Jump to content

User:Rjecina/Bosnian census

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This subpage is created to find solution for dispute about Bosnian maps and census between user LAz17 and Čeha. After end of discussion page will be deleted.

Bosnian census

[edit]

Maybe I am making mistake but on friday we have discovered that map problems are only about census data. This is invitation to both users to write all census data for all bosnian municipality (naselja) with nationality numbers (how much there is Bosniaks, Croats, Serbs and others):--Rjecina (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tomislavgrad i Glamoč:
I have looked your (user:LAz17) data about Glamoč and Tomislavgrad and we are having possible problems. This data is different of all other wiki data. For example you data is speaking about 29,261 souls in Tomislavgrad. Serbian, Croatian and English wiki are speaking about 30,009 souls. Maybe wiki data is wrong, or maybe your data is wrong !?--Rjecina (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks like my data differ for all these municipalities. However, here are some points...
a) my data has census track data, aka data for places bellow the municipality level - something that ceha's does not
b) ceha has community area data, but there are no such community areas
c) this wiki data is from a biased source, that being http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/census.html - Bosnian Congress USA, http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/ ... this is clearly a biased site, and thus I have legitimate reason to question this data
d) despite ceha's data, he still has my data somewhere... how else can he know that glamoc had 7 census tracks with a bosniak majority? He said that before I posted my data. therefore he has this more detailed data like I do, but does not want to show it or something... it means that he knows very well that there are many census tracks per municipality, far more than what his biased data shows.
(LAz17 (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

Here are two links to the National Geographic 1991 map, which shows that they used similar data to the Belgrade Univeristy 1991 map. I will upload Belgrade University map soon. http://srpska-mreza.com/MAPS/Ethnic-groups/map-NatGeogr-1996.jpg - original link where I first saw it
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/nationalgeoraphicmapbosnia1991.jpg - my personal scanned image, as ceha does not trust that link... so scan is here to prove that they are showing the real national geographic scan... I can take more scans or photos if he needs more proof... perhaps even a short videoclip if I ever figure out how to do that
(LAz17 (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).


The Geography Department at Belgrade University made some maps... and they do indeed show the census tracks.

Give us a map with sub-municipal subdivisions that matches data

[edit]

LAz17's map

[edit]

My data has a map that correlates subdivisions with data set... This is right here. http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/bosnia-karta2b.jpg As we can see, there is detailed drawings of where each census track is. I have the 1991 map also, and shall reupload it on some link off of wikipedia.

Now that I have submitted my data... let us see where Ceha's map is that corresponds to his data... I have asked him already and he has not come up with anything, probably because there is nothing.(LAz17 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

Also on that site we have the map for Montenegro that shows sub-municipal borders... http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/vrudic-stepic-montenegro2b.jpg... this was reproduced and uploaded onto wikipedia for the new data set for the last census http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Montenegroetno03.png - therefore this should be good evidence that there should be no worry about sum-municipal borders.

Laz your data does not correlates your data. You don't have municipal maps in which are shown settlments borders with it's names. So basicly you have got false data which does not agrees with existent census and a detailed map (without knowing where settlments on it are) which is nor checkable nor true. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
My data indeed does correlate to these maps. Count the census tracks, and then count the number of areas in the municipality with the data that I uploaded and the map that I uploaded. But I must admit, I do not have a map with all the names. There are thousands of them and I have no idea where I can find this. The point is that good sources - university of belgrade, and national geographic, have made good maps, which differ much from yours. (LAz17 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
As I still suspect your comprenhenshion of english to be unsuficient I'll translate this into simple Croatian:
Da li imaš kartu na kojoj se vidi pozicija tj. ime svakog naselja u toj općini? Ako nemaš, onda nemožeš tvrditi da su ti podaci dobri, jer ako ne znaš gdje se nalazi selo "Donji Višnjik" u općini Derventa kako ga onda možeš označiti?
Uostalom oko ovoga nećemo raspravljati jer niti nisi dao dobre izvore (suprotni su popisu iz 1991) niti imaju copywrith. Tako i tako će se te karte izbrisati a ti tu pričaš markove konake.
--Čeha (razgovor) 15:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ja nemam to. I ti takodje nemas za svoje map. Mada, ja barem imam mapu gde moze da se vidu granice, a ti nemas nista takvo. Ti znaci pravis mapu od nicega.
I do not have this. And you also do not have your map. But, I at least have a map where we can see the borders, and you do not have anything like that. You therefore made your map out of nowhere. You made your map based on a deleted map, based on fraud data. (LAz17 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
I? To što se na prvoj karti bez copywritha vide granice, a ne znaš gdje je koje naselje ne znači da je karta točna. Zadrži se na diskusiji ovdje o svojim djelima. Na ostalim kartama koje braniš se ne vide granice naselja. O čemu ti pričaš? I na kraju, karta je rađena po lažnim podacima koji se razlikuju od podataka s popisa 1991.
And so of it? That that on the first map (which has no copywrith) you can se the settlment lines and you don't know where some settlment lies, doesn't means it is correct. On others map you can not se the settlment borders. What are you talkin about? And at the end the map is based on false data which differs from 1991 census.
--Čeha (razgovor) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Just the fact that I have a sub-municipal border map, from accredited sources, and the fact that you have no map that corresponds to your data, means that your data is bad, and because you have no base-map that corresponds to your mjesna zajdnica, your map is a fraud. Your maps are based off of maps that wikipedia deleted, maps which you strongly promoted and tried to keep on the site. Your data is wrong, not mine.(LAz17 (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
Says the person which promotes maps with no copywrith, and from which large proportion was already deleted? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
What large proportion? (LAz17 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
Which percentage of your maps (maps which you puted on the wiki or promote their usage on it) got deleted in last few weeks?
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
None that I have made. I have put maps that I now have online on photobucket. (LAz17 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
You haven't made not a one map. Hower a number of maps which you puted on wiki, or claimed to be ok was deleted due to copywright or other issues.--Čeha (razgovor) 23:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Banja Luka

[edit]

Here we have a map, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Banja_Luka_ethnic.jpg , which is exactly the same as banja luka municipality. Why do you not go and annoy that guy who made it, saying that his map should be deleted, on the basis that it is different from yours. (LAz17 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

What's wrong with that map? On my maps, just mixed area around Banja Luka is halwed in two peaces.
--Čeha (razgovor) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
For starters, the area where banja luka city itself is is BIG, and nobody was a majority there, so you can not say that they are a majority if they are not. There are areas with no ethnic group being the majority too. And plus, you put more croats area than there should be in this municipality. Just one example. (LAz17 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
How did I do that? I've haved are without majority. Simple as that. Do please tell me.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you just wrote. The fact is that there are areas in banja luka municipality with no majority and areas with no people at all. They are not included on your map. banja luka city is a big one, and muslims were a significant component of it. Your map ignores the muslim element, and ignores the big town area itself, ignores the fact that there are many places with no majority. (LAz17 (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
I'll translate. Podijelio sam područje koje je bilo označeno kao mješano. Za muslimane je označeno jedno područje ispod Hrvata (malo područje koje dira grad). Oni su bili većinom urbana populacija pa su se nalazili većinom u gradu. S obzirom da je nemoguće podjeliti oznaku za grad, ukoliko grad nije okružen sa svih strana to znači da je u njemu bilo dosta građana onih nacionalnosti čije boje dotiču oznaku za grad. Da li je sada jasnije?
--Čeha (razgovor) 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain this so that others can understand...

Therefore we now see how ceha made his maps... no basemap, no nothing, no data even, just modifying a fraudulent map! (LAz17 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

Please explain to me how this map [1] which shows same year (and which I made) is based on the data from [2] ? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Very simple, your map that you mention, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census#Ceha.27s_map came from either http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/?action=view&current=Bih_1991_colors.jpg or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif all because of that fake fraud map for 1991...(LAz17 (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

That map is older from them all, Laz... Do check sometimes when something was made, will you? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And also, it is untrue that there was no muslims in BL. You can see that little green area south of town (and in town) which shows theirs population part (as mostly urban population they did not take lot of land).
--Čeha (razgovor) 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I said that you made it look like there were no muslims in Banja Luka. They were a big group in the city itself, and so the entire city region was no majority, but your map says different. (LAz17 (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).

I answered that in the upper text.--Čeha (razgovor) 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ceha's map

[edit]

As I said, for further more detailed data you can check "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. That is printed edition without internet version. You also have data by settlment on most of national wikipedias (croat, serbian etc). Here is an example [3] (I suggest looking for an older version of this pages to be certain they were not tempered with). All of that data is equal to bih census of 1991 [4]. Just Laz's data is different... Laz if you have maps which are correlated with inter-municipal settlments put it on the net (not on the wiki) and we will go through every settlment and municipality. However you must agree that valid data for this is already on the net and not invent some your own stuff. There can not be good map based on a false data...
--Čeha (razgovor) 08:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You keep my map out of this discussion section. This discussion section is just about your map. So, with that regard, give us the basemap that correlates your data with sub-municipal boundaries.
I agree that there can be no good map based on false data, and I feel that your data is false. And furthermore I feel that your maps are all based off of those previously deleted maps, not off of any data, as we still have not seen a base map that correlates to your data. (LAz17 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
Laz, I do not need exact map. If you do have it, that would be good because I can make my maps more precise. Only thing somebody needs when making a map is a valid sub municipal census (which you do not have) and google maps for that submunicipal locations. Also it is usefull to have insight into more precise data as "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo or internet reference to it as can be paritaly seen [5].
This subsection is about your map, so stop avoiding discussion about your map and stop returning it to be about my map. (LAz17 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
The national zavod for statistika did not exist in bosnia and herzegovina in 1991. Furthermore, your link to derventa uses data from the bad data, and it shows nothing else as to where we can get that data.

You claim that you made this map. Based off of what did you make it? We see no map with your subdivisions anywhere. There is no such map. (LAz17 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

I made it from municipal map of BiH with data what I've given to you. Do I need to translate that on Croatian or you can compranhend one sentence? Also on that data are names of the villages which can be pinpointed by google maps. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you do not understand the issue at hand. A simple village or city is one point. You can not represent a point with such a big area as you do. Each data unit that you have in yoru data has a name. This must have an associated border. You are continually avoiding the point here, that your map is not based on anything, but on false maps which were deleted from wikipedia. There are no borders on the mjesna zajdnica areas that you give. Therefore you can not map that data until you have the sub-municipal border areas. How do you know that a certain area corresponds to a certain percentage of people? You simply do not. Your data does not have any association to any borders. Therefore you can not map your data anyhow. Looking at google is not enough. All areas MUST have borders. Those that you talk about do not. Again, give us the map from which you got that in these areas this group is a majority. You can not do that, because you did not make it from that data, but copied the bad maps which were deleted. How difficult is it to understand this? You must have some sort of map that is associated to your data. You do not or are not giving it. Therefore you can not for sure fix any error in your maps, as there are no borders that correspond to that data. What is worst is that there are many areas with NO majority and NO people too. You do not show these regions. (LAz17 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is your personal opinion that on every map you have to have sub municipal borders or it is a wikipedias opinion? Because you would do better to read wikipedias policies and not to speak without knowledge:) Pinpointing an village is a preaty accurate method. It is not 100% certain, but within limits of error.
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In all censues everywhere, each census unit has an area that corresponds to it, and there should be a map that this should correspond to. It is never just the village itself, there is land around it too. Without knowing the areas, you can not make the map. You have no areas, you did not make the map based off of that data. (LAz17 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
Village location and it's suraundings are enough for making such map. Map may not be 100% precise, but it would be correct.
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
No, this is totally false, it woulud not be okay at all. The point is that we do not know how big the surroundings are. Your data is okay if you want to make a dot scatter map, as has been created here, http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/maps.html - that map corresponds to that data, and no other. Your data is for a dot map, not a color map. That's just reality. You can not color areas when you do not have their boundaries. That's a fundamental principle in cartography. You yourself just admited that your maps are not accurate, as they do not represent stuff 100% correct. Of course they don't. They just represent certain selected cities, good for a dot map, not one which shows entire areas. (LAz17 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
Fact remains, that all your data is from http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/maps.html , and if they could not make a color map, then I don't see how you can claim that you are better than them. In fact you are worse, as you do not even include mixed areas, but on their maps you can at least see some mixed where nobody is a majority. (LAz17 (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).
http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/maps.html are maps which show basic status in the municipality and nothing on it's villages. Those are basicly a municipal maps. I don't see why you always mention http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/maps.html ?
--Čeha (razgovor) 23:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You can click the maps and notice how there are villages there too, and they correspond directly to that data that you cite. In fact that website cites that data... I don't understand exactly what their data says, but it seems like these are estimates from januray 1991, which by 1991 were declared official by the bosniak government. They are data that are parallel of the belgrade data, or made along with that data. You can see their census data too on the site, same that you say, just click the link, and see http://www.hdmagazine.com/bosnia/census.html ... bosniak propaganda at its height, deleting all those census tracks. Not that its false, but there are many census tracks missing. That's the problem. (LAz17 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC))
Problem remains, go to that map, and you see the map that corresponds to that data. As we see, they can only make a dot map, not an area map like you have. Therefore your maps should be deleted, as they do not represent stuff. You yourself admitted that your maps are not correct 100%, and in fact it's not even close to 100%. The most that can correspond from your data are points, not areas, as that map has no basemap that shows sub-municipal units, only SOME towns/villages. (LAz17 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).
Names of the willages are very murky on the main maps. I've clicked now some more detailed map (example [6]) and they do show some major villages. Maybe they grouped data according to that? However theirs data is also somewhat incorect. For example Konjic (as we were talking about it) can be seen at [7]. And it is different to official census data [8]. Difference is small, but existent.
I disagree with your opinion on my maps. Possible errors are within margin of error and I do think that those can be fixed (one by one municipality).
--Čeha (razgovor) 08:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the federation's statistics guys by email. They tell me that they have no map of any sort of mjesna zajednica units. Therefore how are we supposed to map it when they do not have a base map? As I said, the most that can be done is a dot map, like you have here, http://s444.photobucket.com/albums/qq161/theCeha/?action=view&current=BrckoRSFbih.jpg , and in fact that map which you uploaded there contradicts the ones that I have a problem with. Your map there is pretty accurate I would say, and so it does indeed contradict maps which you have already uploaded. This one is probably the best one, as it shows a similar thing as belgrade's data, but more importantly, it shows concentration of ethnic groups, which the belgrade maps do not. With this map I would say that you have disqualified your other maps... we can see two tiny serb settlement dots in tomislavgrad... your data says they are nowhere... we can also see many small serb dots in the kljuc part of the federation, and again, this is not present on your map. There are other examples too of how this map differs from the ones that are already up. (LAz17 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).

You contacted federation's statistics guys by emil, nice:) Ask them to tell you what is the difference of that Belgrade data that you have and 1991 census. Also it would be nice to check one more time validity of "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. Data mentioned there is by settlment, not by mjesna zajednica and you have most of that data online. Do they have settlment map of BiH?

As for photobucket map, there is just one problem with it. I don't know how much it is authentical. I took it out from some forum (and that was some time ago), don't have any copywrite rights on it, nor can I check is it correct (it doesn't gives names of the settlments). However if we do determine it is valid it can help us to correct any possible errors on previous maps.
If shown that is correct it would be much better to use that map, but I am not familiar with possible copywrith issues which it could bring.
--Čeha (razgovor) 18:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked them for information regarding the mijesna zajdnica map and they have not gotten back to me yet. They said that they do not have such a map that shows mjesna zajdnicas, and I asked them if such a map even exists... they have not gotten back to me yet... it probably does not, and if they do not reply to me I figure that it does not exist... Therefore the only way to map that data is via dot map. Perhaps you can just edit that map a little. (LAz17 (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).

Atleast there must be informations of which settlments constitute local community (mjesna zajednica). For example, one user has given that data for Fojnica municipality on cro wikipedia [9], however this was later deleted [10]. However he did not offer source. But that's besides the point. Settlment map is more precise then possible local community one. I agree that doted settlment (dakle po naseljima) map would be the best solution. Copywrite issues are the problem. All previous maps I made are colored and I can fix them by changing the bordes to be more like http://s444.photobucket.com/albums/qq161/theCeha/?action=view&current=BrckoRSFbih.jpg , after crosschecking some data. That's not a problem. However making another dot-map like [11] from scratch and without a source you can call on would be. Even if there is census on the net and avaible maps like this [12] (unfortunately there is not something like this for every municipality and this map does not shows municipal borders) it would be a long project. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Valid data

[edit]

As user Laz is trying to avoid, I would like to ask him to show me why is his data different from 1991 census [13]. Simple request.
--Čeha (razgovor) 15:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How on earth am I supposed to find out "WHY" they are different? The difference is minimal however, by usually one hundred or less people per municipality. The percentage of groups remains the same in each municipality. The only reason why is because of the data is false, probably yours. Your data is not the offical data, as yugoslav censuses always had these census tracks, also called cadastral units. There is no such thing as a mjesna zajdnica. (LAz17 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

Ok, I'll translate this because obviously you have trouble with compranhension on english; Imaš popis po naseljima u knjizi na "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. To je popis koji je potvrđen prije rata od strane svih nacionalnih stranaka (s iznimkom za općinu Kupres). Dosta podataka s tog popisa imaš na wikipedijama tipa [14]. Popis koji si ti dao odstupa od popisa 1991 i zato je kriv. Nisu postoci isti, smanjeni su podaci Hrvata a povećani postoci Srba (barem u općini Kupres).
Što se mene tiče, možemo proć cijelu BiH po tom popisu. Nastat će dobra i precizna karta. Kratko i jasno. Ti kažeš da se podaci po tvom popisu ne razlikuju puno od službenih. Ja kažem da se razlikuju makar malo i da zato nisu točni. Idemo raditi po točnom popisu. Kratko jasno. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Te podatke koje dajes nisu tacan popis, nego su pogresan popis. Podatci nisu isti, al su vrlo blizki, i posto ljudi je odprilike isto, zavisi u manje od jedan osto inace. Moje podatke za kupres nisi trazio, i ja cu da ih priopcim. Kako mozes da pricas o mojim podatcima ako ih nisi ni video? Nastat ce dobra i precizna karte tek onda kad imamo mapu i lokacije svi jedinica koje su manje od municipaliteta. Ti to ocigledno nemas ili nezelis da das, i nikad neces moci zato sto su tvoje mape pravljene van ikakvi podataka, nego su pravljane na bazi lazni mapa koje su bile pobrisane sa vikipedije. (LAz17 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

Gle, to je službeni popis. Ne znam zašto misliš da bi ti trebao imati točniji popis od onog oko kojeg su se suglasile sve strane prije rata?
Dao si mi podatke za Konjic i tu sam već vidio greške. Ako želiš, možeš staviti Kupres, naravno da me zanima. Ja se slažem, kao što sam prije rekao, da se skupi sva dodatna literatura i da se napravi precizna karta.
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Moji podatci kazu da je konjic imalo 43636 ljudi, gde su muslimani bili 23791 (54.52), hrvati bili 11354 (26.02), srbi bili 6645 (15.23), jugosloveni bili 1379 (3.16), i ostali bili 467 (1.07), dok tvoji podatci kazu da je imalo 43,878 ljudi, gde su muslimani bili 23,815 (54.28), hrvati bili 11,513 (26.24), srbi bili 6,620 915.09), jugosloveni bili 1,358 (3.09), i ostali bili 572 (1.3) ... dakle gde su te velike razlike? Skoro isti brojevi. Gde si ti video greske? Gresku su sa tvojim, ne mojim. Trenutno nemogu da stavim podatke za kupres, jer sam van kuce. Stavih cu ih kad se vratim kuci. Nekontam sta znaci sluzbeni... ima jedan jedini koji je uredu. Problem je da se neslazemo oko koji je uredu. (LAz17 (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

Imaš popis iz 1991 [15] a oni podaci koji se ne slažu s njim su lažni. To svatko može provjeriti. Linkovi koje sam ja dao su službeni linkovi i izdanja iz bih. Ti nisi pružio taj link osim izjave da ti je to na cd-u beogradskog zavoda za statistiku.
There is the census from 1991 [16] and that data which differs from it is a fraud. That ayone can check. I've given official lines and editions from BiH. You don't have that source. You've only given a vague expression that your data comes from cd which came from Belgrade's office of statistics.
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there was no official bosnian census place in 1991. It was Yugoslavian, directed from belgrade, not sarajevo. this organization taht you speak of was created after the war. There is no such organization. Your document Bilten no.234, Sarajevo 1991 does not exist, and was not published by the national statistics, which was at that time in belgrade, not sarajevo. (LAz17 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)).

What organisation do you speak about? What is it connection to Statistic's office of Federation BiH which has given this data? Why do you think that there was no such document?
Before you answer to all of this, please check serbian wikipedia, here [17] is data for Konjic municipality, and you have sources at the end of the page.
When you are done, I would like to hear appology from you, and admision that you've got false data.
--Čeha (razgovor) 23:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Serbian wikipedia probably copied the bosniak or english wikipedia. Keep in mind that wikipedia is not an accredited source from where you can cite material from for any academic institution. (LAz17 (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)). I feel that my data is correct. Your data, from what I guess, is data that combines certain census tracks - the problem is that we do not know which ones it combines and therefore cna not assign an area to the data. You however assign an area. This is outrageous as the most that your data can give is a dot map. So change your data to a color map. (LAz17 (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).
That is official data. You can found that data (at least on municipal level) in number of publitications. As I said, that was the data that was also proclaimed official before the war on the Parlament of BiH by all parties. Perhaps it is still possible to google this out.
An feeling is not a valid source to make wikipedan data valid.
--Čeha (razgovor) 08:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic

[edit]

Why is there no comment on the national geographic map? Do you think that it's wrong too? Maybe everything that differs from what you like to see/hear is wrong? That's your logic, right? http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/nationalgeoraphicmapbosnia1991.jpg (LAz17 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).

Simple. I'm not certain it is realy National geographic map. It is not on theirs web pages to be cited as a valid source. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not many people cite it, but I will take more photos of it and upload it. The map matches your map here, http://s444.photobucket.com/albums/qq161/theCeha/?action=view&current=BrckoRSFbih.jpg - but your map is better because it shows concentration, whereas this national geographic one only shows area. (LAz17 (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).

As for National Geographic, try to mail them and ask them about sourcing that map and it's usage on wikipedia. I agree that other map is better and more detailed. But alas, there are copywrith issues to both of them. I would like to be certain before we make any conclusion about maps that it will not be another case of [18] which I also found somwhere on the net and did not check it out (temeljito:). Uglavnom, probaj se čuti i dobiti neku dozvolu ili potvrdu od federalnog zavoda za statistiku oko ove druge karte (s kružićima). Onda možemo pitati Rjecinu za copywrite status te iste karte, i koliko se toga smije upotrijebiti i pod kojim uvjetima na wikipediji. Probaj isto mailati i national geographic od viška potvrđenih karata glava ne boli. Jer ako ne prođe copywrite, trebati će se ručno ispravljati stare karte.
--Čeha (razgovor) 18:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevidim sta ima to mesto u sarajevu sa onom mapom... mada, pricao sam sa nekim profesorom o national geographiku... kazu da nesmem da stavljam njihove mape tako... but tell m,e there is the map that pax made, this one - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BH1991.png it is like the same as the national geographic one... what is wrong with putting it up? It looks the same. This map along with that one that you got just recently would be a good set. (LAz17 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).

national geographic map is on wikipedia actually... http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Bih_ethnic07.jpg (LAz17 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).

