Talk:Banja Luka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Europe (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Banja Luka is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Population number[edit]

Population number in Banja Luka today is more or less 250000. It is true that the exact number is unknown because of lack of cencus data. In 1991 population was 195.692 in Banja LUka area but Banja Luka has experienced and enormous growth and development after the war. It is true that Muslim people left city during war years but there were also huge inflow of Serbian population from Croatia and other parts of Bosnia because of ethnic cleansing in those parts of ex Yugoslavia. According to the The Institute for Urbanism of the Republic of Srpska ( the population in wide area today is about 250000

The de facto capital[edit]

Although it is true that Banja Luka is the "de facto" capital of the RS, this explanation is inappropriate for the first sentence of the entry as it raises the question of why it is so and what is the "de iure" capital of the entity. This is why this discussion should be left to the page concerning Republika Srpska and just deal with blatant facts. Other countries/autonomies have administrative seats or capitals so there is no confusion there (South Africa, The Netherlands etc.).


"Recent attempts to reconstruct the Ferhadija mosque resulted in mass riots by Serbian nationalists on May 7, 2001. Some 4,000 Serbian rioters beat and stoned three hundred Bosniaks, who were participating in a ceremony commemorating the laying of the cornerstone for the reconstruction. At least eight Bosniaks were taken to the Banja Luka hospital for medical treatment. One of them died on May 26, 2001, of head injuries. While many mosques in Banja Luka are being rebuilt the reconstruction of Ferhadija still has not started, even though Serbian authorities in Banja Luka have issued all necessary documents, and permissions. According to the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the reconstruction should begin in 2006, ."

I dont know where this came from but I am an American who lives in Banja Luka and was there the day of this alleged "riot". Your "4000 rioters" were about 30 rural thugs imported to Banja Luka specifically to create problems in front of the TV cameras. They threw some rocks and burned one old bus, but no one, to my knowledge, died of injuries. This was also staged during noon, when downtown is full of people normally, and the commotion drew a crowd to see what all the noise was. I was one of them, and can assure you there was no "riot". no one was "beaten". no one was "stoned", except, perhaps whoever authored this story.

Here is a source to (at least one) author of the story [1] and few images [2] . I don't know where you were but whoever reported on this story knew very well what was going on as can be seen from the images. The report by HRW is only a stripped down version. I have read much more disturbing ones. Also if you knew what you were talking about you would know that site of ferhadija is not exactly downtown but rather some 200-300 meters from downtown and there is not so much pedestrian traffic around the area as there is perhaps on the main square. Whoever came to this area knew very well what was going on and if they perhaps did not take part in the riot they certainly did nothing to prevent it. I don't know what you are doing in Banja Luka but if it pertains to observing events like these and than reporting on them than you are doing a poor ass job. Unbelievable ! --Dado 08:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing clarification[edit]

I am quite certain that what is described in this article as "ethnic cleansing" is usually described as "property exchange", which also explains absence of heavy fighting. Nikola 19:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Property exchange is defined as a trade of objects of equal value under contractual obligation of both parties involved. It has been proved beyond any doubt that no such contracts existed in Banja Luka or if they did they were executed in ill faith and under compulsion. Compulsion under definition of ethnic cleansing was proven and in case of Banja Luka expanded as destruction of sustainable existence, namely expulsions from work places, confiscations of personal property, rapes, personal and physical attacks. Most Banjalukans who were expelled from Banja Luka left with little or no personal property. Taking in account that great number of Banjalukans were also deported to concentration camps a "genocide" may be even more appropriate term. I am sure that you would not consider expulsion of Jews from Germany during WWII a "property exchange". I see no further argument to dispute the neutrality of this article. --Dado 02:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The objects do not need to be of the equal value, though that is irrelevant. No such thing has been proven - who proved it, when and how? It is true that most of the people who have exchanged their property were under pressure to do so, but so did those with whom they were exchanging. And there is no similarity with WWII Jews whatsoever. Nikola 02:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The ethnic cleansing in this region and in the city of Banja Luka was proven at ICTY. The tactics employed by authorities of RS were evident and proven through testimonies of people that lived in Banja Luka during Bosnian war and who were subsequently forced to leave the city. It is incorect that property of majority of Banjalukans was exchanged for anything of equal or close to equal value in period of 1992-1995 when ethnic cleansing took place. This was also proven later in RS court when the law was passed to return the properties to their rightfull owners.
It is completely irrelevant that people who were taking the property of Banjalukans were under pressure as their situation did not justify ethnic cleansing or retaliation.
In my personal opinion I think that there is a striking similarity of what happened with Jews in pre WWII period and what happened with non Serb Banjalukans during Bosnian War. This and ultimate consquences of evident ethnic cleansing in Banja Luka are yet to be studied.--Dado 16:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Detailed Census data needed[edit]

Results of 1991 census in Banja Luka that are presented in this article are open for correction. The population of approx. 195000 and composition of 54% Serbs 13% Bosniaks and 12% Croats included the entire Banja Luka municipality (opstina). Given that Banja Lukas municipality is the largest in BH this breakdown does not give the the clear picture of the actual ethnic composition of the City of Banja Luka. It is widely agreed that majority of Serb population from Banja Luka municipalty were living outside of the City of Banja Luka. I am very confident that this can be proven by looking at the city census data rather than municipality census data. It is also an intresting fact that major Serb immigration into the city occured after the 1969 earthquake when the Banja Lukas population doubled due to explosion in housing construction. Before this urbanization influx Bosniaks and Croats were actually the majority populations of the city--Dado 07:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, well known facts, its just that its virtually impossible to obtain data for actual settlements in 1991 on the internet. I know some people who can provide the information though, so hopefully by the end of the week. By the way, since this is about the city and not the municipality, I think it would be better to just have a little dot on the municipality instead of coloring it all. Asim Led 03:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Less then 40000 muslims and Croats lived in Banjaluka in 1992, so it was inposibile to expel 70000 of them.

It is estimated that about 70,000 predominantly Bosniak and Croat residents were forced to leave the city between 1992-1995 as part of ethnic cleansing campaign of Republika Srpska.

In 1991 in Banjaluka lived 20,000 Croats and 19,000 Muslims. There is about 15,000 Muslims and Croats living in Banjaluka today.

Per 1991 census approx: 27300 Croats, 25350 Muslims (Bosniaks), 23400 Yugoslavs (Equally Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks) Total: 76050. Add also a good number of Serbs who left not taken in account here. Some of Banjalukans returned but (less than 5000) which still does not negate the fact that the nearly 70000 left the city in 1992. These numbers are based on percentages that are presented in the article.--Dado 16:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There were never 70,000 Muslims and Catholics in the city or commune (opstina) of Banjaluka to begin with. The fact that you claim that the Yugoslavs are Muslims and Catholics and that they left is ludicrous. Following the war in 1996, 12,600 Muslims and Catholics were counted in the commune. Addition and subtraction laws thus dictate that some 45,000 left the commune, 30,000 the city itself.

Let's try to do this again. Per 1991 census approx: 27300 Croats and 25350 Muslims (Bosniaks) lived in Banja Luka municipality. I think it is fair to state (and I hope you agree) that those who declared themselves as Yugoslavs before the war were equaly represented by all three ethnic groups so that means 7800 Croats, 7800 Bosniaks and 7800 Serbs. If you add all this up you will get 68250 Croats and Bosniaks who lived in Banja Luka municipality in 1991(these are all approximations).

No, that is your assumption, first of all that 2/3 of Yugoslavs in Banja Luka were Catholics and Muslims and second of all that they no longer live there. First of all, if we are to divide the Yugoslavs that can only be done proportionately and the proportion is 4 Serbs, 1 Croat, 1 Muslim (proportionately according to non-Yugoslav 1991 population in Banja Luka). You cannot assume that there is one 1 Serb Yugoslav to every Muslim Yugoslav if Serbs outnumber Croats and Muslims 4 times each or twice put togethere. Where did you learn your math? BUt that is all assumption, we have no indication that the Yugoslavs were evenly spread, that there were even Serbs, Croats or Muslims among them or that they left Banja Luka. Maybe they were all Serbs, maybe they were not but say they are Serbs today, anything is possible if you assume. Your assumption in this case can not be proven true.

I did not count in many Serbs who left the city after 1992 for reasons of not agreeing with the politics or war or for dodging the draft but it is important to keep it in mind too.

What does that have to do with your idiotic, dim-witted and illiterate accusations about alleged ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs?

Information that at least 12600 B and C's lived in the Banja Luka Muni. in period from 1992-1996 is a news to me. My information tells me that less than 3000 remained in 1995 and another 2000 returned since.

If you can prove your numbers I am willing to change the number to 55000 people who left the Banja Luka Muni. during the 1992-1995 war. Otherwise a number should be about 65000 --Dado 22:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your political ramblings have nothing to do with factual information, 30000 becomes 55000, then 65000 and the article ends up with 70000.

