work, but you deleting my picture. The temples not close to theme of the Histroy, why need these picture at big size here? Please don't holler with me, but honor other's opinion, and think. "This is collaborative work. "
Your revision makes worsen the article, and I will undid it. Think about what I wrote, not write again your empty words! --Beyond silence 01:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:307514940 7ac3e8aa14-1-.jpg
Image:307514940 7ac3e8aa14-1-.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
That -29.2C of January 1963 is wrong ! I had corrected it few times, and there is still somebody who put it again.
-29.2C was recorded on the top hills of Sarajevo, not in Sarajevo.
The REAL absolute min. is -26.4C of January 1942...all other lower temperatrues were taken well outside the city,including the -29C of February 1929 and the -33C of january 1901. -26.4C is out of question the REAL lowest. I have checked all stations around Sarajevo since their forst observation up today. Please don t change it again. This is the correct value. Maximiliano H. www.mherrera.org/temp.htm
The History section is far from neutral and reads more like Serbian propaganda (in the section regarding to the Wars of Yugosla Dissolution). It needs to be rewritten immediately if any scrape of the truth is to be presented here. Wikipedia is not the place to spread political messages, it is a place to spread a neutral version of fact. Get a blog for political expression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAWGunner89 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Pavaroti, "Miss Sarajevo", Richard Geer, Anderson Cooper and all celebrities needs to be mentioned on Sarajevo page!
These are just a few, please list all celebrities who visited Sarajevo and are in love with Sarajevo!
Pavaroti, "Miss Sarajevo" song, Richard Geer ( movie ), David Coperfield, Anderson Cooper ( CNN ) and these are only some.
Please list all movies, songs, artists, actors, famous scholars and celebrities ... and have a section on this with celebrity and known names including Nobel prize winners etc.
Signature: Sarajevo --71.194.34.77 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Population
The article states that the population as of December 2006 is 602,500 but the document that is cited for this figure gives the canton population as 418,891. Am I missing something? Cordless Larry 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the statistic to 418,891 for now, noting that this is the population for the entire canton. If anyone has a more accurate figure, please add it with a proper citation. Cordless Larry
This is the population data for the canton:
KANTON SARAJEVO 418,891
CENTAR 70,228
HADŽIĆI 22,089
ILIDŽA 52,290
ILIJAŠ 17,533
NOVI GRAD 122,636
NOVO SARAJEVO 73,297
STARI GRAD 37,975
TRNOVO 2,184
VOGOŠĆA 20,659
According to http://www.sarajevo.ba/en/stream.php?kat=78 the city is composed of Old City (Stari Grad), Center (Centar), New City (Novi Grad) and New Sarajevo (Novo Sarajevo). Adding those up gives a total of 304,136, but I'm not sure about the city definition, so some help would be appreciated. Cordless Larry 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to hell Larry. I've been working on this article on/off for months, and every time it's the same thing: anonymous editors come in, disregard present sources, and inflate the population figures by several hundred thosuands for no reason. It's been a while so I can't tell you what the population really is, but if you just go back to my last edit you should see the pre-vandalism figure. Live Forever 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm ready to take action, so let me know whenever it reoccurs and I'll semiprotect the page and/or block the respective culprit/s. Thx. El_C 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Who the f**k edited the population. Since when did Sarajevo' had more than 700 thousand inhabitants!?? DO NOT PUT LAME AND UNTRUE FACTS LIKE THAT, BECAUSE ITS BULLS**T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silventus (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Urban stereotypes
I wonder if the sentence "If one were to describe the stereotypes of Sarayliyas in one word, it would be cosmopolitan. Sarayliyas are known for being modern cultured city dwellers. Bosnians from outside Sarajevo are thought to have the sense that Sarajevo receives too much attention, but this is more of a sibling rivalry than an actual dislike for Sarajevo and its people." really belongs in there. I am not saying that it is true or untrue, having never visited Bosnia myself. However I don't think it really adds anything the article, especially since the same thing could be said of any capital city in the world, and it is not part of an encyclopedic style text.