Well, there shouldn't be map on wikipedia without copywrite rights. You can ask Panonian about status of that map on serbian wikipedia. Personly, I think that your profesor has right and that is should not be there.
Pax just colored map from Belgrade University (or where it came from), and he did not have copywrite rigts to do so. That are the reasons against his map.
It would be better to have a blank map of settlment borders(and another with settlment names), but unforunatelity that does not exist.
And if we are going to make new map that data should be once more checked (to see does it responds to 1991 census data). --Čeha (razgovor) 08:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I got this from emailing that federation statistics department... "Nema potrebe da nam ?aljete primjere, obzirom da je bio rat u BiH se radila obrada za Bosnu i Hercegovinu i ti podaci su relevantni." (LAz17 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)).

Yes, that would explain errors in Belgrade's data (all the data was left in Sarajevo). --Čeha (razgovor) 03:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that this would explain why your data is wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).

Then your sentences do not have sense. You want to say that guy from statistics office told you that official 1991 census [19] is not correct?? I don't understand. Your own saying is that 1991 census data from Sarajevo is correct ("relevantna"). Your previous statment does not have any sense. You have 1991 census by settlment (not "mjesna zajednica", "naseljima") from which numbers are different with Belgrade census. And wich was printed in 1991, Sarajevo edition, "Bilten 234". What is the catch? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC) --Čeha (razgovor) 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


My data is from kadastarse opstine, the only units used for the censuses in the former yugoslavia, in the last 4 censuses of when it was a country. Your mjesna zajdnica data is from units that do not exist - those units merely combined a number of these cadastral units, but we do not know which ones. Your data is estimates. (LAz17 (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).

And the data I gave is from bih 1991 census. Haven't we already established that your data is false? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kupres data request

[edit]

Voila.

STANOVNI[TVO PREMA NACIONALNOJ PRIPADNOSTI I POVR[INA NASEQA 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                    ------------
REPUBLIKA                  !        !       !       !       !       !       !povr-  !                                      {ifre
OP[TINA                    ! Ukupno !Hrvati ! Musli-! Srbi  !Jugo-  ! ostali!{ina   !                                    op{t nase-
   NASEQE                  !        !       !  mani !       !sloveni!       ! (ha)  !                                      ine   qa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                    ------------
Kupres                          9663    3827     811    4895      68      62   60105                                     105531
   Barjamovci                    115       0       0     114       0       1    1574                                     10553129054
   Begovo Selo                   276     147       0     127       1       1     780                                     10553129062
   Bili Potok                     94      79      14       0       1       0    1790                                     10553129089
   Blagaj                        209       0       0     207       1       1    2350                                     10553129097
   Botun                          72      32       0      39       0       1     692                                     10553129119
   Brda                          143      36      84      23       0       0    1379                                     10553129127
   Bu}ova~a                      330       0       0     328       0       2    2349                                     10553129135
   Dowe Ravno                    256       0      77     179       0       0     768                                     10553129143
   Dowe Vukovsko                 208       1       1     205       0       1    1320                                     10553129151
   Dowi Malovan                  399       0       0     398       0       1    3416                                     10553129160
   Goravci                       218     161      56       0       0       1     350                                     10553129178
   Gorwe Ravno                   235       1       0     233       0       1    1400                                     10553129186
   Gorwe Vukovsko                 89       0       0      89       0       0    3013                                     10553129194
   Gorwi Malovan                 152      17       0     134       0       1    3385                                     10553129208
   Kudiqi                         84       0       0      82       0       2    2701                                     10553129216
   Kukavice                      129      59      57      13       0       0     380                                     10553129224
   Kupres                       2722     961     365    1297      65      34    1260                                     10553129232
   Kute                          152      10     142       0       0       0     612                                     10553129259
   Mlakva                         40      38       0       2       0       0     170                                     10553129267
   Mrdjanovci                    281       0       0     280       0       1    1450                                     10553129275
   Mrdjebare                      21      13       0       8       0       0     762                                     10553129283
   Mu{i}                         159       0       0     159       0       0    2184                                     10553129291
   Novo Selo                     320       1       0     319       0       0    2020                                     10553129305
   Oxak                          221     194      10      16       0       1     120                                     10553129313
   Olovo                          68      68       0       0       0       0     231                                     10553129321
   Osmanlije                     403     400       0       0       0       3    3640                                     10553129330
   Otinovci                      186     143       5      38       0       0    1050                                     10553129348
   Rasti~evo                     394     310       0      80       0       4    1720                                     10553129356
   Rili}                         202       0       0     202       0       0    2058                                     10553129364
   Stra`benica                    42      42       0       0       0       0    1605                                     10553129372
   Suhova                         76      76       0       0       0       0     750                                     10553129399
   [emenovci                     252       0       0     250       0       2    2090                                     10553129402
   Vrila                          55      55       0       0       0       0     358                                     10553129429
   Zanaglina                      66       0       0      66       0       0    1840                                     10553129437
   Zlosela                       676     668       0       5       0       3    4710                                     10553129445
   Zvirwa~a                      318     315       0       2       0       1    3828                                     10553129453

Data's pretty good I think. Croats - 39.60 , Serbs - 50.66 , Bosniaks - 8.39 , Yugos - 0.70 , Others - 0.64 Your data says... Croats - 39.64 , Serbs - 50.58 , Bosniaks - 8.34 , Yugos - 0.70 , Others - 0.75 So less than 0.10 percent difference... more or less the same (LAz17 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).

As I said it is not official and does contains some difference. If you think it is basicly the same then we can work with data from statistički bilten br. 234 and you can check it out does it respond to your data by village. Simple solution. Data for Kupres municipality was not acepted in Parlament of BiH due that it was not printed and was writen by hand and inserted into the census. However it is part of the census. Thanks for the data, I was curious. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


Well well well

[edit]

Major find. And that's an understatement. http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/evevi.png So yeah. (LAz17 (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)).

Gone on road trip, see you guys later whenever that might be this next week. (LAz17 (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)).

Unfortunately I can't read cirilic. It is great that map shows settlment borders and names. It can be easily checked. What are the names of those 2 villages of Derventa municipality on the upper right corner with Doboj and Bosanski Brod municipalities? Višnik something?
Have a nice time on yours vacation:)

That upper tip is shown as croatian village in [20] and [21] however if those two villages are Bukovica Mala and Gornji Višik those both maps are incorect in those two villages. Just an after thought>:) --Čeha (razgovor) 18:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Gornji Visnjik and Djukovica Mala. But what to do now? (LAz17 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

[22] looks correct. However,now we are certain that Pax's map contains errors... Small ones, but errors never the less. I proposed in final solution what should we do. One more thing to do would be to put mixed/uninhabited/national minority color into the map. However, as we do not own valid settlment map of BiH with names some arreas would be difficult to determinate. --Čeha (razgovor) 03:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction. A valid settlement/mjesna zajdnica map does not exist. Pax's map might have tiny mistakes, but it is far more accurate than your map. (LAz17 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).

Pax map is wrong on every possible level. It does not have copywrith, it's settlment borders differ from settlment border of other maps (including that you puted on net), and it has ton of errors. The best possible one, which can be checked is in Cazin municipality where it shows serbian village which, according to 1991 census does not exist. It even differs from this map [23] which you puted on the net. It is obvious that it should be deleted. As for my maps, only them don't have any copywrith issues, but we'll discuss them in the part were I propesed them.
If you don't have any valid argument agains deletion of Pax maps then I propose they should be deleted ASAP. If you wiah you can uploade them on your photo bucket account and they can serve as that further in this discussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


Your map here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif , has a little bit in cazin. I will get data so that we can double-check cazin for sure. pax map is far more correct than your map. Copyrwrite status has nothing to do with how correct or incorrect it is. Your maps are based off of maps which have already been deleted, not off of any real data. (LAz17 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).

And [24] is corrected map. In 1991 bih census [25] there is no serbian village there. Map which you putted on the net does not show any serbian settlment [26]. Should I continue?--Čeha (razgovor) 21:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem

[edit]

My problem with this dispute is very simple. I do not see point in creating demography maps with sub-municipal subdivisions. All this maps (it is not important if we speak of Germany, USA or Bosnia and Herzegovina) for me are having simple problems with mixed regions:

For example municipality is having english majority because 65 % of municipality capital population are of english nationality. In villages around capital we are having 80 % of population are Zulu, but all in all in municipality we are having 55 % english against 45 % zulu.

If we create demography map with sub-municipal subdivisions, ulmost all municipality will have Zulu colours which is in my thinking very misleading. Then if we want to add this map in article we must write that greatest part of map is in Zulu colours not because they are majority, but because they are villagers (seljaci), which can create new problems and edit warring.

I am sure that you both are against my thinking that we must delete all Bosnian demography maps with sub-municipal subdivisions ?--Rjecina (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case just municipal center should be more underlined. However, I agree with you that this is a serious issue. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your concern. For example, on the US election maps we can see maps that show winnings in states and in counties. Similarly we can see this in canadian elections - results in provinces as well as in the districts. This is another unit of measurement, and I feel that it is perfectly fine to show it. Doing this would only result in a better understanding of the situation that is at hand. I believe that every map is misleading in some sort of way. It is best to have a few maps - with all of them together we see the picture better. These maps are perfectly fine anyways, as they correspond to units. It is not like the map is lying. It is truthful. Lets take a municipality... it usually has the main town in it... but there may very well be many other towns in there too. Granted that they might not be as big, but they may nonetheless be significant. (LAz17 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)).

Final solution

[edit]


I made some changes on [27] map correcting existent inaccuracies. Now it is more precise. Isolated villages with population equal or less of 150 people or surface which is to small to be seen on map of this size are not shown.
I think that by fixing errors onto this map we can achive valid solution.
Other Maps which do not have good copywrite licences, or have errors;


should be deleted. For those the stated above it should be noticed that in Cazin municipality there exists no setlment with Serbian majority[31] and that in Derventa municipality settlmenent Gornji Višnjik does not have Croatian majority (as it can be clearly seen in Laz's Posavina map.
If anyone can see some furtger errors on [32] it would be good to tell me about that because I made corrections using [33] and 1991census. That would satisfy everbody, I hope? --Čeha (razgovor) 03:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No way in hell. It is better to delete all of them and take rajcina's example than to use this miserable map that you have created. As I said before, your map is only good if it is to be a dot map. Your map is not a dot map now is it? Your map represents areas of whose boundaries we do not know, which we have no idea where they are. This is why your map is ridiculous, as you say it is based off of mjesna zajdnica data, but in reality your mjesna zajdnica units which have no corresponding map. On the other hand Pax's map is far more accurate. We can see that maps which are academic, like national geographic's and university of belgrade's, are examples that we should follow. You are mapping mjesna zajdnicas, things that CAN NOT be mapped. Many cities on the map, like banja luka, DID not have a majority. Your map's a disgrace... no offense. They have to go. Along with it the croat map of bosnia and herzegovina should go as well, as it is based off of your false maps. (LAz17 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).

LAz17 you are speaking about Banja Luka and for me this is good example of problems with our maps (all maps).
In 1991 Serbs are 49,03 % of Banja Luka population (town)
In settlements Ivanjska and Dragočaj Croats are 72 - 73 %, in šimići they are 98 % of population and in another village they are having slim majority.
In all other settlements Serbs are 95 - 99 % of population.
In the end Serbs are making 54,58 % of population in Banja Luka municipality. Are we having agreement that this is very hard to show on demography maps ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would not say that it is hard to show. What we need is a base map that corresponds to data. National Geographic and Belgrade University have done this. Ceha has made some chicken scratch based off of nothing. I have no problem with maps that show less than a municipality, as long as they correspond to something. Ceha's maps correspond to nothing, and that worries me a lot. I find that all maps do not show everything... as we have seen, the municipality map does not show density or sub-municipal borders... we can also see that the sub-municipal maps do not show concentration, and we have seen that the concentration map does not have dots absolutely everywhere - we can't expect them to anyways. I feel that it would be good to have some maps bellow the municipality level, but that ceha's maps must be deleted at all cost. (LAz17 (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).
Laz, You have 1991 census data, by settlment. Please, please, prety please, try to remember that one simple thing. There is a book called "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo of wich you have the same data on almost every wikipedia. You also have [34] which shows location of most of the settlments, and some of which could be google-map out. You also gave me [35] map of which the data I included into this map.
Further more, I asked you to give me any possible data on correction of possible errors, and offered to show mixed area by different color (now they are divided). And for all of that you offer me Pax's maps, which don't have any copywrith rights, which is different in some points to other maps you gave, and which is affirmed to have errors (Cazin and Derventa municipality for starts).
All of that for Simplified map of BiH 1991 ethnics.
Do read all of this once more time, and tell me what should any sensible administrator would say on all of this.
As for Banja Luka, you can see 1981 status on this map [36] and that little purple dot on the west became blue (which can be seen in Laz's map [37]). Mixed area of the city I divided (Croatian settlments are mostly on the north [38]), but if needs be I can very simply color the disputed area again as mixed. Northern part of Banja Luka municipality had mostly Croatian settlments. Best solution would be to create doted map with circles which have national percentige acting as city marks, but that would be a lot of work. As I said previously I thought that my corrected map should be the best simplified solution.
Laz if you want you can make dot maps for each municipality and later put them in one map. I puted some other municipal settlment maps on photobucket, and you can found ethnical data(1991 bih census) on most of it on most of south-skavic wikipedias.
Anyways, I'm open to further suggestions.
And Laz, if you continue to swear you will ceartanly be blocked from wikipedia.

--Čeha (razgovor) 21:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ceha, I have some news that may surprise you. It appears that pax has been unblocked.
Furthermore, my data corresponds to cadastral units, not any settlements. A single settlement can be over two or more cadastral units. Your book that you speak of is nowhere to be found, and so therefore in my opinion it does not exist, just like my belgrade map did not exist until I uploaded it. Your map here, http://s444.photobucket.com/albums/qq161/theCeha/?action=view&current=BrckoRSFbih.jpg , contradicts your maps. Your maps are all based off of those two maps which have been deleted, and therefore your maps must be gotten rid of as soon as possible. (LAz17 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).
I've heard that they've given him another chance. Story is a little bit streached, but we'll se. For good of all wikipedians, I hope that the things for which he was accused will not happen again.
Cadastral data does not agree with 1991 census by municipality [39], there is no checkable source of it on the net, no possible way of checking to which position does it corresponds to, and few maps with diferent cadastral borders?
So, I'll pass that, thanks. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The posavina map has correspondings to the borders and cadastral units. You seem to have agreed with it, no? The posavina map is directly from my data. I feel that the data which you give is wrong... it's just estimates. (LAz17 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).
Laz, please be serious. We are not going to make (or validate) maps based on your feelings and not on 1991 census [40].
I'll repeat again. According to wikipedia rules; sources which can not be checked and which are in opposition to acknowleged data (census 1991[41]) are not considered reliable eather as fact or mear prepositions.
As for Posavina map, list of settlments showed on it does comply to official data (for any municipality which I had checked). Moreover I'd like to remaind you that it has different submunicipal borders than [42] and Pax's map (see that tip of Derventa were Višnjik is).
To my knowledge ethnic map are made according to settlment list and census. How can you use cadastar map in that way? Cadastar map can only show ownership of private property in sub-municipal regions (and that only for not-mixed families).
--Čeha (razgovor) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Of course we should not base maps off of feelings on certain data. We should look at maps based on mapping principles, meaning data that corresponds to points or polygons... perhaps you are unfamiliar with this terminology, as you have never taken any GIS or Cartography class at the post secondary education level. Let me repeat my stuff...

Laz in previous discussion you demanded areas for maps. What made you change your mind? I gave you sources onto wich I made this map. As for this last map I agree that is interesting. Do you have more bigger picuter? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You do not understand what my point is. My point is that you are using point data to map areas. You can not use point data to map areas, because they do not correspond to areas... they correspond to points. Therefore you will have to use points, and perhaps proportional circles to draw your stuff.

You again speak of sources... but you have no base map off of which you made your thing. Your data, your source, corresponds to NO AREAS, but to points instead.

No, I do not have a bigger version of it. Do you not like that version that I do have? Not only is it interesting, but it is yet another map that goes against your stuff. (LAz17 (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)).

Laz, my previous maps were deleted because they did not have valid copywrite rights. That was a primal reason for their deletion.
I like the map, however I'd like to check it further. If we do compare it to your previous maps [43] there are some differences. For example in Tomislavgrad (that eastern uninhabited areas) and Brčko (western part of municipality) areas. It is a pitty it does not have settlment names, than it would be of real use to us.
You do not understand how wikipedia operates on maps. Maps on it do not need to be in newest gis format. However, they must be checkable and without (at least major) errors.
As I offered before, we can again check municipality by municipality on[44], and I will also use another color for areas without absolute majority of any nation. After that proces any remining error will be removed and there will be a valid BiH 1991 ethnic map on wikipedia.
And if you don't have any issues on that map, then it is ok, I'll upload it on place of [45] and that would be that. Cheers>:)

--Čeha (razgovor) 08:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


As I said, as you claim, is based off of some data. Your data corresponds to points, not areas, and so therefore you can not make such a map based on such data. It must be deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)).

The russian patriarch has died. This is a day of mourning. Therefore I will give you two maps which further prove how your maps are miserable propaganda POV junk that must be expunged from wikipedia ASAP. Enjoy... http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/sanskimost.png http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/K.jpg As we clearly see, even you new final solution map is still hopelessly miserable... and this is just two municipalities. Your map is wrong all over. It's flawed POV propaganda. Furthermore, the serbs are supposed to be blue on the maps, not red as you like to make it. (LAz17 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)).

I deeply regret not being able to get more of these maps, for every municipality. I am really at my limits with maps. The point is that wherever you look, something smells really bad, inaccuracies everywhere... because your data does not correspond to areas, but to points. Another clearly obvious error is the problem is the Trebinje municipality. (LAz17 (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)).

Laz, I start to wonder are you well? It seems to me that you might be "seeing" things

For Ključ:


Do you claim that muslims were only inhabiting northern parts of municipality, and do not touch municipal border with Petrovac?
For Sanski Most:

  • difference between this [49] and this[50] in that municipality is? Do you see something other people can not?


Sorry if I upseted your monopol on blue color, did not knew you had one>:)
And for russian patriach I'd like to offer sencire condolences, death of any man is a tragic thing, for religious leaders is often few times worse. --Čeha (razgovor) 04:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


Also I'm going to try to reason with you one more time. Offer for cooperation do not goes if you are going to start POV accusations etc. If you do not wish to cooperate, I will just upload newer version of map and end this discussion. Pax's maps are going to be deleted this days due to lack of copywrite, and I don't think you can find any administrator which, after this discussion will tell anything against my maps or my will to fix any possible errors.
If you wish to help me (in a civic manner) in making this map [51] better I offer you the hand of cooperation. If not, I'm affraid that we shall need a third opinion.
Also I'm going to ask you one more time to try to low down your emotions, not be accusative and civic. Because, as you already know, you can be banned (and for a long period) if you willingly and repetetivly breach wiki rules. --Čeha (razgovor) 05:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you clearly need an explanation as you can not see well. All the kljuc municpality maps and bosnia maps that show kljuc that I have given differ drastically from the miserable map that you have given. Look at northwestern kljuc. Please do. You are showing that there are fewer serbs there. For sanski most you do not show that nobody is a majority. And furthermore, as we can see there are some serbs northeast of the town that your map does not show. Your maps are miserable, seriously. They different from every map that I have showed you, and you still insist that they are good. They even differ from the dot map that you showed yourself. Your data can not map areas, only points. (LAz17 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)).
Once again, try to control yourself. Miserable, drasticly, seriously....
Do you see that sign which represents town of Sanski Most? Can you see tat it is half suranded by red, and half by green? Does that indicates that the town is mixed? The rest of municipality is fine.
As for Ključ I corrected inaccuracy, and you for yourself can see how much is that large [52], old version [53]. If you have any other suggestion of change, do tell me, because this should be moving to closure as Pax's maps are deleted. --Čeha (razgovor) 07:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


Look at http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/sanskimost.png , and notice that there is a serb settlement right east of the town. You did not include it, now did you? As for kljuc... perhaps I am seeing things, yes you were right, I was seeing things, and you were not. No appology. Shame.
Now then, lets go municipality by municipality. Do include the two serbian regions in tomislavgrad. There is a croat municipality in northwest banjaluka that should be serbian, not croat.
No, certain towns had NO majority. Populations were scattered all around it, so it is not at all okay to do what you did, to show that they are split half/half or stuff like that. Such a joke. Sad. (LAz17 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).

Map name is Simplified bih 1991 ethnic map. On it enclaves smaller than 150 people are not shown. Tomislavgrad had two small serbian villages; Rašćani with population 103, and Baljci with population 43.
For Sanski Most I suppose you think of Koprivna village? Do you see that little red dot on federation territory north east of town? Well, that is it. Try to enlarge it in the future before you ask for something like that. And for Banja Luka, I can not see what are you talking about. Which village? --Čeha (razgovor) 08:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You liar. You simplify it by exluding serbian villages from say tomislav grad. But you do not exclude certain croat villages in say grahovo! Take the settlement Korita for example. Probably the smallest one by population, population of 2, in all of bosnia. And you include that as a croat region on the map, but would not include serbian regions in tomislavgrad that have some 100 people? WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL? You then work on the derventa/posavina region, in doing so you put such small municipalities. Clearly there you are trying to fool people.
Do take a better look at the sanski most map that i uploaded... we see that you are blind to the kljuc one and insult me until I need to chew it down so that you can swallow it. The places are kruhari, podlug, suhaca... you also on purpose excluded podvidaca and batkovci in the north. Who are you trying to fool man, seriously?
The banja luka place is clearly vissible on all the ethnic maps that I uploaded, it differs much from yours. The only reason why yours is how it is is because it was made based off of the 1981 fraud map. Now, this place that I am talking about in the northwest changed majority from 1981 to 1991. See all the other maps, and goodluck at that. (LAz17 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).
What's wrong with Derventa? Those borders you gave to me!!
As for Sanski Most, do please try to be more specific when talking to somebody. I can not read someone's mind. Those are 3 little red dots with (which I agree) be added to map. Same goes to Korita. As I made corrections of old map, I did not check it. It shall be deleted.
Banja Luka is almost exactly the same in 1991 and 1981 maps. Only difference is the westermost willage which is latter shown as blue. What's your point?
I'm asking you again to be civic. I'am not able to read nobody's mind and I'm not going to tamper a drama queen.

--Čeha (razgovor) 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

data

[edit]

So Ceha claims that his data is the same at Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. and at http://www.fzs.ba/Podaci/nacion%20po%20mjesnim.pdf

However we see based off of this http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodatak:Popis_stanovni%C5%A1tva_u_Bosni_i_Hercegovini_1991.:_Glamo%C4%8D his pdf link is false and does not agree with the data. Therefore we see a serious lack of data here. How is there some 30 or more cadastral municipalities in glamoc here, according to that mysterious publication, yet in the pdf link there is only like 5 or 6? Clearly we see that ceha is hiding the paper publication, as it would show that his maps are further false. (LAz17 (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).