1991 census: 25350 Muslims, 27300 Croats, 1996 census UNHCR 220407 inhabitants: 5401 Bosniaks, 7236 Croats, 207770

Math 27300 + 25350 - 5401 - 7236 = 40,000. That's 40,000 Muslims and Croats less, some might have left of their own accord as you said (did not agree with the politics, draft-dodging etc.) some maybe traded in their property with Serbs from the other side of the border, some might have been chased out. Again, no assumptions can be made, and BTW, the 40 thousand figure is for the whole commune (municipality), 30,000 is proportionate for the city.

Mosques & census dispute[edit]

Also you said that some of 40,000 tausends of inhabitants were killed in Manjaca and whatever, but please give relevant link for data THAT CAN BE COMPARED with 600,000 killed Serbs, Jews and Gipsies in Concetration camps Jasenovac which is clearly stated by Simon Wiesenthal centar:
Destruction of mosques in Banja Luka is the culture of nationalistic hatred that is apparently still prevalent in Banja Luka. Apparently there is still a clear systematic doctrine that tends to undermine one culture over another and death of one person and head injuries of others are a clear result of it. Hence noting both the destruction of mosques and the subsequent recent riots is relevant. It is clear that systematic riot such as happened in 2001 is merely an outward expression of an underlying contemporary culture of the city and region. This is not a taboo topic to discuss and note in the article.
It is laughable to claim that authorities of RS had nothing to do with the destruction of mosques. In the time of their destruction RS authorities were in charge of security in the city and had logistical authority that could enable such events. They are responsible for creating and encouraging the conditions where such acts could take place and they organized the subsequent clearing of some of the sites where mosques stood.
16 mosques were razed, destroyed, blown-up… pick a word. Ferhadija was protected by UNESCO others weren’t.
Finally, I don’t think I ever claimed that 40000 Banjalukans were killed in concentration camps between 1992-95. Up to 30000 are still missing from Bosanska Krajina region and they are presumed dead. 900 bodies were recently discovered near Omarska concentration camps of which 500 are being identified. Further mass graves are still being uncovered.
In either case I don’t know how this relates to crimes committed in Jasenovac during WWII if that is what you are implying. If you are trying to justify the killings of non Serbs in Bosnian War of 1992-95 with crimes in Jasenovac you may want to rethink your reasoning.
Most of these facts are taken from OHR, ICTY and Human Rights Watch.--Dado 14:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dado, never 16 mosques in Banja Luka existed. Please give a relevant and exact link about :
- number of mosques existed in Bajna Luka
- 30000 missing from Bosanska Krajina region
- how much of that people were from Banja Luka.
- how much of dead people in Omarska were from Banja Luka
And again, I let you know that ONE dead Bosniak because of nationalism after the 1995. is not relevant to culture and also it don't show EXTREMLY nationalism in the city. Can you find page about any other city in Wikipedia were one prior unknown men refers in the culture section ? Or to history of that town? No, I don't believe that there are such facts. Don't mix the culture and the politics.
I am glad your raised these questions. Following is the list of mosques in Banja Luka distroyed by RS authorities during 1992-1995 most of them built in 15 and 16 century most of them part of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Cultural Herritage since 1950 and one of the (Ferhadija) part of the World Cultural Heritage (UNESCO):
  • Dolacka
  • Vrbanjska
  • Arnaudija
  • Ferhadija
  • Seferija
  • Gazanferija
  • Pervizija
  • Salimija
  • Mehdija
  • Mehmedija
  • Sabanija
  • Kurtija
  • Zulfikarija
  • Behramija
  • Sahatkula (Actually not a mosque but a clock tower near Ferhadija built at the later date after Ferhadija)
If you wish I can even furnish a map where they stood for you so you can vist the sites yourself.
There were around 70000 Bosniaks and Croats living in Banja Luka in 1991. About 3000 remained in 1995.
Arround 3300 Bosniak and Croat civilians many of them from Banja Luka region, were murdered (executed) in Bosanska Krajina mainly in concentration camps but in some other detention facilities as well. See Bosnian Genocide for data taken from ICTY. 3300 is the number of bodies discovered. Estimates are much larger.
I guess the "prior unknown" man that you are reffering to is now "unfortunately known" and is the stain on the culture of the current residents of Banja Luka. I hope you are not implying that since he was no one famous it does not need to be mentioned. I would reccommend you to explore your convictions about that.
I think I was more than convincingly clear in my prior response why all this should be in the culture section. I know it looks bad for RS but it is the truth and they should deal with it.--Dado 21:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On a second thought, for a sheer respect for privacy of the family Badic I will remove Murat Badic name from the article. --Dado 03:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You gave link about Murat Badic etc., but PLESE give exact and relevant links (under ICTY, or some other UN or other respected organization) of number of muslims and Croats killed in Omarska, Manjaca etc and number of them who were from Banja Luka. Did you think that writing about nationalism in culture of the city might look discouraging for the muslims who want to come back in the City? Official statistic nowadays shows that 7% of its inhabitans were muslims, and I would be glad that that number increase to the number before the war, but I think that your propaganda looks discouraging to them. --
There are some lists of people from Banja Luka who ended up in Omarska and Manjaca camps that Merhamet humanitarian organization has provided. I have seen some of them but I doubt that there is a link on the web site to see it. What I have seen there were about 200 to 300 people from Banja Luka who were killed in these camps, however many more passed through the camp (3000-5000). I am certain that these records can be found with the Commission for the Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
I would let muslims or croats make their own mind if the data provided is discouraging for them to return to the city. In fact I find it quite usefull if they care about their own security and human rights.
It is irrelevant how many people muslims and croats returned to the city in the point that I am trying to make. I commend the efforts by current government to allow these people to return but the fact still stands that these people were prosecuted and their lives were disrupted and for many it has caused irreperable damage. I have provided facts in this article and once the facts are laid out everyone can make their own decission and conclusion on this matter. Unless you can present stronger counter-arguements I see no point in further objections to this article other than trying to hide and deny of what happend in Banja Luka --Dado 14:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Still no concrete links. Also once more, ICTY call Manjaca and Omarska camps, not concenration camps, so it is unproper to call it concetration camps. --User:oldadamm

Milosevic trial[edit] . See Milosevic trial among others. As I said you may not find the list of victims but in the transcripts you may find some numbers, if you care to go through them. I know at least 10 Serbian friends from Banja Luka who left (including their families) for some or all of those reasons listed in the article. That is just a sample of many and it is valid to note it.--Dado 18:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Milosevic trial is irrelevant, because it is not STILL closed case.--User:oldadamm
Dado, you didn't provide ANY proof except Murat Badic. Milosevic trial is not closed so it cannot be used as any proof. Also, please provide any proof for former Bosnian Genocide page (except for up to 7000 dead male men in Srebrenica).--oldadamml
Evidence introduced in the court including murder of Bosniaks and Croats from Banja Luka as noted in article Bosnian Genocide is factually correct. Evidence of ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of Bosniaks and Croats from Banja Luka was also introduced and admitted at the ICTY and is factually correct. If it was not it would not be admissible in the court regardless for which case it is used.
Milosevic trial is irrelevant as you said but the evidence introduced in that case is. You may be lacking a basic understanding of the simple court system so I would recommend that you study the difference.
Information on the demographic shift in Banja Luka was taken from a book “Southeastern Europe 1918-1995” by authors Ante Beljo, Dr. sc. Dragutin Pavlicevic and Aleksander Ravlic.
We already discussed involvement of RS in destruction of mosques.
Your edits are still done in a bad faith. What are you trying to hide?--Dado 14:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

please consider relevant facts[edit]

1. ethnic cleansing and genocide is not the same thing, and not treated the same by ICTY and other organization. 2. Two months ago you claimed that "all 20 mosques in Banja Luka were protected by UNESCO", later you find out that just one was protected by UNESCO. I claim that never 20 mosques in Banja Luka, existed, as one of Banja Luka's citizen. I'm really sad that all three former Banja Luka's mosques don't exist still, but I don't want that some incorrect data stay still on this wikipedia page. 3. About dead people from Banja Luka you didn't give EXACT link. Just to say ICTY don't prove anything. I must remind that ICTY also have and senteced some cases against Bosnian Bosniak and Croat population. 4. I think that official website data is more relevant about demografic shift then Crotian book with small amount of print copies you mentioned. Also, some facts from the book use "city" data and some "municipial" data so book's data are very confused. So, I think that official website data is more relevant. 5. About involvement of RS in destruction of mosques - please give exact and relevant link that shors it. 6. I think that YOUR edits, not mine are done in bad faith. --Oldadamml

Here we go again
1. I never claimed that genocide was proven in Banja Luka specifically. Ethnic cleansing as a component of the genocide in greater context of BiH did take place in Banja Luka. You may want to investigate the definition of genocide
2. I am begining to think that you may some schizophrenic issues or you may be confusing me with someone else. I have never claimed that there were 20 mosques in Banja Luka in 1992 (although there were even more 100 years back but that is irrelevant). I even gave you a list of them. Maybe because you moved to Banja Luka after 1995 is why you have not seen a single one left. I was born and grew up there and have seen them all or are you claiming that I was wrong and that those were not mosques. Get you facts straight. Actually I will correct myself and say that there were 15 mosques and a clock tower (it was located when you exit your ETF in that small back alley between the shops)
3. I did give you exact link where you can find those information. What, do you want me to read it for you.
4. Official data from 1991 is included (or maybe I am missing your point). Claiming that book has no merit because it had low number of print copies is ludicrous. Provide a descending opinion about Agrarian Reform of 1918 and we can discuss it then.
5. Provide a link with credibility that they were not invloved and we can discuss it than --Dado 18:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

please consider relevant facts again[edit]

1. You said before "20 UNESCO protected mosques" yesterday you reliaze that "15 mosques" and clock tower. Well, well, later you might find that also some another one weren't mosques, in fact some were another types of building.