I agree with UnHoly. This can be said of most other large cities. I removed the text. --Maintain 08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It is partly true. Most Bosnians consider Sarajlijas different from the rural majority who come from small towns, villages; where life is centered around the farm. People from Sarajevo are seen as snobs, stuck up, basically like the "elitists" of Bosnia.
I don't know if you should add that back in, but there is some truth to that, ask any Bosnian what they think they'll say something like that.
(in bosnian)
Građani Kantona Sarajevo izabrali su Baščaršiju, kompleks Begove džamije, Hadži Sinanovu tekiju, staru pravoslavnu crkvu, kompleks Careve džamije, Vijećnicu te Ali-pašinu džamiju za sedam čuda kulturno-materijalnog nasljeđa, objavio je jučer Međunarodni odbor glavnih gradova kulture. Glasala su 8.434 građana KS, a Baščaršija je dobila najviše - 2.726 glasova.
Should this be included in the article? Daysroad (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Population (2)
There is a slow burn edit war at this article regarding population. WTF is going on? Can we have reliable sources for the statistics please. This silly back-and-forth reverting is a waste of everyone's time. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The 419,030 figure is referenced, with the source being the Federal Office of Statistics of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That would seem to be a reliable source to me. Most of the editing is by IPs or single-purpose accounts and involves changing the first three digits - such as 419,030 to 800,030 - which as far as I can tell is vandalism rather than being based on another source. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Thanks Larry. I've been seeing this number going up and down for weeks, and being too lazy to check I imagined it was some dispute about metropolitan vs. municipal area, the usual kind of stuff. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No. If only we had that sort of data! Cordless Larry (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Spot Satellite
Why are we using an image of Sarajevo made by "Spot Satellite"? Why don't we use a screenshot of Google Earth? Just download Google Earth for the best resolution, zoom in, take a screenshot, upload, and bam! Here you go. Bosniak (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
error
With an area of 493 square miles (1,280 km2), Sarajevo has a population density of about 2,173 inhabitants per square kilometre (5,630 /sq mi)
This is wrong, because it would mean, that sarajevo has 2781440 inhabitants. --MrBurns (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The name Herzegovina was added by Otto Von Bismarck at the congress of Berlin
The kingdom of Bosnia was named the Kingdom of Bosnia. The Bosnian vojvoda Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca refused to accept ottoman rule in his part of the bosnian kingdom and held out for another 19 years after the rest of bosnia fell to Sultan Fatih. For his resistance, he was given a title of Herzog (duke) by the Austro-Hungarian empire. in 1482, Kosaca fell to the advancing army of Sultan Bayazit and his Ottoman army.
I think that Von Bismarck's goal was the Austro-Hungarian goal of denying the existence of the Bosnian nation (with the 1907 denial of bosnian nationlity and outlawing of the bosnian script(ottoman (arabic)) by decree. Hungary was known for its hegemonial actions towards other slavic countries and it tried to convert the bosnians into croats instead of their usual hungarian. von bismarck's other goal was to totally eliminate Bosnia's access to the sea so that the Ottoman's couldn't return. That's why Lika and Dalmatia (which were ethnically cleansed of about 3 million bosnians from those areas directly to Ottoman turkey where around 5 to 6million descendants from bosnia live today) were given to the croats and why Von Bismarck gave the Sanjak of Yeni pazar and the Bosnian seaside that they call Montenegro today. Bar, Podgorica (capital of Montenegro), niksic, Yeni Herceg, Boka Kotorska, and other bosnian cities were given to the Kingdom of Montenegro by Von Bismarck again so that the Turks wouldn't be able to return by sea on the other side of Bosnia since Lika and Dalmatia were already cleansed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.92.167 (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding External Links
There is a link for "Sarajevo's Official News Portal", which is NOT an official site of the city of Sarajevo. This should be deleted ASAP because it's false and misleading. Many other sites listed are either not relevant or seem more like advertising. Mujanovic (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding External Links
There is a link for "Sarajevo's Official News Portal", which is NOT an official site of the city of Sarajevo. This should be deleted ASAP because it's false and misleading. Many other sites listed are either not relevant or seem more like advertising. Mujanovic (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Offical website
I have removed two websites from external links because they claim they are offical websites and offical news website of Sarajevo.