You claim my data is false that there are serb places in tomislavgrad. Well your data which you hail, and say that is all over wikipedia agrees with me. See here, http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodatak:Popis_stanovni%C5%A1tva_u_Bosni_i_Hercegovini_1991.:_Tomislavgrad , also quotes your hidden publication. I think it is high time that you took a better look and disregard that pdf file as complete garbage that should be avoided. (LAz17 (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).

We also see that http://www.fzs.ba/Podaci/nacion%20po%20mjesnim.pdf is not available on the main site of the muslim-croat federation's statistic department. Therefore it must be wrong if they are hiding it. They probably forgot to delete it when they took that stuff down. (LAz17 (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).

You have some serious problems, man.
  • my source [55] Knjiga: "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo.
Numbers are equal. What are you talking about?
--Čeha (razgovor) 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Your first link is worthless, because it does not show units on levels less than the municipality. I do not need such a garbage link, and you know that. The issue is that you said that that pdf file was your source... yet these two contradict one another. INTERESTING? (LAz17 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).
LAz17 maybe I am making mistake but now link http://www.fzs.ba/Podaci/nacion%20po%20mjesnim.pdf is OK (this PDF book is having 43 pages) !
It will be nice if we can have census data on official Republika Srpska site and then there will be enough data so that nobody can question creation of new map and data on that map !?--Rjecina (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you sane? Did you even look at the site? You can clearly see that the link which you provided is the same miserable link that ceha provided, the link that shows there being only 6 regions in glamoc, when in fact there are more like 30. As we see on the croatian wikipedia there is 30 er so. That link is bad. You can also look at that link again, and notice that there are no serbian regions in tomislav grad - then look at the croat wikipedia and you will see that the total municipality ppulation is correct, and that it cites a source other than that of that bad pdf file. This pdf file is not available through the muslim-croat's federation web-site. Therefore we can not base anything off of it. This link is outright wrong and nothing can be gotten out of it regarding mapping! Ceha has always been hiding the real census. Well, too bad for him that croatian wikipedia has it. He was not counting on that. He is clearly biased. (LAz17 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).
OK, OK. I do not know Bosnia and Herzegovina and I was never interested in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the end this is good for mediator, because in that way it is very hard for him to be biased. I have seen 43 pages of demography data and this was good for me.
Let's try this different way. You are saying that Wikipedia (I think about english wikipedia) is having good data ? If we can have agreement about that then we can use wiki data for map creation ?--Rjecina (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are two sets of data that is supposedly official. Then there is my data too, which is very similar to one of these data, but not the other. We have two data sets which Cehas call's god's official word or something like that...
This is one, Knjiga: "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo - but we have no link to it to see all of it.
The other one is that pdf link, http://www.fzs.ba/Podaci/nacion%20po%20mjesnim.pdf
However, in the first one, we can see it all on the croatian wikipiedia, if we go here http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Popis_stanovni%C5%A1tva_u_Bosni_i_Hercegovini_1991.
Now, compare the data sets for many municipalities. You will see that the pdf file has a lack of settlements. The data simply is not enough, it is lacking many regions. Too many. With such poor data, we can not map. Instead we can map based off of data from http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Popis_stanovni , which is almost the same as mine, same percentages. With this in mind, we can use this data to map out anything. Now this is the problem, ceha does not like it. As we saw just now, he discriminates against small serbian settlements but not small croatian ones. (LAz17 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).
Ok, Laz, I don't know how old are you, but you obviously need do learn a lot about culture and wiki rules. Link which I gave you [56] is important because numbers and data which you claim to have differs from it. It is an official data.
Let me repeat again, while looking on data, we can look just on the data by settlment which can be found in stat. bilten br. 234. (or on wikipedias which claim it as a source).
Because of your slander (fascist accusations and similar) I reported you on ani. I throughly hope that you'll be more civic in the future.--Čeha (razgovor) 23:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I am using that data, but no, I am not using the data from that exact link. The link which you are giving is not good because it does not show anything other than municipalities. However, and this is a big however, I found data on the croatian wikipedia. - http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Popis_stanovni%C5%A1tva_u_Bosni_i_Hercegovini_1991. - you can go to that link, no? All the municipalities on that link show data that is directly different from your pdf file. Interesting, no? Why do you not use that then? The PDF file is not an official data source, as it is not on the official site. I have searched the muslim-croat federation site, which is where you say it is from. Nowhere on their main page can I find this. I find this the correct data on the croatian wikipedia, which is almost the same as my data - all municipalities have the same majorities. Therefore what are we talking about? This data from the croatian wikipedia is good. But it does not suit your greater croatian ambitions. You claim you do not want to put groups that are less than 150 on the map. Then why did you in the case of posavina? Most important, You exclude small serbian groups from tomislavgrad, but include even smaller numbers of croats in the serb majority municipality of Grahovo!!!! You decriminate against a serbian place that has a bit over 100 people, but include a croat place that has ONLY 2 PEOPLE !!!! nationalistically biased fascist is the nicest way that I can describe you, for just this one thing. Add that to all the other municipalities where you exclude and include certain groups, and we get the clearer picture! You are a person who is fueled by the neonazi croat ambitions, while accusing people like pax for serbian motivating ambitions. You do not care about the truth. You are continually uncooperative. (LAz17 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)).

I can see that we can reach agreement that wiki data are OK, but from reactions it is possible to see that this will not be enough ?! Because it will be very hard to have agreement about map, my new proposition is that we come to agreement about 1 municipality after another. In that way we will create map of undisputed parts of Bosnia and then we will go towards dispute parts (submunicipality after submunicipality) ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki data is official data from bilten 234. I agree with agreement to go after one municipality after another. Data from Laz differ from it, and can not be used as source.
I don't understand Laz's accusations about Posavina. Map is sorced from his maps and cro wiki...
PDF is also official data, but as we have data by settlment is realy not necesary. As for Grahovo accusations, as stated before Koprivna settlment should be deleted from the map.--Čeha (razgovor) 07:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nationalist hatred against serbs

[edit]

So we have located a nationalist radical here, called Ceha. As he said...

-quote-Map name is Simplified bih 1991 ethnic map. On it enclaves smaller than 150 people are not shown. Tomislavgrad had two small serbian villages; Rašćani with population 103, and Baljci with population 43.

For Sanski Most I suppose you think of Koprivna village? Do you see that little red dot on federation territory north east of town? Well, that is it. Try to enlarge it in the future before you ask for something like that. And for Banja Luka, I can not see what are you talking about. Which village? --Čeha (razgovor) 08:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)-quote- So ceha has decided to descriminate against two serbian places in tomislavgrad called Baljci (pop 40) and Rašćani (pop 102). At the same time we can see on his map the municiplaity of grahovo... it has two croat areas. lets look at those, shall we? Korita, population 2, and Uništa, population 117. This is clear nationalist hatred. Clear. It is proof that ceha is a liar and a non-reliable person when it comes to anything regarding this region. He does not like the croatian wikipedia data, nor does he like the data that I had - that is almost the same, and BOTH data corresponds to the maps that I have showed him. Therefore we can conclude that he ia nationalistically motivated troll. (LAz17 (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)).

Also, if is not including certain places on the map... then they should be blank, and his map should be a dot map, not an area map. Basic principles of cartography, ya know. (LAz17 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)).

Let me repeat one more time. Koprivna is to small and should be deleted. Uništa are not an (small) enclave as they lean on RH and because of that will not be deleted.
Data from croatian wikipedia was given by me, as official. I'm glad that you finaly came to recognise it as such.
Also, I'd like to thank you for all the accusations and trolling. You are just showing your real nature by doing so. --Čeha (razgovor) 07:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If the village is too small, bellow 150 like you said, then it goes. one of the serb places in tomislavgrad border serbian places in kupres. there is no reason for it to stay according to your logic, nor is there reason for any croat area to stay in glamoc. The issue then becomes how can you dare put the other ethnicity color on that region? That's wrong. The region must be blank - be it had 4, 90, 67, or 120 people. (LAz17 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)).

If an entire enclave (which can be more than just an one village) has less than 150 people than it should not be shown on the map. If that other serb village in Tomislavgrad is connected with serbian villages in Kupres and whole enclave has more than 150 people than it should be shown. There is no point of showing villages with population of 2 people(like Korita), does it? And Korita are in Grahovo and not in Glamoč municipality. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is important to show every unit. Also, as we can see there are many bosniak small enclaves in say the neighboring glamoc municipality. Why not delete those , by your logic? Every unit is important, as long as it is a unit. It if it was in the census then it should be mapped. National geographic and belgrade university mapped it. Are you better than them to not include them? I don't think so. There is absolutely no right to make that entity serbian if it had a croatian majority. As for the other unit in grahovo, it also bordered what was serbian majority land in 1991, so it is indeed a small enclave too - by your logic to be removed. (LAz17 (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)).
Why? Not one article mentions a further subunit than the municipalities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Municipalities included (and still do) large numbers of setllments and most of them did not apsolute majority and were ethnicly mixed. Most of the settlments (villages) had only one nationality. For example municipality of Derventa was 40,6% Serbian and 38,9% Croat. Serbian population lived mostly on western and southern parts of municipality and Croatian in northern and eastern (this is a simplification). Settlment map offer more data.
Laz, because of the size of the map we can not show every smallest settlment (in some maps which you sent to me settlment bordery is larger than settlment itself. Some order of simplification should be appropriate.
If you have some alternative rule of that (which must be the same for all parties) I'm willing to hear your proposition.
--Čeha (razgovor) 09:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Many maps show all the units. If you are starting to map anything out you have to map it out by certain areas. In this case the areas are cadastral municipalities, which you prefer to call settlements. There is nothing wrong with mapping them all out. This is easily doable and has been in the past. If one is already going through the trouble of mapping bellow the municipal level, then this most definitely is not a problem. (LAz17 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)).
I will say one thing, an accurate municipality only map is far better than an inaccurate sub-municipality map. (LAz17 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)).
I'll repeat once more; 1991 BiH is by settlment. It's only official source is Statistic bilten 234, Sarajevo 1991. That data can be find on cro-wikipedia. It differs from data user Laz17 gave on the wiki in numbers. User Laz17 also claims that borders of cadastral municipalities do not agree with settlment borders [57]. And did not gave any verifible source for that. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted

[edit]

Only to inform you both that maps BH1991.png and BH1991.jpg has been yesterday deleted on commons.--Rjecina (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And [58] [59] on eng.wiki. Copywrite.--Čeha (razgovor) 15:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That is too bad for Pax. He really should have responded. Hopefully he'll upload it again in the future with more correct stuff. (LAz17 (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).
Čeha when picture/map is deleted on commons it is deleted on wiki. There is no maps (or I am making mistake ?) on your links--Rjecina (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
As I comprehended there were 4 version of the same map. 2 on commons, 2 on en.wiki. Due to copywrite reasons all of them were deleted. Laz, I would not recomend Pax uploading deleted maps (for copywrite reasons). He'll get a ban as big as a house if he even tries to make something similar (anybody who tries that will be punished in that way).--Čeha (razgovor) 23:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I get the feeling that pax does not even care. (LAz17 (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)).

Clean slate

[edit]

How about this? Everyone tell me their views on 1991_population_census_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina. Just stay on that. Before anyone thinks about making a map, we need a source for the data. Anyone who argues about another map and I'm seriously blocking you. Keep it civil and you should be able to explain why you disagree with those numbers, if anyone does. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

1991_population_census_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina is a valid official data. There is also some data from the same source on settlment level(Bilten 234, Sarajevo 1991) which can be find on croatian wikipedia (some of it is also on bosnian and serbian wikipedias).
--Čeha (razgovor) 07:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The data on that page is okay, I would say. The problem is that it is not really useful because it only tells us what the municipalities are, when we in fact are interested in the sub-municipal units. Therefore we need to go down deeper. I have a set of data that has all the submunicipal units, like many maps show, but the issue seems that my data is off in terms of numbers by a tiny bit, but is the same in terms of percentage. However, I have gone over to the croatian wikipedia and have seen that their data lists all the submunicipal regions. Now, their data aligns with the data at the link which you gave, ricky. The issue is that there is another separate set of data which also aligns but has far fewer submunicipal units. I feel that the issue is not if it is correct, but which data set we use - the croatian wikipedia set, or the one in that pdf file. The problem is that the one in the pdf file is not available on the official site where it is uploaded on. It is probably a lost link. So, in the end we have two set of data... both have same numbers for municipalities, but they have different submunicipal units in them. We can easily prove the number of submunicipal units, thereby identifying which data set is good and which is bad. Is this the next step? (LAz17 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)).
We are talking here about 3 sources of data:
  • a)Data from croatian wikipedia (which is taken from the book Statistic bilten no.234, Sarajevo 1991)
  • b)Data from federation's bureau of statistics [60]
  • c)Data from user Laz17
a) I think that we can both agree that this is valid official data?
b) This data is also official, however it shows bigger units than just settlments (it shows local communities) and can not be used to make a precise map. In our previous discussion user Laz17 claimed that it had contacted federal bureau and validated it by e-mail [61]. It should be from the same book as a).
c) Unverifiable cadastar data that Laz claims to have and wich differs from official 1991 census[62] on municipal level.
Sorry for the long post I just wanted to be certain that we know where we are. To shorten this discussion, if user Laz acknowledges that a) is a valid sorce we have a good sorce.
--Čeha (razgovor) 00:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Data from croatian wikipedia and my data correspond in terms of units and what's also as important is that they correspond in terms of percentages in ethnic groups in areas. (LAz17 (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)).

First, to verify, the issue is not that this is incorrect but it's not the best source to use. Second, why would you need to sub-municipal units? You only sound like you want the sub-municipal units because you don't believe this data is correct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We are having an issue with maps which show the structure at the sub-municipal level. This is the problem. We can see american and canadian elections... they have data at the state level and the county level. Considering that bosnia is smaller, it is apprpriate to have such a map that goes in beyond the municipalities. Such maps have been created, by accredited sources, but ceha disagrees with them, and this is where the problems are. (LAz17 (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)).
Ok, so then you do disagree with the numbers from this map? If that's so, just say that. Like I said above, no other maps. I just want to discuss what sources are agreed upon. If you don't believe that this is an accurate source, then we'll have to deal with that first. If he disagrees with something else, that's next. So are you imagining not a map with each municipality shaded to reflect ethnicities but what, cities and then their suburb areas? Or the opposite, into their larger cantons or something? The smaller breakup seems like an extremely unusual map, especially since the structure of the country seems to be BiH > Federations > Cantons > Municipalities and BiH > Republika > Regions > Municipalities. If I'm right, then we either should go with 10 Cantons and the 7 Regions or the smaller municipalities. I really don't see any real reason why we should further subdividing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with one of the numbers, but not with the other ones. former yugoslavia had no cantons. It had republics, then municipalities, then cadastral municipalities - the smallest units for the population census. I agree with the croatian wikipedia and with my data - their percent of each group in each unit is the same. My data varies by less than one percent, but that's too small to matter. We also have maps to which this data corresponds to. I have a problem with the pdf file, the one that ceha had initially used against me. This is where the problems came from. He used this pdf file to for example say that there are no serbian regions in tomislavgrad, but later when using my data and croatian wikipedia data, he indeed admits that there are. Therefore the data is no longer the problem in my opinion. Could we move on to step two to discuss maps? I would like to show you what maps I have - indeed their borders correspond to data from the census. Ceha's map does not correspond to it. What's worse he discriminates against settlements that are less than 150 people. So how can we then work with census data if he does not treat all the units equally, all having a need to be mapped? (LAz17 (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)).
Fact is that this map is for 1991, when we had these units - I do not know if we still have them today. However, we have accredited sources that have mapped bosnia and herzegovina based on these units, so we have proof that they exist - you can see them here in univeristy of beglrade's geography department, http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/?action=view&current=bosnia1991ethnic2.jpg , and you can see them here in national geographic - http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/?action=view&current=nationalgeoraphicmapbosnia1991.jpg
So based off of these maps we can see that these units do exist. Problem is that ceha made his map without any units, but based it off of a previous map, did not use any data and did not confirm any data. Proof is how many times he has edited his map in this ongoing issue. We are starting to go through every municipality it seems. There are errors everywhere. We can not correct them easily because he did not make it with any base map, but based it off of previously deleted maps on wikipedia. (LAz17 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC))
You agree with official census 1991 shown in Bilten 234 and Croatian wiki data? Fine we can then move one?
There is a trouble of pinpointing exact villages onto the BiH map. There exists no blanck settlment map for the country which could be just colored and unfortunately position of the places must be done by eather looking onto the google map or using some other internet source. Here is probably the main point of discussion.
Links to maps which Laz gave are unfortunately unchecable. First map [63] does not show settlments borders but borders of some imaginative units for wich data is not avaible onto the net(or anywhere else). User Laz has given this map [64] wich show settlment in part of the country and which differs from it. Map which is supposedly fron NG does not have any settlment borders.
--Čeha (razgovor) 07:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Ceha is lying when he says that those are imaginative units. Those units there in the first map are the same as any other units that represent the cadastral municipalities. We have several maps that show single municipalities only, and on those maps we can see that the borders are the same as on my map. We can also see an earlier map from 1981 , not 1991 - same borders. I will provide link if requested, but I have already earlier in this topic. The fact is that ceha hates these belgrade maps because they say the truth, and because they differ from his own maps. He can easily check the settlements, and probably has. In fact he has not mentioned any specific inaccuracy on this belgrade map, but he just denounces it as bad, yet gives no examples as to what is wrong in it. (LAz17 (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)).
Laz17 is again accusing me and it is for something I did not done. Please stop with personal attacks.
Laz puted this map [65] on photobucket. It is different from that maps which you talk about. For example [First map [66]] eastern tip of Derventa municipality. It also shows different borders of setllments there. That is one peace of evidence that tha maps are false.
If we agreed on data census of 1991 by settlment than user Laz can not speak of cadastral municpality data without verifiable source, can he?
I took two photos just now. One is of the cover of the book "the serbian question in the balkans" and the other is the map of bosnia and herzegovina from 1981 - we can see that the units are the same. They are not imaginary untis that correspond to nothing like ceha suggests, and knows is wrong. Here are two links that I just uplaoded...
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/PC110007.jpg
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/PC110008.jpg
(LAz17 (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)).
Laz ,you should try to contact the author about the copywrite and if he gives you his approval (try to find exact policy on wikipedia), you can upload [67] on that copywrite for BiH ethnics in 1981.
On this post [68] user Laz17 claims that his data is from cadastral units, not any settlments. There exists no official source to those cadastral units. Data on which we agreed to be true (on croatian wiki, Bilten 234, Sarajevo 1991 is listed by setllment.
If user Laz17 has verifiable official source for that data in 1991, not 1981 it would be very nice that he shows it to us.
Also, if it is no problem, I'd like to see some proof of corectness of 1981 map [69]. SANU was listed as nationalistic source in 80-ies [70] and I'd like to see some conformation about validity of that data. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Ricky, I strongly disagree with Laz's source of the data. It shows different numbers on municipal level and probably in some settlment as well. Only valid data is from Statistical bilten 234, Sarajevo 1991.--Čeha (razgovor) 23:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I said very specifically to stay on topic. No other sources. So Laz, your finally analysis is you agree with all the numbers in the source except one? What in the hell does that mean? One column, one set, one area or really just one single number? Which one? Explain in specific detail what and why. That is either the biggest lie or the strangest thing I've ever heard. I honestly don't care about Croatian wikipedia and if your response is simply, "I want this other thing" without any rhyme or reason, I'm closing this and moving on. This was a bad idea at the start and I say drop it. Find an actual sourced map and use that. Post another photobucket map and it will get deleted and onward until someone gets blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the municipality total numbers. The problem is that we have no complete source for sub-municipal units. (LAz17 (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)).
Ceha, the statistics office of serbia calls all units cadastral units instead of settlements. It's the same thing really. You know how the different dialects say stuff differently. Some might say opcina instead of municipalitet. I wonder if you are joking when you say that they are not cadastral units. (LAz17 (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)).
LAz17 can you please write in which municipality there is problem with sub-municipal units and write name of this units ?--Rjecina (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You can notice clear differences between the statistical buliten 234 and that pdf file. It looks like ceha found on the bosniak wikipedia, further down in this discussion, that all the data there is from the 234. I really am not in the mood to look through all 100 er so municipalities right now. (LAz17 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)).

Fine, at least everyone agrees on the municipality numbers. LAz17, would you please start a new section to discuss what sub-municipality numbers you would like to use? One section per source please, because I think focused discussion is really what we need. I would like to see if we can agree on that or if not, we may have to go with the only source people agree on. It wouldn't be the best map, you may be correct, but it's the closest to consensus. As a compromise, I wouldn't mind if we didn't have an actual map but links to the various agreed upon sources. However, let's see where we go with this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

suggestion

[edit]

I will contact a cartographer at my university, and see if he could make an appropriate map for us. Is this okay? (LAz17 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)).

If he makes it from the data in Statistical bilten 234, Sarajevo 1991, and gives us some official source to the BiH settlment map that would be swell. If not it is not verifible, is it?--Čeha (razgovor) 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You want to state what source first? You seem to be deliberately avoiding that question. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreement

[edit]

We are having too much problem in looking everyday changes and I am sure that because of too many links we will loose (forget) many good links. This section will be only for maps or sources about which there is agreement between LAz17 and Čeha:

Demography map for Bosanski brod, Bosanski Šamac, Gradačac, Derventa, Doboj, Modriča, Orašje and Odžak:

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/evevi.png --Rjecina (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if I can agree with this one. It differs a bit from the other maps, and it just so happens that the croatian wikipedia shows data from that pdf for modrica, not data from that actual publication. Therefore I can not agree on modrica. Perhaps there is a mistake there, in the top corner where serbs appear as a majority. (LAz17 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC))
I think this is funny. Very funny. User Laz gave a map for which he claimed that is correct [71]. Now he claimes it has errors?
Borders of settlments in Modriča municipality are the same here [72] as they are here [73] and they do abide by census 1991 on Croatian wikipedia [74] (which Laz acknowledged as official).
There are differences in Derventa settlment map, Gornji Višnjik village. I don't know is it correct. It might be good for pinpoiting some villages, through. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, why don't we figure out the source first and design to the map before arguing about which ones. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the only reason why I brought up this map is because ceha's map of the same region was so hopelessly wrong and biased. He fixed that up a bit after I put this up, so that is a small improvement. However, that map is from here, http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/?action=view&current=MilanDjoroIvanVukicevic1991BiH.jpg , and as we see there are small errors on it - like showing tomislavgrad's two eastern units as vacant. A few small regions on the map contradict the belgrade data from 1981, 1991 and national geographic too. It is however far more correct than ceha's maps, which are based off of deleted ones. (LAz17 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)).