2. Ethnic cleansing don't have correlation with genocide as in Wikipedia article.

3. I know that one of them was located when I exit my Faculty of Electrical Engineering, also know where some other was.

4. To say is not proof for your statements. It is a web link for one organization. Milosevic indictment also. So itself don't prove anything.

5. You asked for me to provide link "that they were not involved" but I must remind you about one law stetement "the accused is not guilty until it is proved". I didn't say they weren't involved or they were involved, I say "if you provide me relevant link that shows they were allowed

6. About movement of citizens in 1918-1981. I read Prosveta's Encyclopedia printed in 50,000 copies and there aren't facts such that.

7. Again, ICTY's call Manjaca camp or sometimes detention camp but not concentration, i.e. . --User:oldadamml

1. I am not even going to respond to this as it is obvious that one cannot reason with you
2. Again I am not claiming that there was a genocide in Banja Luka. Why is this an issue? Genocide is not even mentioned in this article?
4. ICTY is good enough for 95% of the population in this world but it is not good enough for you?! Good luck with that.
5. Occam's Razor principle applies.
6. Sure. You know what, I cannot find any information about the Agrarian Reform of 1918 in "War and Peace" book either. Maybe because the book is about something else. As I said find a descending view on those facts and than we can discuss it.
Although I have exhausted every rational way to discuss this topic with you any further.--Dado 14:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


For those who can't understand Serbian, I've provided a translation of Oldadamm's text on the other site below. Asim Led 17:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
"I'm calling all goodwilled Serbs to help in the media fight on wikipedia.
Muslim and Croat shits fight with propaganda daily, and as examples I would point out the web sites
(And the rest of the translation. Please, correct my English.) --Millosh 09:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Even on the page dedicated to genocide was writing that Serbs was killing to to be killed. And the number of victims was minized to 100,000.
Remember thatSimon Wiesenthal Center says that there were 600,000 victims :
Vol. 2, page 739, entry: „Jasenovac”
I call you to help to media fight on Wikipedia!

(my statement retracted).--AI 06:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this information is necessary to resolve the disputed content of the Banja Luka article. Also, making an example of Oldadamm is against Wikipedia policy (imho of course). I am suggesting we remove this section from the talk page and that we encourage Oldadamm's arguments for the sake of ensuring the article is NPOV.--AI 22:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am requesting this section be removed from the talk page and if someone wants to keep it, they can move it elsewhere. The issue is content, not Oldadamm. Oldadamm was rv'ing. If you read the Wikipedia article on vandalism, Oldadamm was not vandalizing. To resolve the content dispute, we need to consider Oldadamm's arguments. Perhaps he is right about propaganda. We should look at this, not ignore his argument.--AI 22:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please discuss changes to article[edit]

I opened this discussion topic because frankly I am getting tired of constantly reverting clearly biased incursions on this article lately performed by user Oldadamml that are not supported by any explainations or reasons. Please before you make such changes to the article state your reasons and provide sufficient proof on discussion page that the changes are due.--Dado 18:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is that what you do. Head injuries of one man DON'T have anything with the culture of the city. Futhermore, you cannot prove that people who razed two mosquetes have something with goverment of Republika of Srpska because there is no such data. Rest of mosquetes are not razed, standing still and none of them were not protected by UNESCO.
Hey oldadamm, why do you make changes without logging in and only using your IP ( ?
To Oldadamm,
Apparently, you intentionally avoid editing with your account (oldadamm). Your "contributions" are only done with your IP: as identification. In addition to changes you made, you:
Is it vandalizism or good faith?--AI 08:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Oldadamm, why are you still changing and vandalizing this and other related pages after I provided valid proof and reasons for facts noted in the article. I would like to invite administrators to deal with these intrusions that took place on this and other articles that are being attacked by clearly biased individual who is obviously trying to hide, obscure and deny the truth. --Dado 04:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

More on Agrarian Reform of 1918 [3] --Dado 16:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert war[edit]

It seems that I have also exhausted every rational way to discuss this topic with you any further. --User:oldadamm

I think you guys should read Wikipedia:Disputed statement and start using the dubious tags.--AI 00:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I suggested to use disputed before but User:Dado declined. See the history. User:oldadamml.
When and where did you suggested to use Wikipedia:Disputed statement:))?? --Dado 13:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Oldadamm, stop rv'ing the article. You are rv'ing things beyond the scope of your comment regarding ICTY data. Please see Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute.--AI 09:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I would urge anyone to consider the credibility and good faith of this person that also goes under alias Every single edit that this person performed on Wiki under that allias was reverted for vandalism including the contraversially obscure Journalism article. For those familiar with serbian language also see [4] where he encourages people to fight the media war on Wikipedia. --Dado 14:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed Oldadamm has not been involving himself in resolving the dispute over innacuracies. I am taking back my comments against him. Oldadamm provides interesting data which should be used to resolve the disputes.--AI 22:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Are there any descending views or outstanding issues on this article that still dispute the acuracy of information presented. If not I will remove NPOV note. --Dado 05:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you should change names "Bosniak" into "Muslim (South/Balkan/Bosnian...) Slavs" or something like that (with "Bosniak" under parenthesis) when history before WWII is described, and to "Muslims" (with "Bosniak" under parenthesis) when history between the end of WWII and mid 1990s is described. I think it is the most correct formulation... Until the constitution of modern nations (in 19th century), I think that the most important fact was not "nationality", but religion. (In general, I think that Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks should be described as "Orthodox/Catholic/Muslim Shtokavians" :) before national constitutions. But I don't think that it would be accepted by others.) --Millosh 16:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article was not reverted to its original verzion before User:oldadamml started vandalizing it as was noted on 30 May. Lets try it again before we get into another round of edit wars. Does anyone else have outstanding issues on this article that still dispute the acuracy of information presented other than what was noted above. --Dado 22:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, please include (relevant) links (or quotes; maybe references to Wikiquotes) for all claims like "Agrarian reform", not only inside of talk page, but also inside of section "External links" and/or "Bibliography"; list names of mosques or at least put some reference, etc. Look, I am not historian and I can trust you (or anybody else). But, there are some claims which can be treated as nationalist propaganda (in this case Bosniak) if it there are no relevant links or quotes. Also, if Sarajevo (as much bigger article) doesn't have statistics about ethnicities through the time, I don't realize why Banja Luka should have? It also gives very nationalist taste of the article ("Bosniaks tries to give arguments that Banja Luka was Bosniak city in the history.") --Millosh 00:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So, try to present facts (destruction of mosques and ethnic cleaning are the facts) with arguments inside of External links and/or Bibliography, but try to make distance of nationalist propaganda. Again, I prefer not to act as policeman who would say "that, that and that are not good parts and there should still stay POV". I am wandering does other articles about cities in Republic of Srpska have the same nationalist taste: Bjeljina, Prijedor, Zvornik, etc... I don't like the idea to have all of RS towns, cities etc. in my watchlist. --Millosh 00:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And at the end: I agree that POV template should be removed from this article now. All of needed edits are minor, but, please behave like an encyclopedian, not like nationalist propagator. If you like to work on this article, I would like to leave it to you and to support your edits. And probably you understand what is propaganda and what are the facts. But, again, please, keep in mind that you should work responsible. (And I think that you have intention to work responsible.) --Millosh 00:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Almost every Banjalukan that I know supports the notion that Banja Luka used to have a Bosniak majority in last 100 years until last 40 years. This is the first time that I have actually found proof and academic research that supported those claims and that was one of the reasons why I included the data in the article. However, as I see this as a learning tool, I am willing to consider other credible sources that have descending views regarding the Agrarian Reform as I noted them above. I am always open for discussion with anyone who can bring eaqualy credible information to light. After all, aren't we all here to learn.

Other reason is that there is curently a clear perception that Banja Luka was always a "Serbian city" and such perception trivializes Bosniaks and Croats that used to live there before 1992 and especially the ethnic cleansing that took place in Banja Luka from 1992-1995. I hardly find factual information nationalistic as they are putting the city's demographic dynamics in context. Maybe I will revise that part of the article a bit so that it is not misunderstood.