Only one offical news and only one offical website of City of Sarajevo is www.sarajevo.ba - I reviewd this two websites and I can confirm there is no relevant news or any another information which could be considered as offical. My claim is that this to websites are spam!
--Bazillian (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The images are tagged and no non-free images, See Comments below for point b.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: – Plarem(Usertalkcontribs) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Note: Most important comments are in red.
Picture comments
File:Alta Shopping Sarajevo outside.jpgShopping mall or shopping centre/center? The file beside this text, it is marked as 'Alta shopping mall...' Shouldn't it be 'Alta shopping centre...' or 'Alta shopping center...' if following American English?
6th picture in the same gallery, it should be St.Joseph's Cathedral instead of 'St.Joseph Cathedral'
First picture of Sarajevo#History fails the WP:CAP MoS guideline. It does not say from when is the pot and where was it found. That way it does not provide relevance to the topic. It should be " A typical Butmir vase, from around (when?) and found/excavated (where?).
Fourth picture on the left, provides no explanation to why the picture is there. It says: 'The old town, "Stari Grad".' It should say: 'Some scholars think that the ancient city of Vrhbosnia was located on the site of the old town, in Bosnian called "Stari Grad".'
5th picture on the right in Sarajevo#History says: 'Sarajevo summer night 2011'. How does that provide relevance to the topic?
It is in the sub-section Sarajevo#History, but it is a picture of Sarajevo in 2011!
I propose that it should be indefinitely deleted from the article or moved into a more relevant spot.
The only picture on the left in Sarajevo#Bosnian War has one detail missing, it does not say in which area in Sarajevo the picture was taken.
First picture on the right in Sarajevo#Bosnian War does not say in what year the picture was taken and which graveyard in Sarajevo the was taken.
The first pictures on the left and on the right in Sarajevo#Geography do not say when (in what year) the picture was taken.
The next two pictures do not give relevance to the topic. The captions of those pictures only give the name of the most important things in the picture, not where it is (the most important feature), OR the year it was taken in.
I am still looking at the picture gallery and I have found incompliance with WP:OVERLINK. It specifically says:
Avoid linking plain English words.
Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, nations, languages, religions, and common professions.
As a rule of thumb, link on first reference only.
I have written down the first one because that almost always comes up in GA Reviews, so please find that if you can before I find it...
Look for the second one also before I find it...
The third one is down there because in the picture gallery, you have Baščaršija linked four times in a row, but not the fifth time, so please get that fixed.
In Sarajevo#Education, 'elementaries' is spelt wrong. That is just elementary my dear.
Is this article written in British English or American English? It has British English words AND American English words. Please choose one type of English and stay with it.
Sarajevo#Etymology has NO CITATIONS AT ALL. Please find reliable sources to that section.
I am going to add [citation needed] tags to where citations are needed. I am going to do it bit by bit, so please be patient.
Other
Geography Also, the whole section does not have a single reference! There are some stray images and that should be fixed.
History. More inline citations are necessary (there are some paragraphs without them) and prose could use some WP:MOS fixes (improper italicizing of settlement names). There are also redundancies: "It is estimated that of the more than 12,000 people who were killed and the 50,000 who were wounded during the siege, 85% of the casualties were civilians." and a misplaced gallery.
Government. Again, referencing. There is only one reference in four paragraphs.
Economy. GDP? Average salary? Some major points are missing. Referencing?