The only reason why I brought up that map is because it is pretty good proof of just how wrong/messed up ceha's posavina region was in his maps. Now, the problem is that I feel that the data on the croatian wikipedia for modrica is NOT FROM Statistical bilten 234, 1991 Sarajevo, but from that bad pdf file. So that's the problem. (LAz17 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)).
I don't think Laz's feelings are any checkable source. Laz gave this 2 maps: [75] [76] on both of them situation in Modriča municipality are equvalent to information on Croatian wikipedia (at least in number and ethnical status in settlments). I realy don't know why Laz gave those 2 maps if he is certain that they are not correct. What did he try to correct with false maps? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Further Fraud Spills over

[edit]

Ceha's fraud map has spilled over onto many other maps that he has created and uploaded, further making other maps problematic. First of, he admitted his mistake in the posavina region, yet he has not done anything about his other bosnia maps that show only posavina... here is evidence... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Posavina.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fall_of_posavina_(1992).png (LAz17 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)).

Again there is a problem with user Laz which assumes fraud and bad intensions. Those 2 Posavina maps are maps conected with war front lines and not ethnic situation in the area (what can be clearly shown). Their source was position of minefilds in the area. If Laz has got any possible info about incorectnes in that area or something like that it would be good that he shows some proofs and not speaks about his feelings. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Circles

[edit]

I'm affraid we are going into the circles again. My opinion is this;
I do not acknowledge any data which user Laz17 has because it is non verifiable. It does not agree with official 1991 bih census on municipal level and is has different number of sub-municipal units. BiH census in 1991 was made by settlments and not on cadastral-sub municipalities.
Official sorce by settlment is Statistical bilten 234, 1991 Sarajevo for wich data can be found on croatian wikipedia (and part on bosniak and serbian too). If user Laz17 have some other official verifible data, I'd like him to show it to us. That would be all. Keep it simple, please, this is not a place for novel writing.
Ricky, also I'd like to appologise for the length of the discussion, I'm beginging to find it realy dificult to talk to Laz17 as his every other word contradicts to previous(most obvious example is agreement part)--Čeha (razgovor) 00:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't want to hear about other sources. If Laz says he is ok with 1991 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina, then we move on. If he says he's generally ok and cannot articulate a specific reason why he disagrees, then we ignore him and move on. It's not complicated. Saying "it's a good source but the results I don't like" are not adequate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Ceha, the serbian statistics department calls them cadastral units. That is how it was. Now, I think that it is not important if we call them cadastral units or settlements... it's the same thing.
Our Statistical bilten 234, 1991 Sarajevo on the croatian wikipedia is INCOMPLETE, and that is a problem. Many municipalities are complete, but many are not. I agree with the complete ones. Derventa is an example that is not complete on the croatian wikipedia, in fact it does not have data from Statistical bilten 234, 1991 Sarajevo, but from that bad pdf file.
I have contacted a graduate student in Geography today... he said that he will work on making a map, but will probably not finish until January. (LAz17 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)).
Also, I found out that my data had this in its description : Prvi rezultati Popisa stanovni{tva, doma}instava, stanova i poqoprivrednih gazdinstava 1991. godine , which explains why it is slightly off from the official ones. My data was just the first run. It's close to the official one, and the percentages are the same in the Statistical bilten 234, 1991 Sarajevo , which was the second run, declared official. I guess my data is the preliminary rough data. Now the problem is that not all of the croatian wikipedia resutls show data from Statistical bilten 234, 1991 Sarajevo. (LAz17 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)).
Just a quick response and I'm going on wikibreak this weekend. Laz, your data is not verifiable, and until you get some official sorcing I think it is pointeless to discuss it.
[77] should be valid and complete source with list of settlments for any municipality (I did not check it througt).
As for Derventa, Croatian wiki is showing data by settlment. You can see here [78] which settlments were included in Derventa local communities.
That PDF file is oficial data.
If cadastral-sub municipalities is just another word for settlment than Laz17 should have the same number (57) of cadastral-sum municipalities as the number of settlment. If he does it not, than they are not the same. Simple.
See you next week.--Čeha (razgovor) 08:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you please stop going around in circles with mentioning my data? What's your problem that results you continually mentioning my data? The only reason why I awknowledge the data from Statistical bilten 234, 1991 Sarajevo is because it seems to be the second round, whereas my data is the first preliminary round. Of course that the number of settlements would be the same, what makes you think that it might not be? Those maps that I have shown correspond to data from statistical biliten 234. They correspond to my data too. Your pdf file does not correspond to anything. It is not even available on the muslim-croat federation website.
It seems that the data on the bosniak part of wikipedia includes all the data from the statistical biliten 234, and is not mixed with data from that pdf. (LAz17 (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)).
Simply Laz. Because you lie. These whole discussion was created because your's data did not equal official data on municipal 1991 census. This current explanation is just another way to admit that you were wrong. In any way that your's preliminary or what ever you call it will not be used in any making of any map. It is also important because you claimed that cadastral unit is different of settlment (which can be seen in eastern tip of Derventa municipality) and it does imply that most of the maps you puted on photobucket are false.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you folks please create new sections for each individual source. The analysis should first which sources are at least agreeable and then we can work on comparing the ones that people can live with. If we have to use a blend of sources or something, that's fine but we need to build at this slowly. Trying to publish end results against each other isn't effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. At least we are going somewhere with you here helping. (LAz17 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)).
Ricky, we have a problem here. Firstly we do agree on St.bilten 234, 1991 Sarajevo [79] as official and most precise. Other problems are that Laz used some non-wikiable data which is different of this and which the same users tries to show as earlier version of this. This is false. Second problem is that user Laz tries to delete any map which was made on data from lower precision level (pdf file) because he does not agrees with it results, and argues about officiality of that data (it is on official federal bureau of statistic, but user Laz could not show links on the main page to it).
In making map I think that official sorce on settlment level should be enough. If not that pdf file (local community level) is also fine.
At least I can agree with laz that at least there is some moving.
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I said above, there is some agreement on something. Let's move forward and not rehash prior arguments again. I would suggest you do the same. As to maps, my only concerns are whether they are properly sourced and are currently being used here. I don't care about any other reason why you need them. However, as an admin, if a map is deleted here (only on Wikipedia, not on commons), I can always restore it (or even just grab the file if someone wants it). Image information is now stored locally. Just keep track of the exact file names (and URLs) and we can find them, so guys please don't worry about that too much. There are other ways but that's the easiest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be great. I'd just like to underline that data which user Laz has localy is not verifible and as such can not be used. We've got official data by settlment (St.bilten 234, 1991 Sarajevo) [80] on which we both agreed that is corect and that is the data which should be used.--Čeha (razgovor) 07:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Ceha, my data is not supposed to be used. Where on earth are you getting and pretending that this is an isssue? My data is there only to verify the number of sub-municipal units, if the correct number is there. There is no reason to use them. (LAz17 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
That data should not be used in any context. Numbers are different and that data itself is not verified. I do not wish to see imaginative villages on the map. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
What imaginative villages are you talking about? All settlements are the same as the official data. My data is the official first round. Granted that all the official data is on the bosnian wikipedia, then there should be no need for my data. What's your problem for having this need to go back to mention my data? (LAz17 (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
As we previously saw in Derventa example, there were two (or three) croat villages in maps which you gave (in eastern tip of municipality). I think that they do not exist in official census. That would be clear definition of non-existent (or imaginative) village. It is simple. Yours data can not be checked and you want to use it for checking other data (for example in number of settlments).--Čeha (razgovor) 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Source to Use

[edit]

There are two data's...

Sorry, could add to the discussion exactly how they would differ or supplement either in part or entirely the 1991 population census? If this is just supplementing those numbers by going into more detail, then I understand that it's just a question of verification. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Well basically there is the one on wikipedia, the one in the pdf file and my data which corresponds to the wikipedia data, which is the official data agreed upon by all sides. Basically, from what I am getting is this... A) there are municipalities... we see their populatoin... B) there are cadatral units/or settlements, however one wants to call them, and they are the units that go into the municipality... C) the PDF gives units called mjesan zajdnica, but we do not know to what areas that data corresponds. (LAz17 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
There is data on wiki onto we agree that is official and right. It is complete (at least for what was checked) and as such it should be used. Agreed?--Čeha (razgovor) 13:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems so. We have not looked at everything... but for the time being it looks like it all is okay, as it has the settlements/cadastral units. Mjesna Zajdnicas no. (LAz17 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
For making this map census by settlment should be enough (if no errors are found in the future). Mjesna zajednica data is also fine, but due to level of precision on census by settlment, we not need it in making this map. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
We agree that the settlement data is what should be used. We got somewhere now at least. However, I disagree that the mjesna zajdnica data can be used in our case. But like we agree, the settlement data is better. (LAz17 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
Settlment data is better because it is more precise. When map by settlment is made it would be also posible to see map by mjesna zajednica (presumed that we have data for lists of settlments in most of mjesna zajednica).--Čeha (razgovor) 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

settlement/cadastral data

[edit]

I propose to use the source... "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. The other source is my data, but it has the same number of units, and is the preliminary data. So there is no real difference. Next, I propose that all other sources be declared illegitimate and any images, if there are any from 1991 with other sources, should be deleted. Is this fair? For example, if someone uses some bad source, then that map should be deleted. If someone bases a map off of a bad source it should be deleted. Similarly if someone makes a map whose source is another bad map or of no source(like pax's), it should be deleted. Fair I hope? We could agree on this? (LAz17 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)).
Data for the municipalities is not available on the english wikipedia. I thought it was on the croat, but it is imcomplete on the croat one. The bosniak wiipedia -SO FAR- looks to have the correct data. I have not checked all the municipalities, but from what I see it looks good. http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Demografija_Bosne_i_Hercegovine (LAz17 (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)).

Ok, we have what we have. So this would be taking the municipal numbers and further breaking them down? Again, per my comment above, you are suggesting this as the only source? So let's wait on what everyone think about this source. I hope to see more than "it's bad" but let's see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the smallest unit in the census. It's like a census track. The census tracks come together into the municipality and the municipalities come together to form the country. (LAz17 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
In short: official data is on this link[81] and this should be used. Laz personal data should not be used in any possible contex as it differs from it.--Čeha (razgovor) 12:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is speaking of Laz's data being used. What do you not understand there? Please stop your aggression. (LAz17 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
We agreed on valid sorces than? Good, finaly some progress:) --Čeha (razgovor) 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

pdf file data

[edit]

The pdf file is in my opinion bad and wrong. The reason why is because the so called units in there are called mjesna zajdnicas, which are not used for any yugoslav census. Furthermore, that file can not be found when one goes to the main site of the muslim-croat federation statistics website, which is proof that they took it off on purpose. They just forgot to delete it probably. The point is that we can not associate that data with any kind of map or areas, only "points". So I propose that we do not use that data. (LAz17 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)).

No they are not. There are 3 sources of data used in this discussion
First, I have no clue what you are talking about. I have not scanned the mess of prior discussions. Again, it sounds like data that would be taking the individual data points from the 1991 census and further breaking them down. Am I right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The PDF data is what ceha made a new category for, aka mjesna zajdnica, which he calls local community - http://www.fzs.ba/Podaci/nacion%20po%20mjesnim.pdf He has also made a new section for my first section, talking about the same data. Basically we are both presenting two sets of data, and ceha is further extracing my data to make it a separate third, while I do not see why this is necessary as we are not going to be using it, as I do not feel inclined to transfer it all - but anyways, the point is that this data the first round, and the data on wikipedia is the official second round. (LAz17 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
It is the same data. Municipality numbers are exact, just this sorce groups few of the settlments (or it's parts) in units called mjesne zajednice. Just different level of precision.
On the other side data from Laz differs from that official numbers. Because that is different it should not be used. Simple--Čeha (razgovor) 12:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Municipality numbers are not important. We are talking about areas. The attributes that have data represent something. We do not know what areas these mjesna zajdnicas represent. Again, my data has nothing to do with that pdf file. (LAz17 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
Look at the bosniak wikipedia, there is data which settlments made some of the Mjesna zajednica (Bosanski Brod, Derventa, Jajce, ...), and for that we don't have exact list it is usual that mjesna zajednica is called by the name of the largest village in it. So, it can be located. There is also no blank map of BiH prewar settlments showing its borders so I realy don't know what do you mean in the area part. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
A few places show which settlements go into a mjesna zajdnica, but we have no proof that this is true, and furthermore, only some municipalities have this - most do not. Therefore for consistency we should discredit the mjesna zajdnicas. (LAz17 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
If a same person put that lists and census by settlment on bosniak wiki, then we should not discredit it. For now we agreed to make a settlment map, no?--Čeha (razgovor) 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Official settlment data

[edit]

That is the sorce which I am proposing to use "Nacionalni sastav stanovništva - Rezultati za Republiku po opštinama i naseljenim mjestima 1991.", statistički bilten br. 234, Izdanje Državnog zavoda za statistiku Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. That source has nothing to do with laz's data. And anybody which goes through this discussion can clearly see that user Laz17 is lying in any claim that this is eather his preposition or has anything to do with his data. This source is avaible on bosniak wikipedia on the link [82] which I gave to the discussion, which can be clearly seen on [83]. I'd like to remind user Laz17 that any of his words in this discussion is recorded and that any lying on his side can and will be easibly checked.
This is official sorce (st.bilten br.234, Sarajevo 1991) and as that it should be used.
I did not check bosniak wikipedia for completness of that data, but I think that everything should be on that pages. There are also some parts of that data on croat wikipedia (and on serbian one, too) and that data is compleatly equal (at least for municipalities I checked) to the bosniak wikipedia (all of data has the same source). Laz claims about of partial incorectnes of that data as in Modriča example are not only comical, but compleatly inlogical (he claims false data on [84], but acknowledges [85], and the data is equal!)..... Laz's discussion circles. In short, this is the correct data. --Ceha (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


I thought the data was from that pdf. As is known, you have earlier used the PDF data against me. At any rate, here is my data, just if you are wondering... it's the same... http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/modrica-zacehu.jpg As we see the municipalities line up with my preliminary results, therefore I have no problem with it. Thanks. (LAz17 (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
Ceha, to be blunt, you would do better without the personal attacks. Also, please sign each section for clarity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Laz, in the future try to better check something before you assume that is wrong. There is census by municipality on eng.wiki on [86] on which everything can be cheched. Also as previously discussed your local data [87] is not verible nor checkable and as such should not be used in this discusion.
Laz please try to restrain of further usage of that data, because as you can see by comparing it with official census it has errors, and usage of it will create problems in further discussion.
Ricky I'm sorry for personal attack in this case, but a minimum for any serious discussion should be that a person check it claims or sorces before posting. I'll try to avoid any possible repetition of that behaviour, and would urge everbody in this discussion to make an effort that we keep this discussion as professional as we can.
--Čeha (razgovor) 09:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Your english wiki does not allow anything to be checked, as it just shows municipality totals, not any submunicipal units, and we are talking about sub-municipal units here, aren't we? My local data is perfectly fine. Let me explain why. It is because the map that we are doing is NOT a concentration map. All the percentages in each settlement are the same really. They might vary by less than a percent, but this is nowhere near enough for a difference to show up on the map. (LAz17 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
If the sum of all the sub-municipal units is different from municipal data on eng. wiki than that data is clearly wrong. Is it not? Local no verifible data. What is wikipedian policy about that? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have already said that the number of sub-municipal units is the same-granted I did not check them all, but from all that have been checked we can see that the sum is the same, NOT different.. Therefore why do you mention this again? There is nothing that would suggest any difference. (LAz17 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
I don't remember that. In Modriča's example your data had 200 people less than it should. No matter, let's move on. We finaly agreed on the source. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Official data by local comunities

[edit]

Or as Laz want's to put it pdf file [88]. This is the data for which Laz's himself claimed it is acknowledged [89]. It is data by local communities which are made from several settlments. They can be seen on [90] on Mjesne zajednice, 1991 title. This data is official, valid and verifible. It is complitliy equal with official settlment data, just it is on lower scale of precision. Idea of Laz that maps made with usage of this data should be deleted is compleatly crazy, as it is official and verifible data. That that he does not like resaults of that data (or it's level of precision) should be only his problem. --Ceha (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mjesna Zajdnica is no official term for units-to my knowledge. Population censuses were never carried out by mjesan zajdnica but were carried out by cadastral units/what ceha calls settlements. The census carried out their results with only the catastral units as their data. This combination of units - of which we do not know which belong where (for most of the cases) makes this data suspicious. Furthermore, this data is not available off of the main site of the muslim-croat statistics department, which is where this data is indeed from. (LAz17 (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
Again, Ceha, offer your sources, don't preemptive attack every one else. And again with the signature. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
[91] is the sorce. It is data from official federal bureau of statistics in Sarajevo. Mjesna zajednica (local community) is a colection of settlments (sometimes even including just parts of some setlments). It is part of official 1991 census. Numbers are eqoual to the municipal level, which can easily checked and verified. There also exist a number list of which settlments each local comunity is made which can be seen in Bosniak wiki (for example [92] under title Seoske mjesne zajednice). Basicly mjesna zajednica includes collection of the setlments and name of Mjesna zajednica is in most cases name of the larges settlment. This list has smaller precision level then settlment but it is verifible and can be localised in making of a map. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Ceha, one important fact. It is not a national federal statistics publication. It is a publication from the federation (muslim-croat federation entity), and therefore you can not call it federal, as federal means R.S. too. This data differs in classification, as it does not show settlements, but arbitrarily assigned mjesna zajdnicas which we have no means of checking. The only map that we can make from this is a dot map and this has already been done - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bih_ethnic.jpg
Therefore we should be consistent and use only settlement data. (LAz17 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
Official BiH is not a federation. It has unique structure which should not be discussed here. Official name of larger entity is Federation BiH, and official name of that bureau is federal office of statistics (you can see that on the right side of that bureau). It is useful to state that difference, but at the time when this census was made, there was no Federation BiH and this data is for the whole Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Also this link [93] is accesible from main page of that bureau as you can see onto this page [94] it is under STANOVNIŠTVO PREMA OPČINAMA PO MJESNIM ZAJEDNICAMA PO NACIONALNOJ PRIPADNOSTI Pdf.
And for the dot map segment I answered you in previous posts. This is a valid data. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I must have missed that file. I will email those guys again to inquire about it. At any rate, official data is by settlement, not mjesna zajdnica. This mjesna zajdnica is something new compiled by this muslim-croat federation entity office. (LAz17 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
You mean path? The file (and it's path) is equal to the file in title. But, we agreed with sorce for the map, let's let this issue for possible mjesna zajednica map of bih.--Čeha (razgovor) 00:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Territorial organization of any republic within former Yu was: republic -> municipality -> local community (mjesna zajednica)! Laz's comment This mjesna zajdnica is something new compiled by this muslim-croat federation entity office doesn't stand. Actually "Mjesna zajednica" as a territorial unit doesn't exist anymore in Croatia, after 1991. Now it is called "Mjesni odbor" in Croatia. "Mjesna zajednica" was actually the smallest territorial unit in ex-Yu. It was usually all village (small settlement) or a quarter of the bigger settlement (town, city). Ie my homecity was settled by ~70.000 inhabitants in the 80's, the whole city consisted of more than 10 Mjesna zajednica's. In general every Mjesna zajednica was organized to have up to a few (or to a several) thousands of the inhabitants.
On the other side, "Cadastral Municipality" (Katastarska općina, K.O. - in the cadastral documents) was not a territorial unit that can be related to a specific community (inhabitants of a village, city,...). It was a region related only to the cadstral maps and cadastral offices. To be honest I've never heard of population censi with data distuinguished by the cadstral parcels, it's crazy, since cadastral documents have no information about population. Cadastral data are: geography of a land parcel, name/mark/sign of a parcel, categorization of a parcel (building site, wood, mining site,...), actual possesion and history of possesion in the past (de iure - cadastral "possesion" is not jurisdictial "ownership", also "possesion" per cadastre is not reliable data which can be reflected to the population structure (a land parcel can have 10 inhabitants, but only 1 is a possesor, or 1 person can be a possesor of more parcels but settled on none of it, or 10 parcels can be equally possesed by 30 different people!) Of course, you can cut some territory to the smaller K.O.'s (cadastral municipalities), but that's all. It doesn't cover a territory better than regular municipality structure. It's possible that it covers it differently!!! But what is use of it if you can't make relation to the political units (K.O. is not political territorial unit with its local authoritative body, population community,...), it's just a region drawn on a cadastral map, related to the cadastral measurements. Example: a name of a parcel is "k.č.z. 1234/56 K.O. XY". It means "katastarska čestica zemlje 1234/56 u katastarskoj općini XY" (cadstral land parcel 1234/56 in the cadastral municipality of XY). In translation it means that there are cadstral maps of K.O. XY (map nr.1, map nr.2, ...). It doesn't mean that K.O. XY overlaps the real territory of XY, in many cases it doesn't. In fact K.O. territorial differentiation could be very misleading. Zenanarh (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't joke around. As we saw on the muslim-croat statistics site, there are only like 6 er so mjesna zajdincas units in the municipality of Glamoc on their data. On the bosniak wikipedia, as with other sources, there are more like 30 er so. Therefore this is a problem, no? If mjesna zajdnica is the smallest unit, then we would not see so few units in Glamoc. Simple example to prove your point wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)).

Laz personal and not checable data

[edit]

Laz has some data that is not checable and does not agree with neather of previous list, nor 1991 BiH offical municipal data wich can be found on eng-wiki [95]. If shows different numbers and should not be used in any possible form. It is false and unverifable. User Laz now claimes that his data is from statistical bilten from first round, and that data from bosnian wiki is just a second round. However, he does not shows any internet source of his data. His data can be shown in parts with title Kupres data request. He also claimed (but now changed his mind) that settlment and cadastral units are not the same and that his data came from cadastral units and not setllments [96]. User Laz lied about his data (or changed his mind). This data (for which he nows claims it is from somewhere else is false, has some strange number of units and no matter does user Laz acknowledges all of this (and I cited him on more than a few times) should not used in any futher discussion.