Finally, I will gather up the links and references and place them in this article before the NPOV is removed. If additional information come to light we can continue this conversation.--Dado 01:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Just to note that template is POV and we are trying to make NPOV :) ) --Millosh 03:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Any attempt to argue that some place was (not) (always) Serbian/Bosniak/... is nationalist. Situation in article about Banja Luka opens (at least) the same questions about Serb population in Sarajevo or Mostar; or Croat population in Central Bosnia. And there is no end. It is better to make general article about facts of ethnic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to add links about that in Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina. If that article grows up, it can be divided into separate articles (by regions or by towns). --Millosh 03:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, as I said, my knowledge about history of BiH is not so good. For example, for the first time I heard about Agrarian reform. In this sense, I assume that you would work on ethnic history of other problematic parts of BiH, too: Sarajevo, Mostar, Central Bosnia. And if you are working according to NPOV, you should try to find Croatian and Serbian sources, too. I am sure that people from Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia would find sources if you ask them. --Millosh 03:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed content[edit]

Here are some lines in dispute based on recent reverts:

I understand that the city became official capital in 2003. Can someone confirm. Calling it a capital of Bosanska Krajina region is a speculation as the region does not have a capital. It is however its most significant center. The sentence should be rephrased. --Dado 14:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is most significant city in the area not capitol of something used to call Bosanska Krajina.
--Oldadamml 16:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The statement is correct. Please look at de facto. This means it is not really the 'capital' but is 'The City' in the area.--AI 03:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Due to the city's high altitude, it snows in Banja Luka every year as well
Actual this is incorect and speculative. Unless someone can provide geographic and weather data the sentance should be removed.--Dado 14:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. --Oldadamml 16:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The difference in history was altitude/latitude. Latitude is correct?--AI 03:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Banja Luka is in mountains and around 45 deg of northern geographic latitude. So, altitude is correct. --Millosh 11:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please add data to the article as you think it should read--Dado 17:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • During Ottoman rule, Banja Luka grew significantly in terms of importance. For a while, it was the seat of the Bosnian pashaluk, and the lords of the region built a variety of impressive structures that would make up the core of the city's old town.
I don't know what is disputed here. It almost makes no sense in proving it as for anyone that is familiar with Banja Luka will know that these are the facts so I don't want to get into details. Perhaps "impressive" is a bit subjective.--Dado 14:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Banjaluka's Kastel is much smaller then i.e. Smederevo castle. Kastel is ugly and there were found traces of Roman empire. So, city's old town should not be connected with Ottoman Empire. --Oldadamml 16:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This "dispute" makes the least sense to me. "Impressive" may be taken out, but other than that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sentence. Banja Luka, in medieval times, is not mentioned on the same level as prominent bosnian cities such as Visoko, Bobovac, Blagaj, or even Vrhbosna. On the other hand, during the Ottoman empire Banja Luka became the most important city in the west balkans and the seat of the bosnian pashaluk. Asides from the Kastel, I am not aware of any pre-Ottoman era buildings in Banja Luka's old town. To make an analogy, saying that Banja Luka's old town isn't Ottoman in character because of the Kastel is like saying that Belgrade's old town isn't baroque in character in because of the Bajrakli mosque. Asim Led 18:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to explain better why Banja Luka "grew significantly in terms of importance" as well as to confrontate demographic facts (but not only demographic!) before the rule of Ottoman Empire and after it. ("Impressive" is subjective, so as Asim and Dado said, it should be taken out.) Also, it should be described what of the city core Banja Luka doesn't have before Ottoman Empire and it had after it. --Millosh 21:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added some information for the article from Bosnian Wikipedia.--Dado 17:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just to note that present part about Ottoman government is much better then then last one. --Millosh 21:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Aside from a devastating earthquake in 1969, Banja Luka's time in Yugoslavia was extremely beneficial. The city became far more urbanized as its population grew five fold. In the final years of the socialist Yugoslavia, Banja Luka's population was 150,000.
Again the same as above. Also "extremely beneficial" and "grew five fold" may need to be revisited.--Dado 14:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This paragraph is nonsence. Population data are incorrent (1991). This paragraph should be deleted.
So, the data should be sanctionied by relevant sources. --Millosh 21:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Millosh. The data should not be deleted. Sources should be provided to correct innacuracies.--AI 03:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please add correct data to the article--Dado 17:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is estimated that about 70,000 predominantly Bosniak and Bosnian Croat residents were forced to leave the city between 1992-1995 as part of ethnic cleansing campaign of Republika Srpska. Many were taken to a nearby concentration/detention camps Manjaca and Omarska. Several Serb Banjalukans who objected the war and the politics of Republika Srpska or those who were dodging the draft of RS army and desperate economic situation during the war also left the city in the period from 1992-1995.
- Ethnic Cleansing in Banja Luka--Dado 14:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Manjaca is not concetration camp. ICTY call it detention camp or camp.
Also, many is disputed, please provide exact data.
HRW article is OK, but this paragraph is not cite from HRW article.
--Oldadamml 16:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Some" is OK until exact data is found. I also added both popular and official definition of the camp.--Dado 16:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is there some relevant approximation? HRW, Amnesty International? --Millosh 21:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Banja Luka had one of the most dramatic demographic changes in last 100 years.
This should be placed in the context and explain the reason for this data. I think I noted some reasons above and I will elborate on them.--Dado 14:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • First most dramatic decline occurred after 1918 when Bosnia and Herzegovina was included in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (early Yugoslavia). Their sharp drop was due to Agrarian Reform of 1918 that confiscated the land owned by Bosniaks and given it to Serbian families. The actual numbers of Bosniaks was further obscured since they were stripped of their nationality in 1918 and had to declare themselves either as Serbs, Croats or undecideds until 1971.
    Serb population on the other hand has been steadily increasing:
A spike in Serb immigration was after the earthquake of 1969 when the city has seen a boom in housing construction. Also there was a steady movement of military personnel from Serbia and Montenegro that contributed to some 25,000 new Serb citizens to the city of Banja Luka.
- Agrarian Reform of 1918. This is actually Croation source that also has some Serbian and Bosniak editors behind it. Should be rephrased so that it is not missunderstood as nationalistic.--Dado 14:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is a nationalist propaganda. Terms like "dramatic" are subjective and I don't see a reson why not to show the same facts in the larger period of history for Sarajevo (or Berlin, New York, etc.), too. If it not stays there, I don't see why it should stay here. The only reason for incorporation of that kind of data is nationalist. And I hope that this is not the place for any nationalist propaganda. --Millosh 21:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As Asim pointed out forced change in ethnic make-up of the city in last 100 years is perhaps the most dramatic change that city has seen. Some adjectives such as "dramatic" should be perhaps toned down or rephrased but I don't see why we should hide this information. If there are such data for Sarajevo I would be OK to include it. Comparison to New York or Berlin is irrelevant. Actually the section has already been revised to take in account some objections so please see the latest version and let us know if there are still issues with it.--Dado 17:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you want to write about historical demographics in the sense of NPOV, you should add into article more then 100 years. However, all of that data should stay inside of History of Banja Luka or Historical demographics of Bosnia and Herzegovina or... with reference from this article to that data. I think that Asim and you know what do I mean when I say that it is nationalist propaganda. I don't say that that data should be deleted, I say that it should have another context. This context "shows Serbs from RS that their capitol was not always a Serb city". Claim that Banja Luka "was always a Serb city" or that it "was not always a Serb city" is nationalist (propaganda). But, describing the facts in the context of historical demographics is something else. --Millosh 19:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another point is that I am not a POV fighter and that it is out of my mind to do something like adding facts in the nationalist sense. And I hope that you (Dado) don't want to be POV fighter, too. In this sense, if you are working on some article, you should collect all relevant data. Including facts for Banja Luka, including facts for Sarajevo... --Millosh 19:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(Almost) all cities had "dramatic demographic changes". For New York it was the time when English colonists occupied New Amsterdam; for Berlin when Germans germanized Slavs; Banja Luka had "dramatic demographic change" when: (1) (maybe) Romans took the city from Illyrians or Celts; (2) when Alans or Avars took Banja Luka from Romans; (3) when Slavs took Banja Luka from Alans or Avars; (4) when Pagans was christianized; (5) when Bogumils was islamized (wow, there is christianization, but not islamization) and (6) in the last 100 years. But, there are no such "dramatic words" for New York, Berlin. And instead of showing facts, "the most dramatic change" for Banja Luka happened "in the last 100 years". --Millosh 19:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Millosh I think you need to read the section again as the adjectives such as "dramatic" have been taken out. I don't know why do we still have to discuss it.
I have provided information regarding the last 100 years of demographic shifts in Banja Luka as that was the information that I could find and I did it to the best of my knowledge taking in account others POV's as they were presented. I would very much like to learn about the details of the period before the last 100 years but so far I have not found comparative data and I would encourage anyone to provide those information.
I think that the Historical population section is currently managable and within context based on the amount of information that is available. If it gets expanded we can always create a subarticle specifically for that section (As in the case of Historical population of Sarajevo)
Quote: This context "shows Serbs from RS that their capitol was not always a Serb city". Claim that Banja Luka "was always a Serb city" or that it "was not always a Serb city" is nationalist (propaganda). But, describing the facts in the context of historical demographics is something else.
I think that you will agree that it is nationalistic that the half of the Banjalukans were expelled from the city based on their nationality. Are you now claiming as a fait accompli that current and past ethnic structures of Banja Luka are irrelevant, once the absolute Serb dominance has been established (don't you think that is a bit simplistic, to say the least). Exact claim that Banja Luka "was always a Serb city" or that it "was not always a Serb city" is not mentioned in the article, although you can conclude one or the other if you look at it from the nationalist point of view as you may be doing. --Dado 20:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Historical population of Sarajevo doesn't have historical percentages of ethnicities and Banja Luka article has. Even the first one is separate article and should contain more data. And the basics of the (historical population) facts in the Banja Luka article only speaks about decreasing of Muslim/Bosniak population and increasing of Serb population. --Millosh 21:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Expelling inhabitants of some place based on their nationality is nationalist act, but this is not the place for nationalist confrontation. It should be mentioned that ((almost) exact) number of inhabitants are expelled because of their nationality, but... Your and Asim's representations of facts are different when you are talking about Sarajevo. And this is hard nationalist POV. --Millosh 21:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. If you want to present your POV, it should be at least presented as your POV and not as the facts. However, I think that we are working on NPOV article, not on the article which should describe each POV. Again and again you are talking here not as encyclopedist, but as nationalist. --Millosh 21:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Also, there should be no differences when someone describes some city in France (or wherever) and some city in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If someone can't treat geographic description of some regions at the same way, (s)he should not write article about some of them. If it is emotionally too hard for you to write about places in Bosnia and Herzegovina, please write about the places in South America. --Millosh 21:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know for what reason I am attacked here as a nationalist if I am only presenting the information to the best of my knowledge after I collected the sources of facts (and listed them in the article). I have not included my POV in this article. Would you also call me nationalist or racist if I pointed out that Americans have committed genocide over Indians or if whites have prosecuted blacks in the US. I have presented the truth to the best of my knowledge. If some construe it as damaging to their political goals than tough.