FAIL – Ever since I started this review, no one cared about improving this article, I have left loads of recommendations (none of them done during the review) and off I go! – Plarem(Usertalkcontribs) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
FA excerpt
This doesn't appear in the main article, but on the "featured article" except it says that Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by "Serbian agents." He was killed by a lone nut gunman, and although other would-be assassins made their own attempts that day, each was acting alone. - TJSwoboda 03:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Somebody added that to make it fit better on the front page. I agree its pointless, and it looks almost pov to have Serbs mentioned that way twice on the front page. Im going to go remove it. Asim Led 04:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-Well Prinzip was a member of Young Bosnia which was sponsored by the Serbian intelligence agency, he got his weapons and training there. So yes, he was assassinated by Serbian agents as was freely admitted by him and his co-conspirators.92.36.178.209 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Why was it necessary to translate Sarajevo on English page into a Cyrillic and add prefix Serbian? (Serbian Cyrillic: Сарајево)
Why was it necessary to translate Sarajevo on English page into a Cyrillic and add prefix Serbian? Please remove it totally.
Or are we going to translate Sarajevo and write it in arabic, turkish, latin, croatian, albanian as well? Sarajevo is multi-ethnic European city.
Readers are tired of Serbian prefixes on every single page in ex-Yu. Unless of course administrators of this page are "again" Serbs so they control the entire region of EX - YU on Wikipedia.
It's an ex for a reason. Please delete (Serbian Cyrillic: Сарајево) it looks stupid and pro-serb natioanlistic as usually.
Signature: Sarajevo --71.194.34.77 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree totally. If it is written in another's country language (Serbia) why not then to be translated also in Greek? In Arabic? Or any other? Is at least rediculous this to exists. Also, why the main picture changed? The current one is bit ugly, not to say is old. At least, Sa, as most beautifull Balkan city, has plenty of beautifull images, and im sure u can find or even take one (as i did in my trip last summer on Sarajevo).
Seeing what Serbs did to this city and its citizens (of every nationality and religion), i regret i called myself christian... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.249.187 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Who is rensponsible for this page, is asked to remove (Serbian: Сарајево). Is at least provokating. Replace it totally, or change it to (Cyrillic: Сарајево), though i dont see any reason for this...
Maybe due to the fact that Serbian language is one of the OFFICIAL languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina in which Sarajevo is the capital city?
Also, Cyrillic script is one of two scripts of the Bosnian language. Mujanovic (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It's "Cyrillic," not "Serbian Cyrillic." Do you write the name of New Orleans in "American Latin?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.178.209 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Bosnia was not any Multi Cultural State ever in its history
Bosnia was either a bogumil state or a muslim state in it's history. All three Roman Catholic churches in Sarayevo were built during Austro-Hungarian occupation as were 90% of serbian churches in the country as well. Bosnia was made into this multi cultural thing that you talk about after Serbs and Croats were given free bosnian land by Agrarian reforms of the Kindom of Serbs, Croats, & Slovenes, Kingdom of yugoslavia, independent state of croatia, yugoslavia. Land was taken from the Bosnian and given for free to Serb and Croat peasants from Serbia and Croatia. There are over 15,000 mosques in bosnia with less than 50 Serbian Churches, less than 20 Roman Catholic churches, and 1 jewish synagogue turned into a museum.
I don't like how people here invent history. prior to Austro-Hungarian occupation in 1867, there were 2 Roman Catholic churches in the entire state of Bosnia from Split to Bar. If Serbs and Croats lived in Bosnia prior to the Agrarian reforms, where are their churches? Ottomans are known not to have destroyed any churches during their rule so where are the churches. The Crimea part of the Ukraine has over 350 churches and it was under Russian Communism from 1914. Russian communism was much more hardline than was Yugoslav and the popullation of the Crimea and Bosnian Serbs and Croats are very similar if we can believe the Bosnian census. where are the churches? I would appreciae it if people here would stop inventing history because it's absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.92.167 (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Bosnia has less than 70 churches!? Sarajevo and its surroundings alone has about that many. And you can visit many centuries old churches all over Bosnia. I doubt you'd be interested, though.