--Čeha (razgovor) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This data is not really part of the discussion - it is only relevant because it is the thing that proves that the statistički bilten br. 234 data is correct. Now, the issue is cadastral or settlement... As you know I am Serbian, and in Serbia we say Cadastral. Your terminology, Settlement, is new to me. I therefore concluded that it is something else. Well it happens to be the same. As a further more, my data is from the first round... it is the first raw data... here is proof, it's what says on my files... http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/prvirezultati.jpg - that red region there. It says prvi rezultati popisa stanovnistva - first results. So therefore any official data has to correspond to this data. My data is only useful to prove that the existing data is valid. (LAz17 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
Ceha, again, stop the personal attacks. Just because there are differences doesn't make any data "wrong." Besides, I assume we are making a decent sized map. Errors of a few people shouldn't have that large an effect. Like I said above, first let's see what people can agree on and then form a consensus. If we are going to do it, I'm guessing we may have either multiple maps or a blend of data. Either way would work for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In any case user Laz gave me those data it showed more Serbs and less Croats on municipal level than in offical census. Difference of a few hundred people. Isn't that a POV data?
Also, I'm not certain from where Laz got that data. It is not from the net, nor can be checked in any way. It could easily be a forgery...
We have official data on the settlment level. We agreed it is correct. It probably differs with Laz's data onto some villages and I think it would be a waste of time to go over every municipality to compare official data with something that is not. If there is a problem, we have official data. Due to all I said, my opinion is that data which Laz has should not be used in any context. It is simple. We have better sources. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Ceha, you need to understand that despite a small difference in population of a group, it had the same percentage in the end. That is the only thing that matters. The type of map that we are talking about is not a map that represents concentration, but a map that represents area. Therefore your concerns are totally unfounded, as it is clear that the percentages of groups in the settlements are the same. This makes much sense, as my data is from the first round. But, there is one thing that is most important. It is that nobody has any intention to use this data or upload all of it, as we already have data on the bosnian wikipedia, which has the same percentage numbers. Therefore further discussion of my data is not necessary for this discussion. Well maybe it is - only to confirm the right number of settlements. And you are certain where I got my data as I explained this already - the national department of statistics, belgrade, serbia. (LAz17 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).
If we are going to make this map I would feel more comfortably if we only use the data from bosnian wikipedia. In every case of which you gave, Croat number is smaller and Serb higher than official. Modriča example; officialy: S/M/C/Y/O (Serbs/Muslims/Croats/Yugoslavs/Others) 35,19 29,13 27,53 5,20 2,95 and in your's example: S/M/C/Y/O 35,47 29,49 27,28 5,12 2,64. There is also diference in about 200 people for that municipality in comparison to official census. As some villages have smaller population than 200 people that difference can be important. Also as the sorce is claimed to preliminary I am not certain how much errors does it has. If I'm not mistaken there was also a large difference in eastern tip of Derventa and possible in number of the settlments in that municipality.--Čeha (razgovor) 00:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, the difference is less than one percent. On the map less than one percent does not show up. As for derventa, here you go, http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/derventa-zacehu.jpg . It shows more croats than the regular data, but like we can observe, the numbers are minimal. The percentage is the same within one percent for all majorities in all settlements. So where do we conclude? That the final result if rounded up or down will give us the same result. Now, we will use the official data instead of this one because it is online and because I am not inlined to upload over 100 data sets like I have done several times until now. Eastern Derventa is all okay. That issue that you had earlier on eastern derventa is a mistake on that map. (LAz17 (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)).
The difference is about 200 people, more Serbs, Muslims and Croats and less of the others than official census. Number of settlments is correct. Look, you gave that map, it looked real and based on that we had made some conclusions (I even had changed ethnic map on photo bucket according to it).
In short, we agreed about official data, I'm a little bit worried about pinpointing exact villages (we can see on the problem of eastern derventa what can happen) but will see...--Čeha (razgovor) 08:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I gave you a map that was part of a larger map on which you identified errors, obvious ones, such as there being some places in tomislavgrad that had no people. So clearly we can conclude that other parts of the map may have errors too, and indeed the derventa region in that map does have some errors. The point is that there are not many mistakes on there, and it is far more correct than your map. I brought up the posavina part because your posavina regino was extremely wrong. The map that I gave was far more correct than yours. (LAz17 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)).
Extrimely wrong in Posavina? What is percentage of change, less than 2%? And in that I'm still not certain about that eastern Derventa tip.
I'd like to be very certain, and have all of sources before new map or change is made.--Čeha (razgovor) 09:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, I do not understand why there is any confusion. Your posavina map basically is different from any other posavina region that we have seen on every map that I have provided. Why you prefer the data on that one and not those other ones I don't know, but at least you changed yours. (LAz17 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)).
Half of your maps are not equal themselves (that eastern tip of Derventa for example), nor sourced. That map has new municipal borders and it is very convinient for making further changes. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Most of my maps are indeed equal. You attack them all because of that eastern Derventa tip, and because they show what yours does not show. Anyways, here's another map, probably in vain, of serbs in bosnia in 1981... as we see they clearly are not a majority in that derventa tip - and there is no way that they could have increased from less than 10 percent to over 50 percent in ten years. http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/serbsinbosnia1981.jpg There are plenty of maps from accredited sources... you seem to not be happy with any of them. (LAz17 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).
They are similar, but not equal. That eastern tip was important because I think it would have validate that Posavina map (it had location and names of villages). What does that student says about settlment map?--Čeha (razgovor) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Our classes resume soon, so when I see him I'll ask him. He said he'll work on it, and he is capable of doing it. (LAz17 (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).
I'm looking forward to see that data. Borders of settlments and its locations will be a very important info for this and any other map.--Čeha (razgovor) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Next Step?

[edit]

What is the next step to take? We agree on the source. The problem is that we do not have a base map that shows all settlement names. The person from my unversity told me that he has it and that he has started working on his map... we could wait for him, or we could perhaps find any errors in current maps or what... what is the next step? (LAz17 (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)).

It would be great if that person could made blank base settlment maps (and version with names, posibly latinic script) so the map could be verified. Without that I'm affraid that we should go municipality by municipality and pinpointing villages.--Čeha (razgovor) 08:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I would not expect him to have anything done before january... anyways, I am gonna go on a break for a bit. My classes are over and there are some holidays now. And plus I am sick. (LAz17 (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)).
Sorry to here that. Well, we should continue after the holidays. Have a good time. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I discussed cadastar municipalities with Zenanarh. Basicly, he confirmed my previous doubts. Population (and ethnical) censuses in second Yugoslavia were made by local communities ("Mjesne zajednice"), municipalities and then republics. Moreover, borders of cadastar maps are not equal to settlment map (which Laz also mentioned previously in this discussion), and even do not agree with municipal maps in some cases (that's why numbers from Laz's data give different results that numbers from official census). Cadastar maps show only de iure possesion and not jurisdictal ownership which is not relevant to population structure (a land parcel can have 10 inhabitants, but only 1 is a possesor, or 1 person can be a possesor of more parcels but settled on none of it, or 10 parcels can be equally possesed by 30 different people!).
For making exact ethnical map of BiH we need to find exact map of local community or settlment borders (together with exact list of which settlments or its parts belonged to exact local community). It can be done without exact blank map but then it would be in lower precision. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make a map with data based on the "Local Community" units - level, you'll have a lot of problems. A city such as Sarajevo, precisely "Municipality of Sarajevo", was probably made of 15, 20 or 30 "Local Communities". How would you draw it in the map? With a microscope? Of course there's opposite situation, that a few villages placed in wider area all belonged to the "Local Community" of one of them, here you will have no problem with drawing a region. The point is that these "Local Communities" were territorially organized to cover administratively some number of the inhabitants (like from 1.000 to 10.000), number easy to manage by a few administrative workers. I guess you should use Municipality level map, since these units (bigger than L.C.) were much more uniformly territorially distributed. But try with L.C. first, you never know... Zenanarh (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you. In towns it would be necessary to group all of them together in one unit (or perhaps if there is not a lot of them, for example 2 they could be shown both). It's definetly a tricky question. If it doesn't work we have Municipal map with size's of each nation in it [[97]], however this map also have flaws for example Ravno municipality or Ljubija (village near Prijedor) because it shows size's of each nation only if it had about 10 % in the whole of municipality and it doesn't localise where the majority of that nation in municipality lived. For example in Teslić Croats lived mostly around Komušina, near Žepče and Maglaj borders. That information is not avaible in that map. --Čeha (razgovor) 11:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why you are still concerned with Cadastral or Settlement data. It is a different word for the same thing. We agreed which data is correct, so why are you going back to this? Indeed, the municipal only map is a better option than your map which is a wrong one, and in which you admit to there being errors. Now the real question is why is your map still up if we have agreed that your map has many errors. You clearly are not able to fix them all, so best at least delete what you have until we can get more stuff available. (LAz17 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)).

Simple. Do read what Zenarh wrote. Settlment is not equal to Cadastral.
We agreed about settlment census, and I stand by that. Now only thing which we need is blanck settlment map of BiH.
After making settlment map, local community map (mjesna zajednica) can also be made, at least for those municipalities for wich we have sorces to borders of local communities. It will be interesting to see where do settlment and local community map differs.
As said before, even if map has some errors it is prety much good aproximation (possible errors are those in few small villages). As map is my work, I'll leave it till we make a new better one. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Cadastre is an administrative service which deals with geography, categorization and jurisdictial "possesion" of the land parcels, drawn in the cadastral maps. Settlement is settlement: village, city, town, megalopolis,... Cadastre has nothing to do with population census. Population censi are always based on political areal units and always presented in the maps with the same division (political units). Political units in this case are: local communities (smaller), municipalities (bigger). Zenanarh (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the Univeristy of Belgrade email that I received some time ago... "Ne mogu da tvrdim sa 100% siguirnosti ali karte koje ste prikazali predststavlaju “kakartu katastarskkih opstina (cadastral municipalities) a ne kartu naselja (settlements map). Problem je u tome sto jedno naselje moze da bude u vise katastarskih opstina ili da jedna katastarska opstina ima vise naselja. Problem karte naselja jos nije resen u potpunosti i koliko je meni poznato zvanicno niko ne poseduje kartu naselja koja se kao poseban lejer moze staviti iznad topografske karte." Eto vam sta kazu profesionalci. (LAz17 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)).
LaZ, "Katastarska općina" nije uopće općina u onom smislu u kojem je to "Općina" koju poznajemo kao političku prostornu jedinicu. "Katastarska općina" se može slobodno prevesti ka "Katastarska regija" u smislu određenog prostora prikazanog na određenom broju mapa. Ne postoje uredi ni zaposlenici katastarske općine, postoje samo mape određene katastarske općine (regije). To veze nema sa pravim Općinama, Mjesnim zajednicama a pogotovo ne sa popisom stanovništva. Katastar ima veze samo s geometrijom (parcele) i korištenjem zemljišta i pravima koje neka "fizička" ili "pravna osoba" ima s obzirom na to. Citat koji si navea gore je skroz u redu pa mi je još manje jasno zašto gubite vrime s katastrom i odakle ti ideja da izjednačavaš "naselje" (settlement) s "katastarskom općinom" (cadastral municipality). To je ka da analiziraš pasje govno da bi krenia u lov na velikog žutog leptira. Sorry for non-English, this was easier. Zenanarh (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Tip sa univerziteta beograda tvrdi da je ova mapa, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census_2002_Serbia,_ethnic_map_(by_localities).png prikazuje kadastarske opstine a ne naselja. Mozes da procitas to sto mi je tip kazo u emailu, stavio sam u prethodnoj poruci. (LAz17 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).


in case we forgot

[edit]

So where are we at now? Why are Cehas phoney maps still on wikipedia and not deleted? (LAz17 (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)).
Because they are not phoney. It is simple. Btw what happened with that map which you promised to give ?
--Čeha (razgovor) 12:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your maps are based off of a map that is deleted, therefore they have no source. If you edit them and add a source, it is false. They have no source and must go as soon as possible. Furthermore, all data suggests that belgrade maps are accurate, with perhaps a few tiny errors, while your maps have huge errors and descrimination. Your final map was on the municipality level and it was agreed that this map was fine. Therefore lets use that one and delete the others, all of which are based off of the deleted map. This map in particular you agreed to be false, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bih_Stan_1991.GIF , yet it is still on wikepedia. It must go. (LAz17 (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)).
Well?? (LAz17 (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

We crossed this issue a million time. I'm not going into it again. You told that you'll have some student from BU to make some submunicipal map. I'm still waiting that one.
That municipal level map is fine, but we need one at submunicipal level. P.S. I've been bussy in the recent times so I rarely check wiki. I'm not going to discuss this forever. If you have some new data, however... --Čeha (razgovor) 18:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are avoiding the issue. You are keeping maps up on the submunicipal level that are false. Lets delete those, as their source is that first fraud map that was deleted - which you tried so hard to keep. (LAz17 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).
Issue is that you promised to provide new maps and did not :) No. I'm not changing this map without valid proof. It is simple. Basicly, this is the end of the discussion until you give some new evidence...
Adios :) --Čeha (razgovor) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
We do not need evidence to see that your maps are false. It is clearly obvious, and furthermore you keep one false map up that you admitted is false. But since you ask for it, you will receive, http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%A5%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0 - there you go, fine maps, really fine. You have Bosnia and Herzegovina for 1991, 1981 and 1971 on the settlement level and you also have the portion of serbs, croats and muslim slavs in each settlement on separate maps for 1991 too. Can't get better than that can it? Looks like some people are just seperior to your amateur fraud maps that have absolutely no source and no basemap off of which you can change boundaries of your mistakes. Goodluck in life, this issue should be closed now. (LAz17 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).

Sorry my link had some problems. Here's the direct links.

Pwn3d. I know this hurts. Sorry. Really man, I am sorry. (LAz17 (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).

Wait, the map which someone made without any references to auticitiy is a valid proof ?Hm... --Čeha (razgovor) 01:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
They have references. Come on, don't tell me that you do not understand what is written in cyrillic "etnicki sastav po naseljima po popisu stanovnistva iz 1991 godine" - or in those other cases from other years. Serbian and Croatian is the same, but in case others do not understand, that translates to "ethnic structure by settlements according to the census of people from the ---- year. I mean man just look at those maps. They are amazing and blow your stuff away. They blow everything away. They are similar to the national geographic map and to the belgrade university maps, but are in fact even more accurate than they as they have corrected mistakes. (LAz17 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).
They also have more superb maps for montenegro, croatia and kosovo. You can see them all, they are all top notch if you ask me. Montenegro are their best ones, as they are the most extensively worked on. But if you look a this, you can see that there is such extensive effort put in that it makes the maps simply outstanding. It is not something that an amateur can do, and there are no errors. Do you have a problem with them? (LAz17 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).
I'll repeat this in very simple words because it is posible that you did not understood. Does are not official maps but private made without any souces how they were made. Creation by miricle of will alone ?:)
Data from other wikipedia is not consider valid withouth source. Check wikipedia rules...
Again if you have anything smart or new to give... --Čeha (razgovor) 13:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have indicated what the source is for those maps on the serbian wikipedia. I translated it to you. What do you not understand there?
Again, do you see any mistake on those maps? There clearly is not. (LAz17 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).
Ceha, you were using these guys map of posavina in order to attack mine for invalidity. So now the source that you used is not good? (LAz17 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).
When? Could you give me reference to that? This is the first time I'm seeing this maps.
And for maps:
  • a) Currently I'm unable to see those maps, internet-explorer in my office shows just a giant red x :). I'll try to see it at home with firefox. Are those links ok? Because even when I tried first time to open them, some of them did not work.
  • b) Let me repeat it again. Where is the source for all of that? Where is the source of the base map? Maps obviously are not official but home made. Rule one of wikipedia. Provide valid sources. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I saw the maps at home in firefox. Now, about the sources... ? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If you did see it, then why do you ignore the stated question - do you see anything wrong with the maps? I am not going to look for the sources. We can see that they have shown every settlement on the map. Your maps on the other hand show no settlements. They have borders,and the maps are in such high resolution that you can easily see where which border is. There seem to be no flaws, therefore I do not care how they went about getting their stuff together. They say the source of the data. For the basemap - they probably made that themselves. Paint all the colored areas white, and you will get a fine basemap. Again, you claimed how good their posavina region map was. That was done by the same people. Again, you seem to ignore the question, do you see any mistake with these maps? If not then they should replace your maps which show no submunicipal boundaries, only three hues - serbs, croats or bosniaks, ignoring relative majority, no people, and other groups such as montenegrins, no maojority, etc... So please, stop avoiding the question of is there anything wrong with those maps, as there clearly is not. (LAz17 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, that Posavina map had numerous errors in the end, did it not ?
Where are the sumunicipal names? Without that it is very difficult to check data. As I can see, number of serbian majority subunits is grately overestimed and Croatian and Bosniak counted short.
In city of Bugojno for example this maps show that there was Serbian majority in 1981? Seeing their number in the whole of municipaly this is more than interesting result>:)
--Čeha (razgovor) 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
We never agreed on the posavina situation. You were supporting what these guys did and I was suspicious. I was supporting the belgrade maps, but this map here is indeed better. Furthermore, I do not see that anyone can expect anyone to give them all the sources. You say that there is too much blue... where is there too much blue? Where? If you look at the 1991 census you will see that there is not too much blue. The serbs are simply that numerous. It all makes sense, just look at the census.
For Bugojno, there is nothing interesting there as you say. Look at the 1991 census, http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodatak:Popis_stanovni%C5%A1tva_u_Bosni_i_Hercegovini_1991.:_Bugojno and you will see that in bogujno there were 6,878 muslims, 6,836 croats and 6,809 serbs. So, there is nothing wrong or suspicous to say that in 1981 the serbs were the biggest group in the town. I mean think about it, the 1981 map clearly shows that there were LESS than 50% serbs in the town, but that they were the biggest group. See the lighter blue color, not the dark blue color? Look at the legend man, and then you will understand the map. It's all correct on the map. For 1981 like you say, it correlates with the 1981 census - 16402 total, 59 montenegrins, 4695 croats, 12 macedonians, 4719 muslims, 19 slovenians, 5280 serbs, 18 albanians, 6 hungarians, 0 roma, and 1511 jugoslavs. (LAz17 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).
So again, I ask you, can you find ANY errors on these maps? ANY? Look at http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Popis_stanovni%C5%A1tva_u_Bosni_i_Hercegovini_1991. for census 1991. You will see that there indeed are that many serbian places. I mean come on, national geographic, an unbiased source shows a very very similar map - it's off by a few settlements, but these ones that I found on the serbian wikipedia are totally correct.
Again, Where are the errors on the maps? There are none. (LAz17 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).
One more thing. The posavina map showed the names of all settlements. This was all in accordance to the similar cro-stat maps and topograhical mistakes. We have only one issue in the posavina map, in the derventa municipality, in the upper corner. We were arguing about four settlements - two serb and two croat. The posavina map, made by the people who made all these new maps, shows all the names. Naturally I was suspicious, but I looked at topographic map and maps from cro-stat, and it is correct. So that is not a problem. So, for posavina, look at that map again, and you will see all the settlement names. Then look at a topographical map to double check stuff. I did that. Cheers. (LAz17 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).
There was some error in your link on croatian wiki [98]
Look, as you saw by yourself this is a delicate issue. I'd like to be sure. Contact the guys which have made the maps (I'm prety certain that they left e-mail in their's map department, or by wiki) and ask them for names of settlments and theirs position on the map. They should have some data about that. Than we can check it out (there is a census on cro wiki). If everything is ok, I'll change my maps. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The link should be correct - in fact you showed the link in the first place, in the past. http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Popis_stanovni%C5%A1tva_u_Bosni_i_Hercegovini_1991. - there is a period after the 1 at the very end. Perhaps this is the problem, the period does not appear when I post the message. I don't know. But you know very well where the census data is, at both the croatian and bosnian wikis.
I have the name of two dozen municipality settlements. I do not want to contact them for all of their stuff - who would give you all of the stuff? Seriously, I do not see how you can expect anyone to give you the entire settlement map for free. I have looked through the map, looked at the census, and I see no mistakes. Again, take a day or two to look over the map - just the 1991 one. If you can not find any errors, then we will replace your map by this superior one. So far you have not indicated any problems with these maps. You therefore accept them as accurate, I would think? If not, tell us what the problem is with them. How hard is it to that? I ask you several times and you ignore that. Then you could also look at those other ones if you have doubts, but if it were me I would just upload them all at the same time, replacing yours and adding new ones, such as the portion of croats in bosnia in 1991, and other such maps like the 1971 map. These guys know very well what they are doing, and their map has submunicipal borders while your map does not. (LAz17 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

Laz I don't think that submunicipal names are some high secret, nor they should be paid for. The guys left you an e-mail so please check it out. Because like this it is difficult to check. This is one error for example; On [99] there are 20 Croatian majority settlments (realtive and absolute) hower on [100] there are only 19. One is missing. And that is just an example (and a quick one I would add). There is a quick settlment map on [101] (some guy draw supposed Cro-entity line, and it's sources are not 100% certain) so you can check those maps with this. As I see, there are errors. Ask authors of your maps (tresnjevo@hotmail.com ili na milan1237@gmail.com) for settlment names on that maps... --Čeha (razgovor) 02:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on Ceha, take a close look at the settlement in question, with your 20-19 issue. If you bothered to look closely at what it says, you will see that settlement of Gredina has a total of 23 croats and 23 serbs. Therefore there is no majority, and this is labeled in grey on the map. What OTHER problems do you have? You clearly have not indicated ANY mistakes. You only indicated not knowing the map well. At any rate, I ask you again, please take a couple days to look over the maps well, and please find any serious points. Please stop ignoring this important request. Why do you not want to look over the map, and why do you waste my time with such annoying little issues. Are you trying to buy time or something? What's going on? Give me a whole list of things where you have issues with, and we will move on from there. As for a basemap - those are never free. Maybe for a few municipalities, but in general they are not free. It's a big pain to put together in the first place, so there is no way that you can expect someone to just give it for nothing. YOU email them if you want. And give them this link so that they see what is going on. (LAz17 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC))
You have so far not been able to come up with ANY mistakes on the map. Says a lot for someone who outright denies the map and claims it's wrong, with no justification for such claims. Not being able to produce any substantial evidence that the maps are wrong, one is forced to ask why is this discussion still going. But I give you time to do something about this, but you ignore that. (LAz17 (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).
Ok, that was a quick review. Why is a problem for you to e-mail thpse guys? I can't see how are they going to charge for a location list of settlments in former SR BiH? Or how can the same be checked without location map?
Look,most of the things are in the position, and number of settlments. To make a valid analysis I would need to have a location list. Currently I'm a little bit short of time. Look at Kupres, it seems that there are some inaccuraties also...--Čeha (razgovor) 01:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop avoiding the question. You clearly said As I can see, number of serbian majority subunits is grately overestimed and Croatian and Bosniak counted short. ... where are the numerous mistakes, as you clearly have not indicated any mistakes. Kupres looks fine. As I said, please check the maps very closely. In fact no, lets make this earlier - check only 1991 map 1, not map 2 (with density), and lets see where the mistakes are. There are no mistakes. You are wasting both my time and yours. Again I ask you, take a day or two to look over the map. So far you can not find any mistake, which you clearly have not found any. You claimed that there are many errors, yet you give no evidence, and clearly are not cooperating. Please cooperate. (LAz17 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).
Ceha has admitted that the 1991 map is fine. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALAz17&diff=296730859&oldid=296535043 There is proof. So, we can now move on I hope? (LAz17 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, what's wrong with you? That qoute goes for 1991 map of Croatia. Damn it man, how can we talk if you twist my words. For bih map I said that I need further validation. E-mail those guys already. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To end this thing

[edit]

Ceha has not been able to find any mistakes on the maps on serbian wikipedia. As he has stated on my talk page - "Gle i meni se čini da nema nekih velikih grešaka, nego samo sitnijih tipa naselje, dva, tri.", "Look, I also think that there are no major mistakes, just maybe some small settlements - two or three". He has not produced any errors so far. Therefore it is safe to say that these maps are fine. We can not spend years and years looking for mistakes - there do not appear to be any. At any rate, these serbwiki maps are far more accurate and easy to check, unlike ceha's maps. (LAz17 (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)).

So this is what should be done...

should replace the maps that ceha made, at the submunicipal levels. I will contact those guys to get their maps on the commons. (LAz17 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)).