I guess what you are trying to do is to hide or obscure the fact that particular ethnic groups have been expelled from Banja Luka by someone (god forbid if we call them out by their name). It is as if we said that one race in the US has been prosecuted by another race, but we can't tell you who. It only adds ambiguity to the article.

I have not created the article Historical population of Sarajevo and I don't know what is the source of those information, nor will I make edits on it until I do. I was only pointing to the organizational structure of the article.

I invite you (and anyone) to collect the sources and information that you think would also need to be added to this section. --Dado 23:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. I said that it should be mentioned as it was and I don't see why did you try to say that I want that it should be forgotten. This expelling did Serb nationalists and I don't see any reason why not to say that. This can be easily found in my previous comments. --Millosh 00:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. I said that you are a nationalist (not racist) because you said that you want(ed) "to show that Banja Luka was not always Serb city". And not only that. (I can quote all of your nationalist statements.) This is nationalist position. And you are continuing to defend position that presentation of historical facts (you are talking about 100 years, not about last 15 years) inside of article about Banja Luka is one thing and that the same presentation of historical facts about Berlin is completely different (etc.). Also, you started to do that inside of article which describes the city with major Serbian population (as well as the capitol of RS), not inside of article which describes some city with major Bosniak population. This is nationalist intention. --Millosh 00:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. I came here to stop edit wars. Banja Luka is not the article of my interest. It is the article of your interest. And as I can ask Google for the facts about Banja Luka, you can do it, too. There are no excuses like "I don't know" or "I didn't find". You can find enough of data only if you want. And the question is what do you want: to write encyclopedic article or to work on nationalist propaganda. --Millosh 00:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. For me it is important to see that you are working according to encyclopedic ethics because I would have possibility in the future to say that you are doing good job and that I don't need to check it and waste a lot of time in discussions like this -- only to prevent edit wars. I hope you would understand my position. --Millosh 00:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. And, of course, I have to say that you are on the good way to do that :) as well as people can change their statements through the time. Nationalism and xenophobia are the same wherever they came from. This is my reaction on Serbian xenophobia (this was about Serbian alphabets). --Millosh 00:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have started my edits about Banja Luka because it is the city where I come from and where my encestors come from and because I have a genuine interest and knowledge of the subject. I don't know why you don't believe me that I have gathered information which are credible and acurate and I don't know what do you expect me to write that will be agreeable to you. Also, I am not seeking politically correct statements if they are factually wrong, nor am I looking for "political" endorsements of a kind that you are offering. Anyway, I think we have exhausted this topic as this is turning into a personal journal for both of us. However, I will again invite anyone to bring additional information to light that I may have omitted. --Dado 02:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. You can find here a lot of data about Banja Luka. --Millosh 03:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Again, you are talking with me as I am a Serb (and you don't know if I am a Serb). ... Also, I was reading your other talks... There is no sense to talk with hard nationalist. (And I saw that others think the similar about your edits/talks...) I finished with work on this article, too. It is just wasting of time. --Millosh 03:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is there still a dispute over content?--AI 10:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • All 16 mosques dating from 15th and 16th century in the city were razed to the ground in recent a war between 1992 and 1995 by unidentified people at the time supported by the authorities of Republika Srpska as part of their ethnic cleansing campain.
- Ethnic Cleansing in Banja Luka
- Banja Luka’s Sacred sites--Dado 14:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am too lazy to read the documents. Dado, tell me is there a data for all 16 mosques? --Millosh 21:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The destroyed mosques and demaged catholic structures are listed with the map.--Dado 17:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Some 4,000 Serb rioters beat and stoned three hundred elderly Bosniaks
- Ferhadija Riots A long report that also covers riots.--Dado 14:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Historical population[edit]

I have a problem with the way "Historical population" section is written. It reads as an attempt to refute one POV, not to present what actually happened. Paradoxically, this only gives additional exposure to that POV. Zocky 16:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what actually happened that is different from what is stated? --Dado 17:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The change in ethnic structure is probably the most significant theme in the modern history of the city. I can understand where you get that impression, but I see nothing wrong with the section myself. Asim Led 18:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let me try to rephrase that: Instead of simply describing how ethnic structure of the city changed, the section starts with describing one POV, and then goes on to disprove it, which makes for bad encyclopedic prose. Compare starting an article or a section with The Earth is a sphere with 40,000 km in circumference and starting it with Despite the common claim that Earth is flat, it is in fact round, which can be proven by.... Zocky 19:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The way I see it, the section starts by stating that there are different claims to this issue as they were raised on this talk page. I have asked repeatedly for anyone to find a credible descending proof as I cannot find it (maybe because there are none).
But maybe I am missing your point on this so please update the section as you think it would need to read and than we can discuss it. --Dado 19:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I went and removed the first sentence, which didn't give any real information anyway. IMO, it's a bit better now, but it still has substantial problems that I don't know how to correct myself:
  • The simple listing of changes in the ethnic composition of the growing city obscurs the fact that in 1879, Muslim population of Bosnia was mostly urban, while Serb population of Bosnia was overhwelmingly rural. When the city grew and the population from surrounding countryside moved in, the ethnic composition was bound to change naturally, without any program or policy. Data from 1914 or 1918 would be great help here.
  • The whole issue of the agrarian reform, as it is presented now, is suspect:
    • The study on which it is based [5] is written by a sociologist, not a hystorian. It references just 6 other sources - 1 of them is an anonymous study, 3 of them are newspaper articles by the author of the study, 1 is a newspaper article by someone else and 1 is another, not directly applicable, hystorical study on the same website, written by a geomorphologist (IANM), of even more dubious scientific standards.
    • The study fails to take into account that the agrarian reform in Bosnia was more radical than in other parts of the then kingdom because the old feudal estates there were already dismantled in the 18th and 19th century, unlike in Bosnia where first the Ottomans and then the Austrians maintained the medieval status quo. The fact that the majority of population (Serbs and Croats) owned less than 10% of the land in Bosnia is a good explanation of why it was so. Note also that this landless population was overhwelmingly rural.
    • I have no doubt that the royal government used and abused the agrarian reform for ethnic engineering, but claiming that it was its only or primary motivation is very likely wrong and certainly controversial without credible references.
  • There is even less basis to the claim that the communist party used military appointments for ethnic engineering. Military officers were assigned and reassigned all over Yugoslavia and in all major cities or strategic towns this influenced the ethnic composition, reducing the share of the locally prevailing nationality.
  • The claim that Muslims had to chose between declaring themselves as Croats, Serbs or undecideds until 1971 is false. See [6].
Historical population of Banja Luka is an interesting subject and it would be brilliant if somebody knowledgable wrote about it properly. Zocky 21:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think we are finally moving somewhere. Most of your objections are reasonable to consider in further edits of the section in question. I would recommend that you state sources of your claims as well. Regarding the ethnic engineering by the communist government, I could agree that it was not their intention but a by-product of the reassignments. The sentance should clarify that. The link that you provided notes data from 1961. I admit that I may have gotten the year wrong and that can be corected.--Dado 00:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I noticed Oldadamm has not been involving himself in resolving the dispute over innacuracies. I appreciate Oldadamm's input and I am taking back some of my comments against him. Oldadamm provides interesting data which should be used to resolve the disputes.--AI 22:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the data that Oldadamml has provided that you are refering to. Thanks. --Dado 23:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

16 not 20 mosques under UNESCO protection. Detention not concetrantion camp. Old city is in fact Roman. etc. --Oldadamml 10:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One Roman castle doesn't make an old town "Roman". Travnik has a medieval bosnian fort in the middle of it's old town, but it doesn't mean that it's old town is "medieval". Asim Led 00:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Razing of mosques moved to the history section[edit]

I moved razing of mosques to the history section because it don't have anything with nowadays culture of the city. Unfortunatly, tourist who come in Banja Luka these days cannot see these building, so we should move it into History section. --Oldadamml 10:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Why is the unemployment/employment rate in this article? This will always change and should be in an almanac, not an encyclopedia.--AI 22:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation request[edit]

Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding. Have disputes with this article been resolved? -SV|t 19:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seams so. Thanks for checking --Dado 04:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New disputed - historical population[edit]

I contacted people from Faculty of Philosophy University of Banja Luka and Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade. Several graduate student had to check historical population in books of Austria-Hungary and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The research was done with the help of Serbian Academy of Science and Art. The text I received in original which heavily disputed previous contents I will copy here (text in original in Serbian language, a lot of people here is familiar with the Serbian language, for those who aren't translation will be provided soon).

