Talk:Banja Luka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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 [1] 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 [2].
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)


1 mi² is not 1.609 km² but 1.609km*1,609km = 2,589km².— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2007


=capitalREP.SRPSKAnoMENTIOND?? (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Monument in the south east?[edit]

At 44°45′18″N 17°15′37″E / 44.754916°N 17.260294°E / 44.754916; 17.260294 (Unknown object) in a satellite photo one can see something in Vrbanja (?) that looks like a soldiers’ cemetery. But due to my lacking language skills I cannot find anything pertinent with Google; OpenStreetMap displays the area without explanation expect for labelling it "Zeleni Vir". What's that? --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikimapia, it is "Gradsko groblje Vrbanja", which translates to "City cemetery Vrbanja":
According to the labels there, it's also military (vojska). The other label "groblje, mezarje" literally means "cemetery, Muslim cemetery". --Jhertel (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
And Google Maps agree: --Jhertel (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! There are some pictures here which make it look much less monumental than from the air. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for the pictures; I was looking for pictures through my phone browser but failed to find any. You're right, it doesn't look that monumental :-). --Jhertel (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Banja Luka. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Banja Luka. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)