Laz did not provide any source of the local submunicipal names nor any link from it to the census of 1991. Until the guy gives something valid and verifable, dis discussion is meangless (and he could stop lying too ;) --Čeha (razgovor) 20:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Maps have submunicipal borders, so it is easy to check. The census results are all on the serbian, croatian and bosnian wikipedias, so it is all easy to check. Quite frankly, with the thousands of settlements on the maps, I do not care about verifying every last one. I have been looking for months and have not found one mistake. ANd lets not forget what you said on my talk page... Gle i meni se čini da nema nekih velikih grešaka, nego samo sitnijih tipa naselje, dva, tri. Translation: Look, I also think that there are no big mistakes, just some small ones, small settlements. Two or three. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALAz17&action=historysubmit&diff=296423653&oldid=296223919
It is time to remove your stuff which is unsourced. I mean come on man, your maps do not have any borders. These other maps are superior to your own. They list the source - the census. Not only do they list the census, they also show borders for easy checking. Your maps have no submunicipal borders. (LAz17 (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)).
Again there is no link to any settlment, no names, this sumunicipal division could be done on random. That's the first thing. It can not be checked nor verified. And for my statments there is more on it. I also said that I wanted to be sure. You haven't give me any verification on it. I'm not going to edit my maps just because of your hunches. Give me something valid and that would be it. Just proofs Laz.--Čeha (razgovor) 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Your maps have none of that man. If you want verification look at google maps, and you can search for settlements. The point is that these maps can be checked. You can check them municipality by municipality. There are no mistakes. These maps are similar to the national geographic one from 1991, only this one is a lot more accurate. Please stop repeating that these maps are not checkable - think about yours before you criticize this. You can't deny that these maps are far better than those maps. (LAz17 (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)).
Where is the source for your maps? There is none. These maps have borders, and they correspond to the census. Yours do not. Simple. (LAz17 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)).
Laz do read what I had wrote. If you wish me to change something on my maps give me valid and verifible source. Your map are not checable. They don't have links to the names of villages nor they have links to the source of submunicipal borders. I'told you this already. Circles. No use. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Ceha, your map has none of these qualities, so they are even worse. Something that you do not understand here? Your maps do not even have borders. They have nothing, just arbitrary coloring.
http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/?action=view&current=bosnia1991ethnic2.jpg this map is pretty good, university of belgrade
national geogrpahic's too, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/3/38/Bih_ethnic07.jpg
For the location of settlements - this is a hard thing. But, you can't find any mistake because there is none. Maps like this may give part of the picture- http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/1005/bihacoc2.jpg so just go municipality by municipality like I did. They are easily checkable. Data is on wikipedia. Maps have borders. Yours lack borders.
All evidence shows that the maps on serbian wikipedia are correct. Not only are they correct, but there is absolutely no mistake on them. They are the most perfect maps that one can find. So, stop your harassment, when your own maps do not have any borders. (LAz17 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)).


Ok, I'm here at LAz's invitation. However, I don't want Čeha to think because LAz invited me I'm here to support him indiscriminately. If you guys want informal mediation, I think I can help. As far as I can tell this map is on the 1991 ethnic composition of Bosnia and Herzegovina? If so there should be little difficulty. However there is one rule we should all agree on: NO INCORRECT MAPS. This is something nobody should compromise on. The ethnic composition of BiH is not something to be taken lightly - thousands of people died because of this stuff. Even small map mistakes should be cause for removal of the image.
  • Step 1: source. Does anyone have the 1991 SR BiH census? Is there a link to be seen?
  • Step 2: verification. When we have the census, the maps should be checked for accuracy. It seems both of you think these maps are faulty - therefore get to work :) find the mistakes and compare them to the census.
  • Step 3: repair. If there are any mistakes - fix them (Photoshop). Once there are no mistakes: this conflict disappears.
Our efforts (verification/repair) should concentrate on LAz's map, since it is far more detailed. Though of course, nobody can prevent Čeha from introducing his own map - just as long as there are NO MISTAKES.
Thoughts? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. The map I provided is indeed far more detailed.
  • Step 1: Census source has been agreed upon. Detailed settlement data can be found on serbian, croatian, and bosnian wikipedia.s
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0:%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0_%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%B8_%D0%A5%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5
http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Demografija_Bosne_i_Hercegovine
someone deleted most of it from the croat part of the site... http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Demografija_BiH
  • Step 2: I have went about verifying. I have not been able to find mistakes. Ceha went about verifying too, but he did not find mistakes either. He mentioned some but they were false. For some reason he wanted to verify 1981 too - he should focus on 1991 at first only. (LAz17 (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)).


Ok so we have the source, now Step 2 would be verification:

  • Are there any mistakes with LAz's map (MAP A :)? What are they exactly?
  • Are there any mistakes with Čeha's map (MAP B :)? What are they exactly?

@LAz: Ok you've had a look at MAP A, and you can find no errors with the map. Fine. Čeha do you think MAP A has errors? If so, which ones are they exactly so we can make compare with census data? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so where are ceha's erros... lets start with the map itself...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif
We can see lots of things.
  • First and foremost, his map indicates absolute majorities - it does not show other ethnic groups, or places where there are no people, or places where there is relative majority.
  • Drvar's municipality borders are wrong. Sad.
  • Tomislavgrad should have a few municipalities where there are non-croat majorities.
  • Kupres's southern part was very much serbian in majority - his map shows it being mainly croat.
  • Banja Luka's northeast section has an expanded croatian territory.
  • The kljuc municipality's part in what is today the federation is wrong. Too large of a muslim area, and the town itself had a serb majority but it is shown as having a muslim one.
  • Neum is missing serb and bosniak majority places.
  • Ljubinje is missing croat and bosniak places - the map shows it being a serb majority everyone area, which is false.
  • In sipovo there is a muslim settlement missing - serbs are over-represented in the map. The settlement is dragnic, just for more detailed information.
  • Beside Velika Kladusa there is a municipality that did not exist in 1991. Breza.
  • In trebinje the croats around ravno have their area much larger than it should be. There is one muslim area that is too big, while other muslim areas are not included on the map.
  • The area right beside banja luka, celinac, is portrayed as having serbs as a majority in every settlement - wrong again. Bosniak ones are excluded.
  • In the northwest of srbac there is a croat place - there was no croat majority settlement that year.
  • Beside srbac to the west is gradiska. The croat area is too big, as well as the muslim one.
These are only some of the mistakes. There are too many to list. (LAz17 (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)).

If all these objections are, in fact, directly derived from sources, Čeha needs to fix them or else a faulty map on a controversial issue such as this is imho obviously not fit for inclusion. (Čeha, please believe me when I say I am trying my best to be objective here.) If there are additional errors, they must be fixed as well. If it turns out there are too many for Čeha to agree to repair the map - it should be deleted (sry).

What about the errors on LAz's map, Čeha? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that there are no boundaries on ceha's map. It looks like every municipality has serious errors. It simply takes too long to fix all these numerous errors. There're too many. On top of that there are no borders. How can he seriously go about fixing things when he does not have borders? Therefore we should just opt for the solution of rejecting his map and getting some guy from serbian wikipedia to upload the correct maps on the commons. I contacted them already regarding this. Why bother making a whole new one when we have this better one? (LAz17 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)).

Well its simple - if the map is contrary to sources or too generalized for the sources to be applied properly, an objective impartial observer will conclude that it must either be fixed or removed. Especially in such an immensely controversial issue. If Čeha does not wish to fix it, he can delete it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It will take so many days to identify the mistakes on ceha's map. His map makes my eyes hurt, it really does. We are dealing with a very good map and ceha's awful thing. With something that is so far better - why wait to A) find the countless mistakes, and B) fix all those mistakes, when we have a map that does not have any mistakes? Well, lets see what ceha has to say. (LAz17 (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)).

(I'm assuming at this point that the map is indeed contrary to sources in many places as stated. I have not yet heard what Čeha has to say.) Its like this: there's no reason why both maps should not be included. Čeha has his map, and there is no way you can replace it without his consent. It can only be censored from inclusion in articles as inaccurate. I'm not even sure if it can be removed from commons, though I could ask. The point is - both maps MUST be accurate, anything less is not encyclopedia material. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, guys, I do not have much time so let's go one by one:
1)Laz my map do not need to have submunicipal borders. That is just another level of precission.
2)Direktor, after this 3 screen discussion with the Laz:) However, I belive you you have best intentions.

a)There is a source. 1991 census [102] In the footer of the page there is a list of all the municipalities with (colored) tables. It looks preety valid.
b)Laz maps do not have location of the settlments. If he can give it to all of municipalities it would not be a problem to check.
c)If Laz gives me enough data I can check any error which could happen. Hower if he does not do that, or if he persits in his "belosvetskim zaverama" I will not do anything because this map is good enough and the possible errors are in few sparsilly populated villages.

3)Map A does not have the source from where it took submunicipal borders, or location of villages in it.
4)[103] does what it says it does. It is simplified ethnic map. There is no every village in it. Some are not shown etc. All of Laz objections are of small villages or something which is to hard to show on the map.
5)I will repeat again. If Laz shows that his maps are correct and if he provides valid data (that means location of villages and origin of submunicipal borders I will gladly fix any possible error on my maps). If not, I'll left them unchanged. Reasons like; it hurts my eyes or it is too much work do not have place in encyclopedian discussion. Laz, prove me that I'm wrong and I'll fix it. Otherways, "belosvetske zavere" do not pass here :) Also I tried to contact authors of that Laz's maps but it was unsucessfull. I asked Laz to do so, but he disapeared from discussion and returned few months latter with mouths full of accusations. Most of the things which were spoken here I went through with Laz, and I'm not going into those circles again.
6)Conclusion. Laz; origin of submunicipal borders on MapA(or else they could have been imaginated) and links of village names to locations on the map. I think that I don't ask for too much. Valid and verifible. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1)Please stop ignoring director and answer his question.
2)Your maps are not off by one or two settlements. They are off in terms of LARGE area, when it is all combined and looked at. Perhaps 5 to 10 percent of the area in your map is wrong - that is huge.
3)There is no official online source for the sub-municipal borders in Map A. I have one question - do you doubt them? They correspond to the units that are apparently being used in national geographic map, and in university of belgrade's maps. On top of that, it is totally unreasonable to expect anyone to give you the names of all the settlements there. Nobody has a map that big. People have maps for individual settlements. That's it. You contacted milan, one of the authors, and he told you quite nicely that they do not have a map that big, that they worked from many smaller maps and from topographic maps, to help them find locations when they were not sure. They clearly put in much hard time and word, effort, into your maps. Those maps can be checked. So please restart, go to point 1), stop ignoring director, and his question to you - are there any mistakes in Map A. (LAz17 (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
Again, to repeat Direktors good words, slightly differently... NO INCORRECT MAPS !!!!!!!!!!! (LAz17 (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).


Lets take it easy ok? I think I know a way to organize the discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just gonna ignore this kind of behaviour. If a guy has problems, than it is not my job to fix it.
If someone made that precise map he should have gone village by village and he should have links to those village names. If he did not do that that map is no good, and his sources are flawed, no matter how large is the map. It is simple as that.--Čeha (razgovor) 15:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

MAP A (LAz)

[edit]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/0/0e/BiH_-_ES_N_1991_1.gif

  • Step 1. Now, we have a census source, right? The census is agreed upon, right? Well the only problem then are the municipal borders. Obviously: you guys need a source on the municipal borders. I imagine something like a published map of municipal subdivisions can be found? Remember, the accuracy of MAP A has been challenged with respect to the (sub-)municipal borders, without a source confirming the borders it is technically unsourced. National Geographic/any university would of course be a perfectly acceptable source.
  • Step 2. Once you find an official map depicting the municipal subdivisions (+ the census of course) you can begin to compare with the map itself.
  • Step 3. If you find any mistakes correct them, and that's it - your map will be 100% sourced. Once the map is 100% sourced this conflict ought to disappear. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
We need links to the village names. Otherways if we have green village A and red village B someone can change their places. University source for submunicipial borders would of course be acceptible. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Laz map of Bih would look something like this [104] using the standard colors (Croats blue, Muslim/Bosniak green and Serbs red). Doesn't it seems that BiH Serbs (which made 31.21% of BiH population in 1991 [105]) make majority on about 60% of the country? Most importantly in the municipalities like Srebrenica, Bratunac, Goražde or Vlasenica. I also found this [106] on the net, which has a little bit more of information on it (circles for minority nations), but unfortunately it has not got a source available on the net, it is just a picture of original with lower resulution and onto which someone draw its imaginary borders. Image shack provides only images 500x500, version which I downloaded at home is a little better, and if someone wants to see it, I'll gladly mail it to him/her. The net is full of such maps and the only way if someone can be certain of correctness is a validation of data and that can only be made by valid sourcing and linking the map with submunicipal names. It is quite simple. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Direktor, I do not think that there is any such source anywhere. The other thing is that there are so many settlements that even official sources are sometimes wrong. Cro-stat had published maps for each municipality in the past. They had these dumb dot maps. But even they had some errors- missing some dots here and there. Further, on each census the number of settlements would go up or down by a bit. I am fairly certain that the guys who created this took the maps from belgrade, cro-stat, used topographic maps, and a few more maps. I see nothing wrong with that. The point is that this map looks very similar to the national geographic and belgrade university maps. These two maps are official things. Such organizations are great, but even they can make some mistakes in the thousands of settlements that are being dealt with. These guys seem to have improved those maps. (LAz17 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
Hm, than it is just theirs personal research? In census of 1991 there is just one list of settlements. That is the only thing which is valid. I'd like to see how it is matched with your map. If it does not fit, your map is wrong. It is simple as that.--Čeha (razgovor) 16:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Čeha here. If this map is wrong then... you know: NO INCORRECT MAPS. Guys, as far as I'm concerned, if both your maps are incorrect both can't be used. We simply CAN NOT have faulty maps for ethnic distribution in BiH.
@Čeha's above post: Well it is well known that Serbs were more rural and had a disproportionate territorial majority in relation to their fraction of the population. The same was the case in Croatia. Concerning Srebrenica, Bratunac, Goražde or Vlasenica - I do not see the problem, simply consult the neutral 1991 census data. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that Laz doesn't have location of those villages on the map. He has submunicipal borders (which are yet unconfirmed), but he does not know which village goes into which submunicipal area. That's why his map is no good. It is interesting, but unsourced. --Čeha (razgovor) 17:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hm, no map can contain the names and locations of all those tiny villages. Here's how I see it: see if you can find a couple of errors using municipalities you know. Every mistake you can find will be fixed. (This is all Step 2/3. I'm still assuming you guys have a source and have agreed to use it - THAT's STEP 1. Without an agreed-upon source you can not check or fix these maps.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
We agreed upon a source (we just need to watch that everybody stick to that) and here is some of the locations of those villages (withouh the names) [107]. I agree. But something which is not made in home kithchen where village A could easily become village B, etc :) --Čeha (razgovor) 17:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Then why do you say that I use other data and accuse me of not agreeing on the source? Hypocritical. (LAz17 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).

(Come on! talk to each-other normally :), you need to first try and have a fresh start. U drugom licu i bez "govana".) Oh boy... so this is problem No.1: agreeing on a source. First get this out of the way -everything else will follow. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

He does not want a fresh start. He gets offended when you tell him that there is POV on his map, as there clearly is. There is no problem no1. Problem no1 has been solved months ago. Don't believe this liar. The source is well known and long agreed upon. (LAz17 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
Laz do try to watch your language. How can we had any dialogue if you sound like a coach-driver (kočijaš?). Source should be agreed. That is wikipedia source. That and only that. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

MAP B (Čeha)

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif

Hm, "it is simplified ethnic map"? Here's the problem: LAz thinks you simplified it in a biased way. This is an extremely controversial and delicate matter as I'm sure you know. Please trust me that I am being objective and impersonal here, however I must state my opinion: if a map is over-generalized to such an extent its accuracy is challenged, its no good. If a map is so over-generalized that its accuracy cannot be properly checked by sources - it is no good. In other words, by simplifying the map you may have compromised its support by sources. Saying its a "simplified map" is no excuse for (potentially biased) inaccuracy. Like I said, nobody would support the inclusion of an incorrect map because it says "simplified" in the title.
The way I see it you have two choices: either get to work (you guys shouldn't be lazy here) and follow the "steps" (get sources, check the map, then fix any errors), OR measures ought to be taken to ensure inaccurate maps are not included in articles. You have to understand: someone says you're promoting a pro-Croat anti-Serbian map, this is serious - it has to be checked. Once the map is 100% sourced this conflict ought to disappear. You can call me biased and imagine I'm here against you, but this is what anyone would tell you. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, I don't really care what Laz thinks. If he can prove to me with valid and verifible sources that my map has errors I'll fix it. When I made this map plan was not to include every little village in it. Level of simplification was required. But as I said, if I get any verified sources of errors I'll make the changes. Some small villages will probably be left out, but I don't think that no one has problem with that. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Ceha did not care what you said. There are huge areas that have major problems here. No level of simplification would reduce the serb territory of kupres by so much. And other such things. (LAz17 (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).

Ok Čeha, let me respond fully. Please read the whole thing :)

  • Re: "I don't really care what Laz thinks."
    • Of course you don't, and you're not really required to care. However, that is not the point. The point is that you (i.e. your map) have been challenged to provide a source.
  • "If he can prove to me with valid and verifiable sources that my map has errors I'll fix it."
    • Hm, as far as I know he already has proven that your map has errors. Didn't you guys find a census? The map has been compared to census data and mistakes were found (many mistakes, apparently).
  • "When I made this map plan was not to include every little village in it."
    • That sounds like heavy POV when you omit Serbian and/or Muslim villages and settlements. I hope you can see how people can perceive that simplification as "biased"? Faced with accusations of taking sides in an ethnic conflicts, your map needs to be 100% by the book - or it really is unacceptable by encyclopedia standards. (This is all primarily because you made a map of one of the most ethnically complex and belligerent areas of this planet.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Laz had not proven a thing. We made claims to census onto wich I made the map. He did not provide locations of the map. In the previous discussion I offered to fix those bugs [108] as can be seen on [109] and Laz's neurotic response :) After that I did not wanted to change anything, because knowing Laz he would again accused me for "belosvetsku zaveru" and changing the data in question. So I left it as it is. It can be changed in 2 seconds. However, I want more official data, because Laz also has some data from greater serbian pages like Rastko, and some "preliminary censuses" (and I don't know what more) which he treats as official and which is not. Again, if I get valid and verifible data, I'll gladly change any possible error. And due to Laz lack of profesionalism his charges or accusations don't worry me a bit. If he has some proofs, let him show them to me. That means location of village with a name, from some page other than Rastko :) Unfortunatelly the guy is always unsatisfied and full of accusations so :) --Čeha (razgovor) 17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'm missing something here. Do you or do you not have census data on 1991 SR BiH?? If there's a source, this is an easy problem (or at least it should be). Do you both agree on a census? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we do. It is on [110] and in the footer for every other municipality. However some of Laz's data is not accordance to this census. He claims it is of "preliminary censuses", and it differs from it (most often by a bit, but). When spotted Laz will agree with official Census. It is just one thing onto which person must watch out. Also we do have census, but do not have location of every village on the map.--Čeha (razgovor) 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What ceha offered was a slightly better map, but one that is still big shit. I got census data from the serbian statistics office, which has census data for all the yugoslav censuses. The 1991 census had preliminary data and then second data. Data source is not an issue, as it is all on wikipedia. At any rate, both census data show the same numbers pretty much. Rastko only simply republished a book online, that belgrade university made. I have this book, so ceha very well knows that is not a creation of rastko. Here is a picture of the book, http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/?action=view&current=PC110007.jpg , and here is a picture of one of the maps from the book - 1981 though, http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/?action=view&current=PC110008.jpg Where rastko here is involved I do not know. Ceha, I have no idea what your thing belosvetsko zavara is supposed to mean. The fact is that your map has massive errors. So stop being a liar, telling me that I have stuff from rastko... I do not, I have stuff from the university of belgrade. Rastko is not involved, and data was agreed upon. (LAz17 (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
Ceha is a confirmed liar. We had agreed on the data months ago. Why does he bring this up again? What is his problem? This is only proof that he is not an honest person, and wants to delay anything. (LAz17 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
What's your problem ceha? Data is not an issue. It was many months ago, when you wanted to use mesna zajednica instead of settlements. Why bring this up again? Do you have some problem, or you just want to delay this by bringing up dumb accusations? (LAz17 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
I crossed out some of the slander that you wrote. (LAz17 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
Laz is a confirmed liar. Again, we agreed on the data of that census on wikipedia. Not of something from his or anyone else office. If Laz put some links from Rastko (which is greaterserbian site) I am not going to check from where Rastko took it out. It is pretty simple.And do try to check your language. Using the word shit just describes, well you know, you :) --Čeha (razgovor) 17:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Rastko is not an issue here. We have nothing from that organization. (LAz17 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
I don't see a problem. If you stick to that wikipedia census. Not something else.--Čeha (razgovor) 17:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARjecina%2FBosnian_census&action=historysubmit&diff=321819770&oldid=321799032 start reading what is written. (LAz17 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
Ceha has deliberately lied. He should be punished, and perhaps excluded from further discussion. (LAz17 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
Yes, he should be taken away and publicly flogged, too bad this is Wikipedia :P. Now then, concentrate on a source. When you agree on a source then we can talk. LAz, can I see your source? Čeha, can I see your source? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

restart

[edit]

Direktor, we have agreed on a source for a long time. The census data was published on the serbian, bosnian and croatian wikipedias. however, someone deleted most of the croatian pages. Here it is.

[data at serb wiki] [data at bosnian wiki]

Just click one of the municipalities on the links and you will get detailed settlement information. This is not an issue. Lets move beyond this. (LAz17 (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).

Its not up to me, Čeha and you have to agree on a source. The point is to help you two reach a consensus - and once you agree 1) on a source, and 2) that NO MISTAKES be allowed, this dispute will simply disappear. All that will be left is the verification and image work. Čeha, what's your census and why do you think the above is no good. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ceha and I have agreed on the source. You can see what he said here... -quote- I think we do. It is on [111] and in the footer for every other municipality. - quote- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARjecina%2FBosnian_census&action=historysubmit&diff=321967198&oldid=321965700 (LAz17 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).

What he was talking about when he said footer is this link, [112]
This is the exact same as on the serb and bosnian wikis. (LAz17 (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
Well, LAz says you are in agreement on the source, is this source ok Čeha? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
[113] is a valid source. I think(but I'm not certain) that data on bosnian and serbian wiki should be equal. Here are complete list of settlements by municipalities and their ethnic structures. Other data from Laz CD's which was used in the previous discussions can not be used in making of maps (unvalidated, unproven). I think we've got agreement on that?--Čeha (razgovor) 00:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Really man, please stop talking about the data that I got from Belgrade... not that it would make a differences, as all instances which we compared were the same in terms of majorities in settlements. (LAz17 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).
So Direktor, where to from here? (LAz17 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).
Ceha, you provide link 113 - why not provide what I provided - link 112. 113 is in 112, and much more is in 112. I think you make things more confusing. (LAz17 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).
What are you talking about? Wiki data is good, no? That is agreed source. Nothing more (thus excluding any private date someone might have).--Čeha (razgovor) 16:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You agreed on a source? We're done with Step 1? Well now LAz if there are any mistakes on Čeha's map, use the source and clearly point towards the mistakes. If there are too many, make sure you still show a lot of them. Čeha if your map really does have as many errors (when compared to the agreed-upon source) as LAz claims then there's just no way you can write them off as "simplification". People will say you're a Croat nationalist POV-pushing (I've had those exact problems with your maps on Talk:Bosnian language). Either fix them ALL (maybe with LAz's help) or the map is obviously no good.