Попис из 1879. године:

  • Котар Бањалука
  • Особа 86 209
    • мухамеданци 12 350 (14.33%)
    • грчко източњаци 64 186 (74.45%)
    • латино католици 9 486 (11.00%)
    • израличани 187 (0.21%)
    • слиедбеници иних вјерозаконах –
  • Мјесто Бањалука
  • укупно 9 560 ст.
    • мухамеданци 6 474 (67.72%)
    • гр.-източњаци 1 893 (19.80%)
    • римо-католици 1 006 (10.52%)
    • израличани 187 (1.95%)

Напомене: Није исти територијални обухват мјеста Бања Лука из 1879. и 1991.,ао ни котара Бања Лука (1879.) и општине Бања Лука (1991.).Нпр у котару Бања Лука је постојала политичка испостава Прњавор,а обухватао је и Лакташе,Масловаре,Челинац (Пчелинац)...Поред мјеста Бања Лука, 1879.г. постојала су и мјеста Буџак,Петричевац,Ребровац...

  • Попис из 1910. године:
  • Присутно цивилно житељство
  • Бањалука,град. котар (48км2)
  • Укупно 14 800
    • Српско-православни 3 694 (24.96%)
    • Муслимани 6 588 (44.51%)
    • Римо-католици 3 930 (26.55)


  • Бањалука, сеоски котар (1 614км2)
  • Укупно 58 360
    • Српско-православни 41 414 (70.96%)
    • Муслимани 2 436 (4.17%)
    • Римо-католици 14 052 (24.08%)


  • Попис из 1921. године:
  • Бања Лука, град
  • Укупно 18 001
    • Православних 5 324 (29.58%)
    • Римо-католика 4 718 (26.21%)
    • Муслимана 7 201 (40.00%)
    • Израелићана 484 (2.69%)


  • Котар Бања Лука
  • Укупно 59 578
    • Православних 41 511 (69.68%)
    • Римо-католика 15 159 (25.44%)
    • Муслимана 2 364 (3.97%)
    • Израелићана 1 (0.01%)


  • Попис из 1948. године:
  • Град Бања Лука
  • Укупно 31 223
    • Срби 10 861 (34,78%)
    • Хрвати 8 662 (27.74%)
    • Неопредјељени муслимани 9 951 (31.87%)


  • Срез Бања Лука
  • Укупно 89 248
    • Срби 64 599 (72.38%)
    • Хрвати 21 150 (23.70%)
    • Неопредјељени муслимани 2 622 (2.93%)
  • Попис из 1971. године:
  • Општина Бања Лука
  • Укупно 158 736 становника,
    • Срби 92 465, (58.25%)
    • Хрвати 33 371, (21.02%)
    • Муслимани 24 268, (15.29%)
    • Југословени 4 684 (2.95%)


  • Попис из 1981. године:
  • Општина Бања Лука
  • Укупно 183 618 становника,
    • Срби 93 389, (50.86%)
    • Југословени 31 347, (17.07%)
    • Хрвати 30 442, (16.58%)
    • Муслимани 21 726 (11.83%)


Од ових 183 618 становника,

  • у насељу Бања Лука је било 123 937
    • Срби 51 839, (41.83%)
    • Југословени 29 176, (23.54%)
    • Муслимани 20 916, (16.88%)
    • Хрвати 16 314 (13.16%)


  • Попис из 1991. године:
  • Општина Бања Лука Укупно 195 692 становника
    • Срби 106 826 (54,58%),
    • Хрвати 29 026, (14.83%)
    • Муслимани 28 558, (14.59%)
    • Југословени 23 656 (12.09%)


  • Од ових 195 692 становника, у насељу Бања Лука било је 143 079,
    • Срби 70 155, (49.03%)
    • Муслимани 27 689, (19.35%)
    • Југословени 22 645, (15.82%)
    • Хрвати 15 700 (10.97%)


-Ово за 25 000 нових Срба по основу војног особља је шупља.

-Они узимају да је 1948. Срба 34,78%, а 1991. 54,60%. Медјутим, ових 34,78% се односи на тадашње подручје града, а 54,6% на цијело подручје општине (град и околина) из 1991. године, а не само град.Ако се заједно посматрају срез и град за 1948. (дакле град са околином) онда је и тада проценат Срба знатно већи од 34,78%.Такође, подручје општине из 1991. године није исто као подручје града и среза из 1948. године. -Сасвим је нормално да се становништво из околине (у овом случају претежно српске) у протеклих 60 година досељавало у град због индустријализације итд. -Или није требало да се досељава да би структура града остала као у турском периоду?А зна се ко је тада био по градовима и по ком основу.

-На крају крајева, по свим аустроугарским пописима (четири) православци су у БиХ бројнији од муслимана, па ето... -- 28 June 2005 06:32 (UTC)

Preliminary Analysis[edit]

Based on info provide above and information from the article given that "Seoski Kotar", "Srez" and "Opstina" generally means Municipality (given minor teritorial fluctuations, replaning and political reorganizations) and that "Mjesto", "Naselje" and "Grad" generally means City (given its teritorial fluctuations and urban expansions)

City of Banja Luka

Bosnian Muslim (Bosniaks)

  • 1879 – 67.72%
  • 1910 – 44.51%
  • 1921 – 40.00%
  • 1948 – 31.87%
  • 1981 - 16.88%
  • 1991 – 19.35%


  • 1879 – 19.80%
  • 1910 – 24.96%
  • 1921 – 29.58%
  • 1948 – 34.78%
  • 1981 – 41.83%
  • 1991 – 49.03%


  • 1879 – 11.00%
  • 1910 – 26.55%
  • 1921 – 26.21%
  • 1948 – 27.74%
  • 1981 – 16.58%
  • 1991 – 13.16%


  • 1981 – 16.88%
  • 1991 – 15.82%

Municipality of Banja Luka

Bosnian Muslim (Bosniaks)

  • 1879 – 14.33%
  • 1910 – 4.17%
  • 1921 – 3.97%
  • 1948 – 2.93%
  • 1971 – 15.29%
  • 1981 – 11.83%
  • 1991 – 14.59%


  • 1879 – 74.45%
  • 1910 – 70.96%
  • 1921 – 69.68%
  • 1948 – 72.38%
  • 1971 – 58.25%
  • 1981 – 50.86%
  • 1991 – 54.58%


  • 1879 – 10.52%
  • 1910 – 26.55%
  • 1921 – 25.44%
  • 1948 – 23.70%
  • 1971 – 21.02%
  • 1981 – 16.58%
  • 1991 – 14.83%


  • 1971 – 2.95%
  • 1981 – 17.07%
  • 1991 – 12.09%

Generally speaking it is clear that there was a sharp drop in Bosniak population natality in the City of Banja Luka since 1879 until 1991 with only slight recovery in period from 1981 to 1991. It is also clear that there was a sharp and consistant increase of Serb population in the City of Banja Luka from 1879 to 1991. Croat population remained relatively the same in the City of Banja Luka with a gradual decline starting after WWII.

On the municipal level numbers tend to stay relativelly the same. It is noted that Serb population has declined as some of the rural parts were included in the City of Banja Luka proper and also because of in-migration after the 1969 earthquake. There is a sharp drop in Bosniak population on the municipal level noted on 1910 what can be attributed to several factors, including massive emigration (partly due to Agrarian Reform) and includeing the fact that many Bosniaks had to declare themselves as Croats, Serbs or undecided Muslims until 1971 when their national identity was restored.