Catholics and Orthodox Christians lived in Bosnia since the early middle ages alongside bogumils and later Muslims, so how can you claim that Bosnia was not a multi-cultural state just because they didn't own nearly as much land as the Bosniaks. And that they started existing just when Bosniak land was given to them for free. Would that mean that America is not a multi-cultural state because there were no black plantation owners until the 19th century?
I agree inventing history is dangerous so stop pulling numbers and other abstruse facts out of your you know what.
92.36.178.209 (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong comment
There is a photo of a building with a comment "The Parliament building in Sarajevo nearing reconstruction completion." That is not a Parliament building, the P. building is just few meters from that building, but that building is supposed to be a place where all the ministries are (I do not know how you call it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.33.51 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. However, I do not know what it is called either. :\ Vseferović 22:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It's called "Vijeće Ministara:" The council of Ministers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.178.209 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the tall building is called "Zgrada prijateljstva između Grčke i Bosne i Hercegovine" or in English "Building of friendship between Greece and Bosnia and Herzegovina". AnelZukic (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
"Dark Green" city on the map of BH
I see it as dark blue, not green... please let me know what the deal is here )) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.123.63 (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Sarajevoautoput.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sarajevo/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer:Hahc21 (talk·contribs) 16:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, i'll be checking this article for review. --Hahc21[TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Round 1
Background
The article was FA, but in 2008 it was reassessed and lost its status due to prose problems and the lack of references to support its content. A copyedit was recommended for the article. My personal opinion is that, after reading the article, those issues named in 2008 are yet unresolved.
The article was nominated in 2011 for GA, and was reviewed in September (GA review here). The result of the review is incompliance with almost every one of the topics at GA criteria.
References
The lead is full of references, and some of the statements on the lead are not further detailed on the article body. This must be improved. There are valid maintenance tags on the article (QF). Many of the sections contains references covering only a couple of the statements written on them, and even some sections aren't supported with references.
As an example:
The 'Geography' section does not have any references supporting the content.
Only 2 references supports the 'Administration' section.
The 'Economy' section has only 3 inline citations and a [citation needed] tag.
The 'Transportation' section only has 6 references.
The 'Cmmunications and media' section only has 6 references, and has a main section template redirecting to Communications and media in Sarajevo, which is completely unreferenced.
The 'Culture' section only has 8 references, and has a main section template redirecting to Culture of Sarajevo, which is completely unreferenced.
As a final comment, New York City is not ready yet to be a Good Article, and 322 references support its content.
Prose comments
The prose is sometimes written with a coloquial tone instead of an encyclopedic one. As an example:
"Sarajevo is located close to the center of the triangular shape of Bosnia and Herzegovina in southeastern Europe."
"The proximity of the Adriatic Sea moderates Sarajevo's climate somewhat"
"Sarajevo is very windy city" (original research)
Final comments
The article fails the following criteria:
1.(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct
2.(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
2.(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged
2.(c) it contains no original research.
The result
The result is that, per the GA criteria, this article should be quick failed only for the tags on it. Also, prose problems and the lack of references for most of its content makes this article both ineligible and not ready for GA. So, it failed the GA process. I recommend a copyedit, a peer review, and extensive work on finding references for all statements that lack them. Also, cleaning the article of some original research.