As for LAz's map, that's where Čeha can look for mistakes. Anything he finds LAz corrects. If Čeha can find no more mistakes, then the map is obviously good enough.

Either way, if you can no longer find any mistakes, the map(s) are good. Help each other fix your maps instead of arguing. BtW, I'll have to go on a one-week wikibreak today/tommorow, so I won't be able to help anymore. :( --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with just one suggestion. My map is not map about every village. It is simplified map. Laz's map is not. My map does not have nor posess substructure which Laz map has. In order to acknowledge it as usefull, Laz must verify it. That means provide link to village location as well as source of submunicipall borderlines. Whithout it there is no way to tell which is village A and which is village B. In this way I can only count submunicpal units and tell Laz that their number in some municipality is bigger/smaller or wrongly colored than it should be. That map is incomplete.
My map on the other hand is diffirent in a way that it does not have so many details so in my case finding every village would be usefull but not necessary. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Btw direktor, what problems were there onto Bosni(an/ac) language pages? I did not see nothing of it? --Čeha (razgovor) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe tonight I have will have an even bigger list of errors in cehas map. (LAz17 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).

Mistakes in Čeha's map

[edit]

map - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif

This is what I said before. I will expand this list btw. I have come to see that there are a very big amount of errors in the central region. This is naturally a place where croat nationalists want to say they had more people. It is an area that suffered a lot in the war, so naturally croats want to show more croats being there, and bosniaks want to show more bosniaks... ceha... well, we know whose side he is on.

  • map indicates absolute majorities - it does not show other ethnic groups, or places where there are no people, or places where there is relative majority.
  • Drvar's municipality borders are wrong. Sad.
  • Tomislavgrad should have a few municipalities where there are non-croat majorities.
  • Kupres's southern part was very much serbian in majority - his map shows it being mainly croat. He excludes bosniak places in kupres. On top of that, kupres town had more serbs than croats.
  • Banja Luka's northeast section has an expanded croatian territory.
  • The kljuc municipality's part in what is today the federation is wrong. Too large of a muslim area, and the town itself had a serb majority but it is shown as having a muslim one.
  • Neum is missing serb and bosniak majority places.
  • Ljubinje is missing croat and bosniak places - the map shows it being a serb majority everyone area, which is false.
  • In sipovo there is a muslim settlement missing - serbs are over-represented in the map. The settlement is dragnic, just for more detailed information.
  • Beside Velika Kladusa there is a municipality that did not exist in 1991. Breza.
  • In trebinje the croats around ravno have their area much larger than it should be. There is one muslim area that is too big, while other muslim areas are not included on the map.
  • The area right beside banja luka, celinac, is portrayed as having serbs as a majority in every settlement - wrong again. Bosniak ones are excluded.
  • In the northwest of srbac there is a croat place - there was no croat majority settlement that year.
  • Beside srbac to the west is gradiska. The croat area is too big, as well as the muslim one.
  • Kreševo appears to have croats as the majority in every settlement. Wrong.
  • Kiseljak appears to show that there is only one bosniak majority settlement, when in fact there are 36!, almost as many as croat ones. The serb one is ignored. This munciipality also has one of the less common "others".
  • Municipality of Vitez shows too many croat settlements, excludes the serb one, and reduces the number of bosniak ones.
  • Fojnica also has the number of bosniak settlements reduced - the biggest group in the town itself was bosniaks.
  • Fewer bosniak, and fewer serb areas in jajce... more croat areas.
  • In novi travnik the serbs were the biggets group in the town itself. Other than that, same pattern as in the rest of central bosnia - too few bosniak places, too many croat places.
  • Travnik too has many errors. The city on the map appears to be a croat majority. Wrong. Areas of serbs, bosniaks and croats is wrong too.
  • Busovaca reduces the number of bosniak settlements quite a bit as well.
  • Gornji Vakuf also shows too few bosniak settlements - they were actually the majority in the town itself.
  • Donji Vakuf shows no croat settelements.
  • Bogojno shows an excessively larger croat area than it really was, and the serb area is slightly wrong too. Bosnaiks showed as being smaller.

I hope this is enough for now. Mistakes in just about every municipality. (LAz17 (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).

Either these mistakes are fixed, or I cannot see how this map can be used. "Simplification" is no excuse for inaccuracy. Not on such a controversial issue. Any objective NPOV observer would tell you that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
One by one. Firstly I checked most of this already. Map which we can discuss is here [114]. Secondly, I colored map in only 3 colors. There are just constituive nations on it. If an mixed area is between to constitutive nations it is simply divided. Also if a town is not compleatly surounded by one color it means that no nation has absolute majority in it. This can be very well be seen in Travnik example. City itself had 38,73% of Muslims and 31,73% of Croats in 1991. There is a small circle of green around it which shows muslims. Suburbs around Travnik are Croatian so it might get the rong impression, but that green shows muslims in town. Also city of Novi Travnik (ex Pucarevo) had Serbian relative majority in 1991. do you see that red dots around it?
As for other errors, they are about small villages which are hardly shown in the map or they are realy scarcely populated. But if Laz insists he can give me an example what to fix.
Also I must note that this is an ethnic map of 1991 which is drawn on 2006. municipal borders (today's municipal borders). Just to be sure. Laz should I also change Modriča/Pelagićevo and Doboj/Petrovo borders? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Ceha, in novi travnik the serbs were the plurailty in the city and the majority in one village. Ignore the village - your map does not do justice to the city itself. I have given you many examples of errors. You do not have much to comment on them I see. (LAz17 (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)).
How? It is cleraly vissible on the map. I fixed most of the errors you speak about. Are you realy blind or can not see this map? [115]. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ceha, you fixed only a few small points. In some cases you made the map more wrong. For example, In Novi Travnik you added a serb dot at the town itself, but removed the other serb settlement. Similarly you ignore many things that I said, like tomislavgrad, like bosniaks in kupres, and elsewhere like the horrors you drew at kiseljak. You clearly do not want to fix your map, and clearly did not read the many mistakes that I told you here. (LAz17 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)).
LAz, this is definitely not the language or attitude that will close this issue. You seem unable to understand that Čeha needs to agree with you, and you need to agree with Čeha. You don't have to like him, but why are you making it more difficult for him to agree to anything you say with this unproductive attitude??
Čeha please don't allow this to affect your positive attitude. LAz has found more errors, can you fix them? The point is to fix the map. I think we all need to see progress there. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that Laz is talking about small dots of villages and do not has any suggestion how to fix some things. My map was never intended to go to such length of precission showing every village on it. It resolution is not for that. I'll try to make some further changes but they are mostly doted lines on small less than people 100 villages. And Laz attitude is definately not helping. When I fix something the guy spits on my work without new propositions and without location maps (which would be most helpfull).--Čeha (razgovor) 22:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion: use Photoshop and go down to the pixel if necessary. Not because of LAz, but because this is Bosnia for crying out loud. You took it upon yourself to make a good map of a very difficult area and now you've got to defend it by going into details. When you're done you'll have an excellent map nobody will contest. Surely it is not that difficult to draw a dot here and there?
Drugim riječima: kad si se uvatia ovoga, sad moras valjda i dovršit. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Going down to every pixel is going to be necessary at the end, I'm afraid. Ok no problem. I'll do my best.--Čeha (razgovor) 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ceha has not addressed so many mistakes that I have listed, that I do not see him as a serious partner in fixing his map. My advice is to abandon work on fixing that image. The resolution is wayt too low, first off, for there to be a good map. (LAz17 (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)).
And Laz is contraproductive. His reasons for involvment in this discussion are not helping me improve this map or fixing possible errors but deleting it. At the end, the guy will have problem with colors... Again. Laz if you have constructive suggestion about this map [116], bring it on. I'll fix that village in Novi Travnik.--Čeha (razgovor) 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I gave you many examples of mistakes. You ignore that and continue talking how you want to cooperate - then read what I said about erros. I gave you about 30 municipalities with mistakes. Start fixing them. I clearly said that you were missing bosniak places in livno. I clearly said you have problems in Kiseljak. Tomislavgrad, etc... you ignore that. You therefore are not a serious partner for this. (LAz17 (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)).
I fixed most of them. There is an obvious difference between this and photobucket map [117]. But nothing I do will be good for you. Unfortunately you have got to much bias to participate in serious discoussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • map indicates absolute majorities - it does not show other ethnic groups, or places where there are no people, or places where there is relative majority.
  • Drvar's municipality borders are wrong. Sad.
Still
  • Tomislavgrad should have a few municipalities where there are non-croat majorities.
Still
  • Kupres's southern part was very much serbian in majority - his map shows it being mainly croat. He excludes bosniak places in kupres. On top of that, kupres town had more serbs than croats.
Make the south more serbian, you ignore the bosniaks, and you ignore that the serbs were the biggest group in the town.
  • Banja Luka's northeast section has an expanded croatian territory.
Still.
  • The kljuc municipality's part in what is today the federation is wrong. Too large of a muslim area, and the town itself had a serb majority but it is shown as having a muslim one.
Still
  • Neum is missing serb and bosniak majority places.
Still
  • Ljubinje is missing croat and bosniak places - the map shows it being a serb majority everyone area, which is false.
Still
  • In sipovo there is a muslim settlement missing - serbs are over-represented in the map. The settlement is dragnic, just for more detailed information.
Finally you did one thing.
  • Beside Velika Kladusa there is a municipality that did not exist in 1991. Breza.
Still
  • In trebinje the croats around ravno have their area much larger than it should be. There is one muslim area that is too big, while other muslim areas are not included on the map.
Still
  • The area right beside banja luka, celinac, is portrayed as having serbs as a majority in every settlement - wrong again. Bosniak ones are excluded.
Banja Luka has problems in the northwest. Muslim village put in wrong place.

What the hell is this ceha? You clearly did not read this. You said you fixed most? I think I went through about half of it. You fixed one or two things. You do not want to cooperate. (LAz17 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)).

Ok, I see that Laz does not read my post. So again. I will bold the things that Laz repetitively ignores. Map is made with 2005 municipaly borders (borders of today's municipalities).
Drvar 2005 municipality borders are correct.
Kupres southern part is mostly Serb, look again [118]
Town of Ključ is near the Federation/rs divison line. It is marked by that little red dot near it.
There exist no municipality near Velika Kladuša named Breza. There exists municipality called Bužim. On the map 2005 municipality borders are shown.
I'll see to those Croat and Bosniak places in Ljubinje and Šipovo as well as for Bosniak and Serbian places in Tomislavgrad and Neum.
P.S. Laz do try to read the posts if you want to participate in the discussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring Laz rude behavior, new version is uploaded [119].--Čeha (razgovor) 03:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Me read posts? You are the one who should read them, and stop ignoring criticism on your shit map. Again, lets go over many points...
Your map does not indicate places with NO MAJORITY, fourth groups, and NO PEOPLE.
Your map by default is improper because it uses wrong municipal boundaries. A map from 1991 should have boundaries from 1991, not boundaries from 1940 nor 2009.
Kupres is still wrong. The Muslim "dot" is too small. The Serbian area in the south while bigger should be even bigger. The Town itself should have a "no majority" or "serbian plurality". The northern serbian part of the municipality is also too small. Appalling.
Tomislav grad had two serbian majority areas, and two muslim majority areas, along with a muslim plural majority place. When I told you that you have errors at tomislav grad you only did part of the thing, and are avoiding to do the rest. Clearly you do not want to cooperate.
Uninhabited place in Glamoc is missing. Muslim areas too big. Parts not of glamoc town did not have a unified muslim place, but there were multiple small areas.
There is still a problem in Kljuc. There were small serbian enclaves in that muslim area.
Muslims were not over 50% in petrovac.
There was no serbian majority area in cazin.
Croatian area in velika kladusa is too big. Serbian area there should not be "unified".
Too many bosniaks east of krupa, not enough serbs directly north over it.
Banja Luka mistakes remain. The northwest croat settlement should be serbian, not croat. The dot for the town should not be there - that dot is way too big. Bosniaks were not a majority near the city, so taht green should be removed. You ignore uninhabited places, again.
Croat area in laktasi is too big. Way too big.
Jajce's serb area is too small, croat's is too big, bosniaks not enough...
Donji Vakuf serb area should be bigger, your small croat part should be bigger, you are missing a croat enclave in the northern part of the municipality.
Jablanica should have a bigger muslim area. There were only three croat villages with a majority there, and their area is way too big on the map.
Prozor has a too small muslim area.
Donji Vakuf's muslim area is also too small.
Kresevo muslim area still too small.
Kiseljak muslim area way too small.
Serb areas in busovaca excluded, muslim ones are too small.
Serb areas in Vitez also excldued, muslim ones too small again.
Muslim areas in novi travnik is too small. Again, the DOT for the city is WAY TOO BIG.
Serb area in neum is slightly smaller than it should be.
Croat area in Trebinje still too big. Muslim enclave south of trebinje town excluded.
There were two muslim areas in ljubinje, not one. Your croat and muslim area there is too big, should be slightly smaller.
Gacko muslim areas are wrong.
Nevesinje muslim areas too big.
Bjelina town area of muslims too big.
Shit map with too many mistakes to fix, and no sub-minicipal map, no source, no nothing.
(LAz17 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz map is made in such a way that in only shows constitutive nations. We can go down to pixell level, but we need sorcess to do so. At this level map correctnes is fine. If you have village sources for checking or valid copywrite to make corrections fine. But the point of the map is that villages without populations or with relative populations will be shown as divided between it's neighbours settlments or by percentage of constitutive nations in it. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes in LAz's map

[edit]
Blue from this flag should represent the SFRY.
Blue from this flag should be darkened significantly and used to represent the FR Yugoslavia, the RSK and the Republika Srpska.
Red from this flag (maybe lightened somewhat) should represent Croatia.

map - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/0/0e/BiH_-_ES_N_1991_1.gif

In addition to looking for any mistakes, the Serbian should be removed and replaced with a standard "Čeha-like" legend you can find in his maps, also the standard colors should be used (in my opinion). Even though I always thought of Serbs as "blue", Croats as "red", and Muslims as "white" (or light green), but that's just me :) best use the standard colors --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose that idea. Serbs are almost always listed as BLUE. Iti s ceha's fantasy maps that show otherwise.
1991 - http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:BiH_-_ES_N_1991_1.gif
1991 - Croatia - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/1/1e/Etnicka_karta_Hrvatske.gif
2003 - Montenegro - http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:CG_-_ES_N_2003.gif
1961 - Kosovo - http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:SRB_-_KiM_-_ES_N_1961.GIF
1910 - Vojvodina - http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Vojvodinaetn.png
2002 - Vojvodina - http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Etno-Vojvodina.jpg
2002 - Serbia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census_2002_Serbia,_ethnic_map_(by_localities).png
1935 - Bosnia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vjerskizemljovid1935Draganovic-1.jpg
1981 - Bosnia - http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:DemoBIH1981.PNG
Indeed, the Serbs are blue. And blue they shall remain. (LAz17 (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).
Another two...
Bosnia - http://dubravko.kakarigi.net/homeland/maps/bih_95.gif
PAX's 1910 bosnia map - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BosniaHerzegovina1910.png
The evidence is overwhelming. The Serbian teams in the 1990s and sometimes today were not called "plavi"/blues for nothing.
(LAz17 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).

LAz, if you agree to change every single other map on Bosnia and Herzegovina we have, I'd support your initiative. In other words I don't really care, just as long as all the maps use the same colors (we can't have Serbs appearing as blue on one map, and red on the other.) Frankly, I agree, but I don't see it happening. There's dozens of these maps, and the breakup of Yugoslavia animated image is also in these "standard" colors. Also, Čeha has to agree for you to alter his map (if he has retained some rights). Give up on that... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We currently have a number of maps where serbs are blue. War maps are different though. Ceha has altered varjarcic's map, putting serbs as red instead of as blue. So by default, he is the one who started changing things. Blue is the standard serbian color, and so it should remain. I know that Ceha prefers to change the colors, but his opinion on that issue should not matter. Just because he decided to change someting, it does not make it the right step. (LAz17 (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).
LAz, if you want my advice: one problem at a time. For now, use red for Serbs. What's the big deal anyway? Once you've completed the two (or one) map - then start talking about this again. Let's not create more issues for now. (+be more friendly)
You should also consider that Serbs are depicted dark red because SFR Yugoslavia was depicted bright red and FR Yugoslavia light red. See Breakup of Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It is totally unacceptable that serbs be blue. The maps on serb wiki show serbs as blue, and these are the traditional colors. There can be no compromise over changing it, to favor croat nationalism. We can talk about colors later. First we should deal with the actual map, and the actual amp shows them as blue. (LAz17 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).
"It is totally unacceptable that serbs be blue." If you actually meant "It is totally unacceptable that Serbs be red" - you're starting to talk nonsense. This is completely arbitrary and no color here is "PoV" or something. Believe me, blue is in no way "Croatian nationalist". For now concentrate on serious (non-childish) issues.
In addition, never use the default colors, but rather those from the flags. Croatian red for Croatia, Yugoslav blue for SFR Yugoslavia, a visibly darker version of Serbian blue for Serbs/FR Yugoslavia, and white or very light green for Muslims. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Blue as for "heavenly people" (no offense intended:). Serbs were represented by red in majority of peace plans, warmaps etc so that's why they got that color. It is true that most of the Serbian maps present them in blue(all of those maps which laz mentioned were made by Serb authors), but others don't represent them as such.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Čeha, anymistakes with LAz's map? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Lets begin:
Srebrenica. Those uninhabited settlment is not shown in [120]. The map shows 56 muslim settlments, hower in the census there is 57 of them. One village is missing. That would probably be that uninhabitet one.
Uninhabitet setllments are also not shown in Zavidovići and probably no other municipality. Where do they come frome if they are not in census?
Laz should provide something which would be used for checking map. It is preatty much detailed, and it still does not have source from where submunicipal borders came or which settlment is where. The only way now I could check it is by counting settlments and as Srebrenica shows map has errors on that plain. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, look for mistakes (just like LAz). Once all errors that you can find have been repaired the map is fine for inclusion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice job ceha, you found one mistake. They have 56 polygons in one municipality instead of 57. Perhaps one is comprising two. Anyways, check the census data better, ans you will see that there are settlements with no people - on yoru own link it shows that the settlement in question in srebrenica is called "Palež". You did not read it well. Same for zavidovici, you did not look at it well. The one in Zavidovici is labeled as "Suha". Good job, you identified three things, only one of them is true. It's an improvement from before. Before you found four er so, and all of them were wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, that maps shows submunicipal borders which are unsourced. It also claims without source that they represent villages. If you don't give me sources, or at least try to do so this map is unvalidated, unsourced and as such not good for this encyclopedia. I have no intention of counting polygons (and there are proven errors in them) on unsourced map. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The same principle applies Čeha: list the errors so that they can be fixed. When you can't find them anymore - the map is fine. The sub-municipal borders may be unsourced, but I think that's not a serious problem. LAz should try to find a source, but if there really are none to be found - I think the map is still ok (just as long as the ethnic distribution is not biased, a few millimeters of village borders are no "death-blows" to accuracy). In either event, Čeha, pls check the borders as well as compatibility with census data - if you can find any border mistakes you can source they shall be fixed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that he does not want to cooperate. (LAz17 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)).
That will be self-evident without your "declarations" to that effect. If Čeha does not list his specific problems with this map (which seem to be fewer than the errors in his map), then we can only consider his objections withdrawn.
Čeha, please help to fix this map. If you have specific objections to the borders and or ethnic distribution please list them. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
There are three basic problems with this map. Firstly its submunicipal borders. I do not know what is the source of it. If that is unsourced, it should not appear in the map. That map is not Laz's work. Why doesn't the guy asks authors of it for more data? They surelly must have source and location maps for villages by which they colored those polygons? Village location is a second problem and is the easiset way to check that map. Third problem are the inaccuracies. Look this map [121](it is an village locator, without names map) and than look Laz's map. Than look this map [122]. It does not the same submunicipal grid. See that dot north of Bijeljina? It is green on this map [123] but is red on Laz. Some settlements are switched, and other as it is source with Srebrenica are even not shown. I think that every eastern Bosnia municipality starting with Bijeljina and ending with Foča has at least one error. Also it seems that the area of some Serbian settlements in Posavina (Brod and Derventa municipalities for example) is bigger that is should be. I could go into the numerous examples like this, but what will it change? That map is not Laz's map, he does not have authorization to change anything in it (nor does he has knowledge to do so), he can eventually contact the authors (but they are not responding to previous questions about sources), so we are back onto the square 1?--Čeha (razgovor) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hm, these are serious issues. Čeha, concerning the village locations: that is not a problem. It just makes things difficult, but its not a reason to remove the map. Surely you can find a way to check the villages by using a detailed map of Bosnia and superimposing this one on it? (Check Bijeljina in the census.)
The first two steps now have to be:
  • Ask about the source for the grid. This is necessary, apparently, to ensure against ethnic bias. Any valid clarification will do.
  • And most importantly - permission from author(s). Without these two steps we really cannot proceed.
Then once the grid and permission problems have been solved, Čeha can check the map's grid for errors in ethnic distribution, and LAz will finally be able to fix them if any are found. I can see no other way if this map is to be included. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
1)I have contacted a friend that I know, at my school. I mentioned him before to ceha, a student in the geography department. Anyways, he says that he helped work on the Bosnia map. You may contact him on the serbian wiki (username is lilic). Anyways, he says to find mistakes, and he will fix them himself with the original authors, as he knows them personally. Currently he is working on other things so he won't help out in finding mistakes. He says to find as many mistakes as we can find, that that is our job. Well, contact him if you do not believe me. Perhaps I can get him to post here.
2)Ceha, I talked to the student about the map that you provided. He has a high resolution of it and says that there are so many numerous mistakes on it. Please, lets stick with that map that we have- don't bring in these other problems. From an airplane we can see that it is missing montenegrin settlement that borders montenegro, and that it has labeled blank settlement in zavidovici as inhabited settlement. (LAz17 (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)).
3)All this time ceha is trying to do everything to not use this map at all costs. Ceha, please cooperate. FOCUS on this map. You know what focus means, don't you? (LAz17 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)).
1)Laz, that does not help us a lot. Firstly we need a conformation of that submunicipal grid. Does it shows borders of settlments? In previous discussion you mentioned cadastar borders, and there was also talk about borders of local communities. I'd like to have a link to some institution (or a book at least) which shows in high resolution this submunicipal borders and clarifies them. Linkage to village names would be a grand plus. Direktor, internet is filled with all sorts of maps of which not all might be true. As for village location google maps can surfice in some cases but definately not all. Our job here would be more easy if we would have place map to check this out. After all this authors (from wich Laz knows one) must have made it from something (they didn't made it from scratch and they should have some official papers about submunicipal grid and placenames). I don't see what is the problem providing that to us? There is no copyright on submunicipal grid map or place names. Also, this submunicipal grid has errors (as it is shown in place of Srebrenica and probably in Bijeljina and almost every eastern Bosnian municipality as well in sizes of submunicipal units and locations of villages in the rest of BiH. Also, if I'm not mistaken this authors did not respond previously in any query about the maps on s wiki.
2)Laz, you are talking about doted map or that other submunicipal map from the net? See what is the problem of not having validated sources? How do you expect me to criticize the map which has a detailed but unsourced submunicipal grid? It can claim that a large town is actually just a smallest possible polygon (or even a dot) on it, while small villages can claim whole mountains. Providing adequate sources would remove most of our problems almost instantly. Moreover map which you present has a least one confirmed error (Srebrenica municipality), does that error (as with Zavidovići error on other map mentioned) do characterize it instantly as incorrect?
3)Laz, "belosvecke zavere" :) Provide valid sources and most of the troubles do disappear instantly. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ceha, you can notice the submunicipal map of the entire former yugoslavia. The units there correspond to official submunicipal borders of serbia and montenegro, which can be seen in many maps on wikipedia. Therefore if those are correct, then the bosnian ones are probably correct too. Your other map has the "SAME" submunicipal borders. The ones on the serb wiki are only a little more thicker. The map is also much more confusing as it has an excessive amount of dots in various settlements - since you have the low resolution you think that they are separate settelments but they are not. I was sent an example, but can't upload it 'cause my photobucket account is messed up... I can't log into it.
And lastly, I do not know what "belosvetska zavara" means. Please say it in english or do not use this word. (LAz17 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)).
Please cooperate and find other mistakes that you can find. Focus on the map from the serb wiki, and find any other mistakes. Forget all other maps, all other things, and just look at that. Stop deterring the discussion away from that. (LAz17 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)).
Laz you are realy qouting data from Rastko (known greater serbian site)? That should be proof that map is not correct. I managed to get to the higher resolution of this map[124]. I'm currently checking it's copywrite status and sources (it is work from one engineer from state office of Statistics in Zagreb and if verified is surely better than anything what your amateur pals can mix up.
If you whish something for that map, I ask you again to provide sources. Without them, and claiming such level of details I'm afraid the map is basicly junk :/ --Čeha (razgovor) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
More detailed version can be downloaded at [125] --Čeha (razgovor) 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Direktor, please help. Ceha, when faced with truth, ignores it all the time. Without you Direktor, this can't progress. Rastko maps come from this book, http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/PC110007.jpg I own it. (LAz17 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, not only that he has a mild paranoia, but is prone to insulting his collocutors (sugovornike:). I think that my notions as well as willigness to change any possible error despite Laz's rude manner of speaking is selfobvious and should not be discussed (nor it is important). To repeat again Rastko is a well known greaterserbian site. Everything which is on there is under great suspision of POV. As for that book "The Serbian question in the Balkans" Laz, please provide year of printing and authors. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Stop playing games. You can buy the book from amazon.com [here]. You can also get your information from there, and if you want something more I can scan or photograph stuff. (LAz17 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)).
I have no idea what your word "collocutors" means. Please use proper english and not your "new croatian". (LAz17 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)).
See dictionary. It is not a problem. Actualy I'm interested how can you say sugovornik on standard Serbian:) --Čeha (razgovor) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Lilici (coauthor of the Laz's map?)