This is just a preliminary analysis.--Dado 2 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Translation of population of Banja Luka parapgraph[edit]

1879. Banja Luka district Population 86209, Muslims 12350, Orthodox 64 186, Catholics 9 486, Jews 187

1879. Town Banja Luka, Population 9 560, Muslims 6 474, Orthodox 1 893, Catholics 1 006, Jews 187

1910. Banja Luka, city (48 km2) Overall population 14800, Orthodox 3 694, Muslims 6 588, Catholics 3 930

1910. Banja Luka, villige distrikt (1 614 km2), Overall 58 360, orthodox 41 414, Muslims 2 436, Catholics 14 052

1921. Banja Luka, city Overall: 18 001, orthodox: 5 324, Catholics: 4 718, Muslims: 7 201, Jews: 484

1921. Banja Luka, district Overall: 59 578, orthodox: 41 511, Catholics: 15 159, Muslims: 2 364, Jews: 1

1948. Banja Luka, city Overall: 31 223, Serbs: 10 861(34, 78%), Croatian: 8 662, Muslims: 9 951

1948. Banja Luka, canton Overall: 89 248, Serbs: 64 599, Croats: 21 150, Muslims: 2 622

1971. Municipally of Banja Luka Overall: 158 736, Serbs 92 465, Croats 33 371, Muslims 24 268, Yugoslav 4 684

1981. Municipally of Banja Luka, Overall: 183 618, Serbs 93 389, Yugoslav 31 347, Croats 30 442, Muslims 21 726...

1981. City of Banja Luka Overall: 123 937, Serbs: 51 839, Yugoslavs 29 176, Muslims 20 916, Croats 16 314

1991. Municipally of Banja Luka, Overall: 195 692, Serbs: 106 826(54, 58%), Croats 29 026, Muslims 28 558, Yugoslavs 23 656

1991. City of Banja Luka Overall 143 079, Serbs 70 155, Muslims 27 689, Yugoslavs 22 645, Croats 15 700 --Oldadamml 7 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)


I can see where the statistical mistake was in the article I removed those numbers as they can be seen properly at the Historical population of Banja Luka. I would urge you to look at the data that the person before you provided and analize it before making decisions to remove the entire section. Note also that data provided was only statistical. There was no analisys to why the numbers changed so much through time. The previous information regading the Agrarian reform, urban expansion of the city and dismanteling of Bosnian feudal system that is stated in this section is still valid and usefull and it paints a clear picture of the nature of the city's history. --Dado 8 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)

You showed the data which used abuse of statistics as shown. --Oldadamml 07:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC). Previous statistic information didn't consider municipaly data. They used city data before 1948, and municipaly data after 1948 and concluded something. As it is shown difference in the municipaly population don't show imigration of 25000 militarity personal from Serbia and Montenegro. In fact, the whole Republic of Srpska didn't have so much professional soldiers. Agrarian reform didn't have a lot influence of the number of Muslims living in Banja Luka municipaly as we shown the facts. Also, it wasn't possible to do ethnic cleansing of 70,000 Bosniaks and Croats from Banja Luka as the 1991 census shown that there were about 36,000 of them. Nowadays statistics show that only 5% of Banja Luka citizens are Bosniaks and Croats. --Oldadamml 13:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I quite clearly split up the statistics from the municipality and the city in Historical population of Banja Luka. Regarding the number of refugees from Banja Luka see my previous comments : "Per 1991 census approx: 27300 Croats, 25350 Muslims (Bosniaks), 23400 Yugoslavs (Equally Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks) Total: 76050. Add also a good number of Serbs who left not taken in account here. Some of Banjalukans returned but (less than 5000) which still does not negate the fact that the nearly 70000 left the city in 1992. These numbers are based on percentages that are presented in the article.--Dado 16:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)" Per HRW only 3000 non-Serbs remained in 1995 There was a steady movement of significant number of military personell since 1969. Perhaps the number should be eliminated to avoid further statistical mistakes. --Dado 05:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed 2004-04-14[edit]

The Agrarian Reform was introduced as means to dismantle old Bosnian feudal system but it was also abused to change the ethnic makeup of the region in the long term.

There are not proof when you see population number that it changed ethnic makeup of the region. Percentage are almost the same.--Oldadamml 07:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

    • Obviously...
    • If you take away someone's means to sustain their existance on a certain teritory by eliminating their economic existance as was done through Agrarian Reform while doing it with consideration to the ethnicity it is an abuse of human rights and property rights in order to change an ethnic make-up of the region and subsequent political organization of the region. The data supports the claim that many left the region because of the Agrarian Reform along the ethnic lines. In fact the monarchy admited to some mistakes in the reform in 1922 after it was politicly pressured by the Croatian side. It was a clear (while misguided) case of retribution for harsh treatment of Serbs by Ottoman invadors.--Dado 18:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • This is nonsense, the Land Reform gave land to those who tilled it. Therefore it favoured according to class not religion. Poor Muslim peasants also recieved land. Land-owners from the Ottoman era (which is known for its unjust treatment of religious minority and a judicial system based on religious discrimination) were compensated economically. Thus they could no longer earn money from exploiting peasants but still had a good pay-off which they could use and most did, to buy into another profitable venture. And landowners, as in any country, are a minority not a majority. Most of that land was grabbed during Ottoman times, complaints by Dado today are just sour grapes. The leading Bosnian Muslim party of the times - the JMO - Jugoslovenska muslimanska organizacija - was very often in the ruling coalition and voted the new constitution in 1920.

Also there was a steady movement of military personnel from Serbia and Montenegro as a consequence of communist politics of centralization of military that contributed a significant number of new Serb citizens to the city of Banja Luka.

Also, when we see the statistics it cannot be seen. Percentage of ethnic group in the municipaly level stayed the same in the past 100 years until 1991.--Oldadamml 07:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Drop of percentage of Bosniaks people was partly influenced by Agrarian Reform of 1918 that ordered the land owned by Bosniak landowners (?????---who got the land stolen from the native orthodox and cathlolics people in the Ottoman_Empire---???)???? What is this????

Rainy days[edit]

143 rainy days per year on average in Banja Luka seams a lot. That is, it rains nearly half of the year. Can someone confirm this. The previous number (53 rainy days) made a lot more sense. --Dado 03:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Dado & Oldadamml, how are you guys doing? :) --AI 03:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ouh, AI we are going great on the rainy day in BL :). I think that 143 is too much for BL, I tried to call metorology station but nobody answered. I will try later. --Oldadamml 12:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I was hoping when we will get to discuss how many rainy days are there in Banja Luka. Hands down my favorite subject (as it is directly proportional to how many sunny days there are). Thanks for asking :)--Dado 21:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox cathedral[edit]

The cathedral was damaged during the WWII but it was not destroyed completely. It was raized after the earthquake in 1969 in which place a communist monument was erected. (which was obviously a wrong thing to do)--Dado 18:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure is it correct. Look at the (note: link might expire soon, Nezavisne have strange link structure which might expire). More direct link : --Oldadamml 11:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Also shows that it was destroyed in 1941. --Oldadamml 11:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the unjustice to the Moslem people of Bosnia that was committed was huge and that that should be pointed out. However, I am asking you to help note ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia. The entire people was anihalated. I will help you in this, if you offer me help in that. HolyRomanEmperor 14:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

People supported by the authorities[edit]

I don't know much about Banja Luka, so I'm only talking about Wikipedia policy, not taking sides about ethnic cleansing. The relevant Wikipedia policy for this dispute is Wikipedia:Cite your sources or maybe Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but not Wikipedia:Vandalism. Read the subparagraphs "Bold Edits" and "Bullying or Stubbornness" in the vandalism policy. This is a serious dispute that might eventually require intervention, but neither opponent is a vandal as defined by Wikipedia. Art LaPella 23:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There's discussion about similar issues as Talk:Republika Srpska and Talk:History of Republika Srpska. Nikola 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is. I added a similar notice at Talk:Republika Srpska, but not at the other link because it has already been mentioned that it isn't "strictly vandalism", which didn't seem to slow anybody down. Art LaPella 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert War[edit]

State your reasons for removing the content from the article that keeps getting reverted. --Dado 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Same thing is discussed in detail at Talk:Republika Srpska and Talk:History of Republika Srpska (and you know it). Nikola 20:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
And the same source is provided on that page as well (and you know it) --Dado 01:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
And credibility of the same source disputed there. Nikola 20:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


I have found only one {{Fact}} template in this article and I doubt that because of one citation missing an entire article should be blanketed as missing sources. Could we be a bit more specific which statements require source. Little help please --Dado 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading Duja's edit and edit summary, I don't think he's objecting to the one sentence with a {{Fact}} template. His point is that he wants the whole article to be more like New York City, which has 49 references not just one. Art LaPella 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree but instead of citing each and every statement can we at least start with ones that seam to justify the tag. Otherwise the tag is a blanket statement that serves no good other than to discredit what may be a perfectly good article. I especially don't like when people blanket the article without a specific explaination or specific suggestion on how to improve it and than abandon it and avoid actually working on it by looking for sources themselves. --Dado 23:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - here's a similar comment I once made. Art LaPella 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Not sure why it was changed with no discussion so I'm switching back to the previous map as it's clearer the location within the entity. Laughing Man 20:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)



molio bih da u rubrici sport spomenete i sljedece sportiste koji su promovisali Banjaluku kao sto su Marjan Benes i Antun Josipovic. S postovanjem ,


Па напиши сам. Ово је отворена енцислопедија, и свако може да пише о ономе с чим је упознат. Ти си из града, па знаш боље него неко из Београда шта треба да стоји у тексту.--Hadžija 12:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


1 mi² is not 1.609 km² but 1.609km*1,609km = 2,589km².