Pigeon Square
Can somebody puh-leeze mention Pigeon Square? I can't remember the local term for it. You know, the place with the fountain and all the pigeons. Sebilj! That's it! I just remembered! But I know nothing about the fountain or its significance or if the pigeons are the Rock Apes to Sarajevo's Gibraltar or anything like that. I'm just a Canuck kid who lived in the city for 12 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.217.134 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
To us, pigeons are waht they are to everybody, shit machines that do nothing more that shit on our buildings. So, no, they are not relevant or special... Timurv1234 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Mosques and Religious Heritage
Does anybody have information how many mosques is there in Sarajevo? Bosniak (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I Think that there are either 99 or 100 mosques. Timurv1234 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Sarajevan
This is an English-language entry for Sarajevo and it should be in English. If you do not know the English word for something, I think it's better to leave it blank. Demonym of Sarajevo in English is Sarajevan. Demonym in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian is Sarajlija/Sarajka. Please respect this difference and inform yourself before writing, editing, or rolling back someone else's improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujanovic (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Note of thanks
Just wanted to add a note of thanks to all editors here, and request a non-change. I'm going through a series of photos of Frank McCloskey in Sarajevo in 1994, as part of my job; none of the images have identification, but I was able to determine that a group of them were taken at the National Library because McCloskey's standing on stones pictured in File:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg — literally within view of this camera. Thanks for including this image, and please don't remove it! Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Note — first image is [4], from which I guessed that it was the same building, and second image is [5], which depicts the same pieces of stone in the same positions as they appear in the Evstafiev image. These photos likely are not PD-USGov; please don't upload them here or at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
map
The less terse discussion about this thing is at the history of Sarajevo Canton and Talk:Sarajevo Canton. I'll also need to find the archive of FAC to see if there's further discussion there. --Joy [shallot] 12:19, 16 August 2004 (UTC)
NPOV notice for "aggression"
Nikola Smolenski wrote: NPOV notice; Bosnian Serbs are referretd to as "agressors"; that is Bosnian government propaganda and not neutral.
Well, that is indeed the opinion of the Bosnian government, but if a three year siege is not a sign of aggression, I don't know what is. I can barely find a definition of the term in the dictionaries that doesn't perfectly fit in this case. --Joy [shallot] 23:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is the official position of the Bosnian government, as well as numerous international politicians. Bosnian Serb forces set up a blockade of Sarajevo prior to any actual provocation, fired the first military shots, and knowingly deprived the city of essential things such as water, shipments of food, electricity, heating, and medicine. If you somehow believe the siege of sarajevo was not an agression, please explain on this page before positng a npov notice on an otherwise perfectly good page. Asim Led 12:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Pick your battles, Nikola. Don't try to rewrite history. People have been convicted in the Hague for this.
From 1992-1995, Sarajevo endured over three years of siege by the Bosnian Serb forces during the Yugoslav wars.
On April 6, 1992, Sarajevo was surrounded by forces of Bosnian Serbs. The warfare that lasted until the October of 1995 resulted in large scale destruction and dramatic population shifts (See Siege of Sarajevo for details).
Considering the prosecutions for crimes against humanity that followed, methinks that's fairly neutral - and fairly undisputable. Ambi 17:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, how can it be Bosnian government propaganda like Nikola claims when almost 50% of Bosnian government ministers are Serbs, including Defense and Foreign Affairs. Are they some kind of “traitors” according to Nikola? What happened to Sarajevo was not some kind of a “legitimate siege” as the Hague’s tribunal has shown, of course, maybe Nikola doesn’t acknowledge the Hague’s tribunal. Even Milosevic once said it (the siege) was an overkill. GeneralPatton 22:47, 18 August 2004 (UTC)
numbers
"Its population was 429,672 according to the 1991 census, and is estimated to be around 300,000 residents today" is misleading since most of what now is Sarajevo Canton was used to be counted as city in 1991. You also have to account for areas now in RS... The actually population of the city itself has actually increased, not declined. GeneralPatton 13:48, 29 August 2004 (UTC)
Actually 429,672 was the population of the city itself (novi grad, novo sarajevo, stari grad, centar), with the metro area having more than 500,000. In the federation the city now has 300,000 people (metro area about 400,000). Regarding the regions in Republika Srpska, so called Serb Sarajevo is pretty small, (It can't even really be considered a city, more of a municipality), and official statistics (if any exist) are probably unreliable. Either way it is technically a completely seperate city so either way. Asim Led 17:14, 29 August 2004 (UTC)
Main picture?