Demographics? Why so much?[edit]

Im interested in knowing why almost half the headings in the Banja Luka article is devoted to demographics? Can we please make a separate page for this, it's cluttering up the article quite a bit, and i really feel that it's unnecessary. Zlatko 02:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blse.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Blse.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Banjaluci said "Kill the Shiptare"[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Does this article really deserve the A-class rating? Judging by the amount of references, I'm not sure I'd put it even on B-class. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing[edit]

Well, yes. There was significant ethnic cleansing in Banja Luka itself, no question, and the methods are well documented. But it was much more severe, and bloodier, in areas like Prijedor or the Drina Valley. The statement in the introduction of the HRW report needs to be read in context - by 1994, there were no more Bosniaks and Croats in most Serb-controlled areas who could have been exposed to abuse. --20% (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of truth I need to write that this sentence contains some untruth statements:

"Bosniaks, Croats, Romas, and other non-Serbs were "cleansed" through systematic persecution that included torture, murder, rape, beatings, harassment, de jure discrimination, intimidation, expulsion from homes, confiscation of property, bombing of businesses, dismissal from work, outlawing of all scripts except the Cyrillic in public institutions, and the destruction of cultural objects such as mosques and Catholic churches."

I saw source for this and I need to write that source is eminent. But we need to take in count also that in that time much of Western world and their institutions were on Croats and Bosniacs side in conflict. Ie. some of their statements do not contain full thruth. As witness of live in Banja Luka in that time I can write that not all people belong to aforementioned entical groups were "cleansed" from city. For example, even in that period there were university professors who were working in the city keeping their before-war work places. My mother is non-Serb and she was also in the city at that time.
Čikić Dragan (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is derived from Human Rights Watch, a reliable source. Your "experience" or opinion is no substitute. PRODUCER (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The "quote" and the whole thing published on Human Rights Watch site they tendentiously call "report" is written by Ivan Lupis and Vlatka Mihelic and Ivana Nizic. Croats writing "report" about situation in Banja Luka while waging a war against Banja Luka is hardly reliable source. That report is heavily bias and as unreliable as a document can be. Bbanja luka 19:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This is hysterical. You completely ignored the other people involved in the report, not to mention the numerous sources given in the report. You deemed the HRW report unreliable yet used Serbian Wikipedia and a report directly from the government of Republika Srpska as sources. PRODUCER (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hysterical?! Really good and 'reliable' argument. There are three persons who wrote that document they call "report". Let me quote the "report" for that matter: /beginning of paragraph/beginning of sentence/capital letter/ "This report was written Ivan Lupis and Vlatka Mihelic, Associates to Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, and Ivana Nizic, Research Associate to Human Rights Watch/Helsinki." /end of sentence/point. There are no 'other people' writing it. 'Other people' might have checked spelling, 'other people' were maybe quoted, or else for that matter, but there are no 'other people' writing it.
While I can understand "report" writers' motives in the midst of the war 1994 (but not justify or abate the level of bias and fabrication), it is absolutely incomprehensible why some wiki-editors nowadays push for the same propaganda. The only logical answer is that those 'pushing' people are still mentally at war. Let me inform you it is November, year 2009. War ended in 1995[1] [2]. bbanjaluka 09:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to make the ethnicity of the contributers an issue the same can be said for the Serb contributors of your sources. As I stated earlier the HRW report is backed by plenty of third-party sources. Stop bringing up Wikipedia itself as a source and stop with the derogatory tone. PRODUCER (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That "report" titled "Human Rights Watch, War Crimes in Bosnia-Hercegovina: U.N. Cease-Fire Won't Help Banja Luka", June 1994, available at HRW site[7] and UNHCR site[8] as accessed on November 4, 2009, is fabricated. It is packed with bias, unfairness, incorrectness, self-contradictions, ill conclusions and even lies. The creators of the "report" are three Croatian activists who in the middle of the inter-ethnic war that was raging at the time in former Yugoslavia fabricated that "report" with obvious purpose to create negative propaganda against Serbs. Sapienti sat. bbanjaluka 11:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbanja luka (talkcontribs)

In an attempt to show Banja Luka in a good light you inserted "In Banja Luka municipality, violence was not as pervasive as in other municipalities" and neglected to mention what is stated immediately after it "as it was under the scrutiny of the international community. Incidents of destruction of Bosnian Muslim property were nonetheless recurrent. The predominantly Bosnian Muslim villages of Mehovci, Bastasi, Hadrovici and Vranic were shelled." Same issue with the other quote you inserted "that the municipalities of Banja Luka and Čelinac were the safest", you neglected to say that it was limited to the ARK and only for some time "were the safest in the ARK, at least for some time".

Stop distorting information to your advantage. PRODUCER (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Structures not in Banja Luka[edit]

I have removed segment of the history section that stipulates two structures to be part of Banja Luka's city history:

the oldest structure in Banja Luka is the Serbian Orthodox monastery of Svetog Proroka Ilije [citation needed] (St. Elijah, serb. Манастир Светог Пророка Илије), built by Stephen Dragutin of Serbia as his zaduzbina in year 1316.[citation needed] [3] Certainly among the oldest ones is also the Serbian Orthodox monastery of Gomionica from the 14-hundreds.

There are several issues here. The reference to the first building shows that it is actually a monastary called Krupa na Vrbasu. I am not sure if we are than talking about the same building but if we are than the building is actually located at least 20km outside of Banja Luka. Whoever added this info could you please clarify.

The second issue is the Monastery of Gomionica which is located in the village of Kmecani near Bronzani Majdan some 42km west of Banja Luka. Safe to say it is not a Banja Luka's history but the history of Bronzani Majdan or the larger region. While I would like to know more about these buildings they have no relevance for the history and development of the city of Banja Luka.--Dado (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Structures are in Banja Luka City area, this article is about City of Banja Luka, not only a settlement Banja Luka. Banja Luka has status of the city, just like Sarajevo, Belgrade, Zagreb etc. All data in demographics, bosnian war, tourism, are for Banja Luka City area not only for settlement.

Also this in not correct Out of 73,000 Croats and Bosniaks in Banja Luka, there are now about 6,500. Banja Luka has 57.584( Croats (29,026) and Muslims (28,558)) in 1991. census. How is it possible this? Where is the logic? And about 6,500 Muslims and Croats, this also not true. Here is the interview with ef. Spahić and he says: 15.000 Bosniaks live in Banja Luka.

Also this: Today, it has been estimated that the population of the municipality of Banja Luka is about 250,000

Banja Luka is no more municipality.

And this: During the war from 1992-1995 some 70,000 Bosniaks and Croats left or were forced to leave Banjaluka.

70,000 or 73,000??? I have proved above that is incorrect. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

True. It's completely possible (and indeed plausible given wartime conditions) that 70,000+ people left or were forced to leave BL. I'd like to see a cite though - OSCE, for example places the number at "approximately 60,000".
The number of 6,500 only refers to Croats in the cited text. Which is, sadly, itself a wrong/incomplete copy from this Catholic Church source. It's not explicity stated but fairly obvious from the context that both the pre-war numbers of around 70,000 and the post-war number of around 6,000 refer to the whole area of the Banja Luka bishopric. --20% (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If it refers only to the Croats, so why is not written like that. Anyone who reads this: "Out of 73,000 Croats and Bosniaks in Banja Luka, there are now about 6,500. He will think that this number (6,500) is for both: Croats and Bosniaks. Number for both is probably +20.000, pre war is less than 60,000 (57.584 on 1991. census)

Also I proved this sentence is not true: During the war from 1992-1995 some 70,000 Bosniaks and Croats left or were forced to leave Banjaluka.

This number of 70,000 is maybe for all people who left Banja Luka during the war, but maybe. Not only the Bosniaks and Croats left Banja Luka. Croats and Bosniaks are left under threat, others like Roma people are left Banja Luka and go to Serbia. Also about 5,000-10,000 Serbs left Banja Luka and go to EU countries, USA and Canada, and other people who left Banja Luka because of the war.

p.s. I personally do not believe that 70,000 people have left Banja Luka. That is half population of urban area of Banja Luka. This is playing with numbers I thihk. Logic is clear. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

This sentence (Out of 73,000 Croats in Banja Luka, there are now about 6,500;) from is wrong. 73,000 Croats in Banja Luka??? This is may be correct for Banja Luka Bishopric, but that is not written. Banja Luka and Banja Luka Bishopric are two different things. This should not be taken as a reliable source, because this is a big mistake.

  • Banja Luka pre war municipality is 1.239 km²
  • Banja Luka Bishopric is probably 10 times or more larger than Banja Luka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

Well, I already changed the wording to leave out the Bosniaks. But yes, Banja Luka bishopric contains most of northwestern Bosnia, including areas like Livno that were never under Serb control. So it's probably best to remove the sentence completely.
The number of 70,000 in the Demographics section should be replaced by 60,000, with the OSCE reference above. --20% (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)