Which of these is better for the main picture? Asim Led 04:25, 21 December 2004 (UTC)
"The two football clubs, FK Sarajevo and NK Željezničar Sarajevo, both have a long tradition of competing in European and World Cups tournaments." - but the World Cup is for national teams? Something's wrong here, not sure what it should be corrected to though! --VivaEmilyDavies 07:44, 15 February 2005 (UTC)
Correct. FIFA World Cup is a national team competition. Željo and Sarajevo only competed in European Cup tournaments: Cup UEFA, UEFA Champions League, and UEFA Cup Winner's Cup. --SaninSaracevic 17:15, 09 Dec 2005 (IST). 11:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Sarajevo. 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: 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.
I deem some of them highly speculative and misconstrued. In fact, they add little else than undue confusion to what is actually a straightforward matter. The recently published results from the 2013 population census (thus of more recent date than Markowitz's reflections) demonstrate that which was already largely known: the super-majority of Muslims ethnically identify as Bosniaks, the Catholics as Croats, and the Orthodox as Serb. Hence, Markowitz's very premise to question the "intra-personal" validity of the Bosniak identity primarily based on a supposedly "imperfect" switch from the Yugoslav census format is really a non-sequitur in a society where religion almost perfectly follows ethnic division. Clearly, "Muslim" is by and large synonymous with Bosniak and vice versa. The same is true for Catholic and Croat, or Orthodox and Serb. One does not exclude the other, and she does herself recognize this by referring to the marital data as "Muslim or Bosniak". Thus, the observed discrepancy not being due to a lack of synchrony between Muslim and Bosniak identities but rather between Muslim/Bosniak and the Yugoslav category "Others". It's really a mess. Markowitz is, however, right in that governmental politics continue to shape the ethnic identity of all ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I have therefore preserved her fundamental train of thought whilst reducing the contradictory confusion. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Sarajevo. 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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Sarajevo. 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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Sarajevo. 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.
We really need to sort out the population figures in this article. We have a figure of 643,016 for the Sarajevo metropolitan area in the introduction and the infobox, which disagrees with the figure in the article about the metropolitan area. The infobox also has an urban figure of 395,133, sourced to the census, but with no explanation of how it has been calculated/what it includes. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It is almost impossible to find those info to source. OK, the city is easy to define on the official website of the city it is listed that the four municipalities of Stari Grad, Centar, Novo Sarajevo and Novi Grad are making it out and it is a political entity. The Urban area is still used on the area from 1991 census but with current data and in the census results which are published as final are listed as "Sarajevo - dio" but across multiple municipalities and isn't aggregated anywhere to be visiable immediatelly. The problem with Sarajevo is that it is officially divided between two entities which makes the work somewhat more complicated. Sarajevo is a small city to really have a defined metro area so that one is more or less just an agreement ie. the areas where the majority of population commute to Sarajevo at least once a week. AnelZukic (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC+2)
Sarajevo is copyrighted
Turns out you can't use the name and emblem of Sarajevo without permission: [6][7] --Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
stop removing facts from etymology part
Sarajevo From Serbo-Croatian Sarajevo, from Ottoman Turkish سرای, Turkish Saray-ovası, from saray (“palace”) (Persian سرای (sarây, “inn”) [1]), and ova "plain, lowland".[2][3] [8] and saray: Turkish: From Persian سرای (sarây). [9]89.165.94.76 (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Isn't that etymology a bit fanciful? Why didn't it then become Sarajova or Sarajovasi? In Bosnian, "the plain around the saray" or "saray's plain" literally translates to "sarajevo polje". The "polje"/"plain" part was probably dropped over the years. 93.136.43.110 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Capajebo. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a gallery
Per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries I think some images (actually most of them placed in galleries below sections) should be removed from the article. Right now, even though some images are relevant to the section, article looks horrible because it seems like a gallery. Overuse of images is evident anyway so something should be done. --Obsuser (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe to move those most important to gallery section(s) at the bottom and remove other imgs... --Obsuser (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): 
– Ever since I started this review, no one cared about improving this article, I have left loads of recommendations (none of them done during the review) and off I go! – Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