[edit]

Pozdrav. Mozda sam trebao da dodjem ovde ranije, ali eto tu sam sad. Smatram da treba da se radi sta je do sada radjeno, da Čeha vidi da otkrije koju god jos gresku moze da otkrije. Ova mapa koju si priopcio nije dobra. Ko je nju pravio mi neznamo al moglo bi da se kaze da je neki amater. Na zalo nema mapa za sve opstine. Pitao si za Bijeljinu, tako da sam danas napravio jednu za tu opstinu. Bijeljina Ima mala greskica kod dva naselja mada mozes da vidis tacno gde je sta. Mapa od Milana i Ivana je vrlo dobra. Ta mapa je najbolja koju sam do sada video. Vidim da se brines za onu mapu na rastku. Nema razloga za brigu. To nije rastko pravio. Nemaju nista sa tim. To je Geografski Faklutet u Beogradu pravio. Rastko samo prikazuje njihovu mapu. Dakle, nastavi to sta si zapoceo - nadji jos neku gresku ako mozes. Karta je 99% i vise tacne. Mozda cu kasnije moci da napravim mapu u GISu za BiH ali za sad nemam vremena da crtam toliko mnogo granica. Na zalo imam samo tu jednu mapu da vam pokazem. Pozdrav. (Lilici (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)). Konacni zakljucak je da oboje mapa imaju probleme. Čehina je ocigledno mnogo slabija, ali posle blizeg pogleda naso sam i jos neke na ovoj od milana i ivana. U srebrenici imaju ustvari tri geske, ne samo jedna. Naso sam jos jednu u nekoj drugoj opstini. Videcemo sta jos ima. Problem je da je ovo vrlo dugacak posao tako da ce da treba mnogo vremena. Ja to vreme nemam sada. Imam neke prioritete pre ovoga. Ko zna, nekad u 2010 cu verovatno da postavim pravu mapu. Oboje ove mape se nekoriste mnogo po vikipediji pa nemislim da ima problema. Smatram da ceha treba da prizna da njegova mapa nevalja. Treba da napise da je mapa "temporary". A ja cu da provedem vreme da otkrijem jos gresaka. Nece biti uskoro. Moram prvo da zavrsim sa mapom naselja makoedonije a takodje imam ispite. Najbolje da sacekate, da Čeha prizna da nema pravo da trvrdi da mu je njegova mapa tacna, i da LAz17 prizna da mapa od ivana i milana moze biti bolja i da nece da crkne svet ako se njihova nekoristi za sad. Mada, Čehina histerija protiv te mape nije nesto sto moze da se opravda. Njegova mapa je mnogo gora. Dakle vidite sta ce te da radite. Posto izgleda da ste nesposobni da pricate jedni sa drugim onda bolje da vam Direktor odluci. (Lilici (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)).

Pozdrav Lilići. Wikipedija ti ne djeluje tako. Ona prva karta [126] je moje djelo i ako se pokažu neke greške ja ću ih drage volje ispraviti. Laz (niti bilo tko drugi) nema mehanizme da me se prisili kao autora na nešto što ne želim. S druge strane ovdje su prilično bitni izvori i provjera istih.
Ovu kartu [127] je navodno napravio Inžinjer Hrvoje Kujundžić u Zagrebu 2009, sa podacima iz Zagrebačkog državnog zavoda za statistiku. Kažem navodno, jer još nisam provjerio, kartu sam dobio od jednog forumaša, pa čekam da mi dostavi još podataka. S obzirom da je karta potpisana ima veću težinu od nepotpisane. Barem zasada dok se ne provjeri.
Hvala za kartu bijeljinskih naselja, ali ono što bi me isto zanimalo, da li postoji neki site gdje se mogu službeno provjeriti ti podaci. Jer web je pun svega i svačega, a dosta stvari i nisu točne.
To je i razlog zašto bih htio dobiti neku provjeru ove milan-ivanove karte. Izvore po kojima je rađena. Jer problem ti je, što ako.... Laz mene zeza za par mikroskopskih sela od par stanovnika pa ti iz tog razloga nisam baš voljan čovjeku vjerovati na riječ (uz to je prilično neuljudan i paranoičan). Ono, potrebni su samo referentni izvori i bilo kakav problem je riješen. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I want tvoji izvori! Gde su tvoje?! Your map is uncheckable, and all criticism leveled against milan-ivan map applies to your map, only the criticism is far worse on your map. Those are not a few microscopic places, they are MANY places. And you know that. :) You are a croatian nationalist who from day one set out to make a map that is not perfect. You admitted that. Kako bese ono sto sada peveta tamo u zagrijebu? "Zbog anice i dva bokala vina, zapalit cu krajinu do knina". "Duh Ratnika". Etc... We know you and your fraud. You are not a reliable partner in mapping. "Zapalit cu dva ti srpska staba, da ja nebi dolazio djaba". You have "palio" enough with your awful maps, done on purpose to promote greater croatian ambitions in the attack on bosnia, especially ambitions in central bosnia where you totally "cut up" and "excluded" many muslims in your maps. Fascistic nationalistic propaganda is where it all lies. The map is not good from the very onset. (LAz17 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)).

Poruka za LAz17: Takvo ponasenje nepomaze trenutnom stanju. Ali, vidi se iz aviona da cehina mapa ima velike probleme. Ko sto je Ceha sam ranije kazao, nije pravio mapu sa ciljem da ukljuci sva naselja u nju. Dakle, nema sto da se nerviras oko te gluposti. Poruka za Ceha: Nerazumem kako si pravijo svoju mapu u prvom mestu. Ako nemas te stvari koje trazis o mojoj mapi onda kako si mogao da pravis svoju? Ja neznam da igde imaju sluzbeni podatci za opstine i njihova naselja. Verujem da to nepostoji za bosnu. Za srbiju i za crnu goru ima - u knjizi deset u njihovom zadnjem censusu mislim. Takodje imaju sva naselja da se nadju za hrvatsku. Ali bosna nije ima census u 2001, pa nemamo takav pdf dokument. Ko zna dal ce i biti u blizoj boducnosti. Stvar je da Milanova/Ivanova mapa moze da se proveri sa takvom nekom mapom. Imaju poligoni u svim opstinama i tako. LAz17 te ocigledno nezeza oko par mali naselja. Tvoja karta ima mnogo gresaka a nema poligone. Pricao sam pre sa milanom u vezi tvoje karte i covek kaze da je sranje. Siguran sam da ivan ima isto misljenje. Ako pravis neku takvu kartu moras da imas granice naselja. To nemas. Po tome, mozemo da kazemo da je milanova/ivanova tacnija od te tvoje. Takodje, veliki napor je bio ulozen da se napravi karta bih po naseljima. Mi smo se trudili mada je bilo vise oni nego ja. U zadnji nedelju dana sam trazio greske i moram da priznam da sam naso nekoliko. A mozda cu da nadjem i jos neke. Za sad nemislim da ce mo da imamo kartu koja je sto posto tacna. Milanova/Ivanova je najtacnija koja moze da se nadje. Imaju dva resenja ovom problemu. Prvo je da se koristi Milanova/Ivanova karta na engleskoj vikipediji, zato sto nema bolje karte od te. Pogledaj svoju kartu i pogledaj njihovu. Kao posten covek nevidim kako bi mogao da kazes da je tvoja bolja. Drugo resenje je da se nekoristi ni jedna. Rezultat bi bio da ova diskusija stane, a to bi bio neki uspeh. (Lilici (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Drago mi je sta si se ukljucia u diskusiju Lilici. Slazem se.
Nemogu virovat da se ovo priblizava kraju. LAz, covik ti lijepo govori: sta se zivciras toliko? Ljudi, kako ja na to gledam ili mapa ima izvor ili nema. Za mene je bilo kakav izgovor dovoljan da bi LAzovu mapu ubacili jer nemamo bolju mapu te zajebane BiH - ali neko objasnjenje mora biti izneseno za copyright i za taj grid. Sta se Čeha tvoje karte tice, znam da je nisi radia za tolike detalje ali ovo je Bosna kvragu i sta ces sad...? (Nije to Dalmacija di je samo sunce i pjesma :P) Kazem opet ka sta ponavljam gori stalno: ili ubaci sve te jebene detalje ili ne ide bez etničkih kontroverzi i napada. Reka sam to da sam vec ima probleme oko toga sa nekim Bosnjackim fanatikom koga je na kraju blokalo (Kruško Mortale ja mislim...). Cini mi se kada bi jos pozvali PRODUCERA u ovaj nered da bi imali jos gresaka. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hm dobro, ova dva kralja je u meduvremenu block-alo... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Da, PRODUCER bi obnovio granice otomanskog imperija :) Rekoh nije problem. Dajte mi nešto ispravno za što se mogu uloviti. Mislim da sam dosta stvari popravio i da Laz ne mora plakati i nalaziti probleme gdje ih nema :) Granice općina na karti su iz 2005 da se vidi razlike sa sadašnjim stanjem. Naselja koja su bez stanovnika ili s relativnom većinom su podijeljena po okolini ili postotku konstitutivnih naroda unutar njih. Naselja manjinskih etničkih zajednica također. To su neka osnovna pravila. Sve ostalo mijenjam uz ispravan izvor. Svima nam je u interesu prezentacija točnih podataka, zar ne? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Continue with your racist tones and you'll be joining your friend Aradic. PRODUCER (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Producer, threating is not in the manner of true wikipedian. And calling someone a racist is a thing in which you can be easily blocked on ANI. So do watch it. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
What you said "PRODUCER bi obnovio granice otomanskog imperija" is no doubt racist and if you continue this behavior you will get blocked. PRODUCER (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Do try. I'm sorry if that sentance in any way offended you, but that is the light in wich you are seen by some wikipedians. And this is strictly my POV. That sentance is not in any way rascist nor it is intendent to be. I do appolgy in advance if you missunderstood it in any way. Extreeme behaviour is not a part of this encyclopediae. Expecially the threats:) If you have any more questions I will gladly answer to them all :) --Čeha (razgovor) 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Then please do explain what you meant. PRODUCER (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Size of Bosnia was the largest at the time of OE. And your posts do indicate that you want a strong bosnian state,no?

Again, that was a joke. No harm ment. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ja bi reko da si vrlo malo popravio jer koliko ja vidim ima mnogo gresaka. Takodje nema preciznosti da bi karta mogla da se lako proveri. Moraju da se ukljucu i ta naselja koja nesmatras ko vaznim, zato sto ustvari jesu vazna, i to vrlo vazna. Ako ti nisu vazna onda je mapa po municipalitetima ono sto treba da se koristi. Da ponovim sta je Direktor rekao, <bold>ili ubaci sve te jebene detalje ili ne ide bez etničkih kontroverzi i napada</bold>. Ja licno mislim da tebi nije u interesu tacna karta zato sto tu tvoju toliko branis. Ocigledno nezelis da prihvatis da nevalja, poceo si da je pravis sa predumisljejem da iskljucis mnogo naselja, i jos uvek smatras da ta naselja nisu vazna. Direktore, sta predlazes za sledeci korak u ovom cudnom slucaju? Osoba ceha se neslaze sa nama. Kakva su pravila u ovakvim slucajima nesloge? (Lilici (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Sori, ali to je tvoje osobno mišljenje. A ovo je enciklopedija. Ja mislim da je karta odlična. Ako mi ne možeš dokazati suprotno onda :) Između ostalog bilo bi super da pokazeš copywrite i izvore na Milan-Ivan kartu. Takve stvari ne padaju s neba.--Čeha (razgovor) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
To quote a genius quote... "daj te mi komad zemlje svete... zemlja je, i mati i dete..." Taking thins into account, your map is awful because it over-represents the croats, especially in central bosnia. If you were making a map of iceland, a monoethnic society, then that would be okay. But this is bosnia. There are too many mistakes dude. (LAz17 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)).
Let me explain why I feel that this map is nationalist propaganda, if not fascist material used to foster the ustashe movement and claims on bosnia. Now, these are strong words that I said just now, to describe the effect of the map... perhaps it is not the intention - it might be- but it is the effect for sure. In Bosansko Grahovo there is a small Croatian settlement, which in 1991 had only two people. Monoethnic croat. A small enclave. This enclave is on the map. Yet, bigger such enclaves of other groups are not portrayed. This is just one example of how nationalist propaganda is fostered through faulty mapping. In other places, like northwest banja luka, croats are labeled to be the majority where they were not. So, it's really hard to find such an awful and greatly wrong map to be acceptable for wikipedia standards. You can think that the map is great - odicna - but the reality is that the map sucks bad. Let me give you a story. One day bob dre drew a painting... it was a stick figure. Lines for hands, feet, body, circle for head, two dots for the eyes and a curve for a smile. He felt that his stick figure was an amazing piece of art. So amazing that he entered it in a competition. When he got last place, by far, out of a thousand paintings he went in rage, and started to do everything possible promote his poor drawing. That is what you are doing ceha. You are promoting garbage. The map has far too many mistakes. I don't think we should discuss it anymore, your defense of the map says a lot about you. (LAz17 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, try to watch your language. I did not turn you to ANI for previous accusations fascist etc. but if you continue I will have no other choice. Words like garbage and similar have no place in any encyclopedia.
Second, I asked you just one thing. Just one. Sources. And you gave me stories about painting? Good joke.
There is no word of overrepresenting anyone in my maps. Ivanjska enclave north of Banja Luka is obvious in even yours map. I don't see where is the problem with that. Croatian enclave in Grahovo is that what it says it is. Do you deny that is the village with Croatian majority? You can find it on census? Where is the problem? You clearly needs to check your eyesight. This is similar to the accusation which you made when claiming I did not show Serbian relative majority in town of Kupres (and the small dot is clearly wisible). Laz, you are not an artist critic. Nor a map maker. But at least try to be a good wikipedian. If you wish something to change, provide sources not imaginary accusations. --Čeha (razgovor) 17:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
You clearly do not know anything about Banja Luka, otherwise you would be talking about Verici, which is labeled as croat, yet it was serb. It is right west of Ivanjska. See, mistakes like this are why your map sucks. I am not complaining about grahovo. What I am complaining about is that you would not include bigger serbain and bosniak enclaves in places like tomislavgrad. Your reason is that they are too small. You are told mistakes, yet you ignore them and say that you will not fix map anymore because you feel that the map is good. It is not good. Nobody but you thinks that it is good. You are the one who is not being a good wikipedian. Otherwise you would accept the criticism from three people and remove your stupid map. Instead you go on insisting how your map is correct, and you denounce the many numerous mistakes. (LAz17 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, this is one example why you are a bad wikipedian. You are accusative, and your will to contribute is very small. I fixed the error on the west of Banja Luka. Only thing you should have said that it is there and there. And the trouble is over. Secondly using words like stupid marks you as a person of kindergarden age. I also entered few lines in Herzegovina for those villages you mentioned. It is not the problem of population but arrea size. But if it makes you happy, there they are. Three small lines in Tomislavgrad municipality. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It is impossible to talk to you because you do not want to cooperate. I gave you a list of dozens of mistakes and you go about fixing only a few. I am waiting for direktor to return. You're a lost case. You should re-read what direktor wrote to you. He also condemned your faulty map. (LAz17 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, you gave me nothing. Example with Banja Luka shows it the best.You were speaking about the whole Croat enclave north of the city, and at the end it seemed that you thought only on one village (which is a few dots on the map). Your only interest in this discussion is deleting or destroying everything which does not agree with you or your POV. I changed and fixed most of the things for which I could find sources. I'm not going to change map just because of your commentary "way to big, or way to small". Sources. But I agree that you are a lost cause. We should wait for director's return. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I clearly said that the enclave in the north had a problem. You promptly rejected that. I had to tell you the exact settlement, for you to fix the obvious error. Currently I do not have the patience to go about giving you the names of hundreds of settlements that are wrong on your map. I gave you a big list of errors, yet you disregard almost all of what is said. I think we clearly see who the lost cause is. Direktor has already condemend your map more than once. I don't even want to know what makes you think that he'll change his mind. (LAz17 (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, I really don't care. The map is good, even better it is better than good. The only reason I accepted to participate in the sequel of this charade was because a mediator. I'm afraid that your case of paranoia, my dear Laz is again up. Director did not said that my map is in any case wrong (please do read the discussion), but that I should fix any possible error I made, going into deepest details as possible. You mixed the Director's commentaries with those of your friend Lilici. Anyhow by your behavior you don't contribute to anything. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Again, I repeat if you have sources (valid) that I could use, I will gladly fix any possible error. If not, buzz of :) --Čeha (razgovor) 00:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Direktor Quotes...

  • Kazem opet ka sta ponavljam gori stalno: ili ubaci sve te jebene detalje ili ne ide bez etničkih kontroverzi i napada.
  • Drago mi je sta si se ukljucia u diskusiju Lilici. Slazem se.
  • f Čeha does not list his specific problems with this map (which seem to be fewer than the errors in his map), then we can only consider his objections withdrawn. Čeha, please help to fix this map. If you have specific objections to the borders and or ethnic distribution please list them.
  • That sounds like heavy POV when you omit Serbian and/or Muslim villages and settlements. I hope you can see how people can perceive that simplification as "biased"?

Need we look for more? Your map is horrible because there are so many mistakes. On top of that the boundaries are not from 1991, and even worse, you ignore non-serbcroatmuslim groups, and you further ignore places with no people and no majorities. You can not label areas with no majorities as having a majority. That is the lowest of lows when it comes to making a map. (LAz17 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).

Laz this is taken out of contex, few lines are about Lilici map, another are about yours contribution in this project and another is in my willingless to change every small thing that you (or someone else) would quote as an error. I'm tired of this. I clearly explained numerous times how this simplified map which represent just constitutive nations of BiH is made. If you are unhappy that's clearly your problem. If you have any sourced data which I can use good. If not, sorry. I'm not your babysitter. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
As has been explained, simplified is not acceptable. From the getgo you started out by excluding countless villages on purpose. The result was clear - a map with far more croatian land than there was. Ethnically motivated POV, that helps (intentionally or unintentionally I do not know) nurture and encourage croatian nationalism. Therefore please stop repeating that the map is okay as being simplified. It is not. Your map has no source. The source for a map has been agreed upon. So far you do not respect the source as you do not even want to include non-inhabited places. On top of that we have a map that includes all of this and shows borders. A map superior to yours. You have not given a single reason why your map is better in any way compared to the milan-ivan map. (LAz17 (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, where is the source of Milan-Ivan map? Where is the source of the grid? That maps claims precision but it does not have any checable sources.
I do not know for you, but I gave my best in this discussion. I fixed any possible error you could have found. So please do not lie. Source of my map is 1991 census. Map shows only results for constitutive nations. I do not see what is the problem with that. And I think that more of that settlments (like that in the southern Banja Luka municipality) are shown as serbian than croatian. So your nationalistic POV simply do not stands here.
Main difference between my map and Milan-Ivan is that my map do not claims anything which can not be verified. It is perfectly sourced and colored according to rules. If Milan-Ivan map fix it errors (which undoubtelly it has) and provide checable sources, I'll be most happy to include it in any posible place.
My map is simplified and is of a weaker resolution. Hower it is perfectly good for a quick overview of BiH territories. No more, no less. If you are going to work in english wikipedia, you should forget nationalistic POV and try to remember that this is an encyclopedia and place for cooperation not wild nationalistic accusations.

--Čeha (razgovor) 16:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1)Clearly your source is not the census. First of all, the most basic point is that your map is missing places with no people. If we are to use the official source, then you are automatically wrong.
2)I ask you again, how is your map any better than the milan-ivan map? You have not given a single reason how your map is better. It is in all ways worse, and everyone notices this. In fact, your map can be even less verified. There are no borders. How do we know what you colored?
3)I gave you a big list of errors. You ignore them while claiming that the map is fine.
(LAz17 (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).
1) Clearly my source is the census. For constitutice nations.
2) Give me the settlment grid. Is the Milan-Ivan grid correct? No, it has errors (probably many). Is it validated? Can it be checked? No it isn't? On my map all the towns are correctly colored which can be proven by just looking the census. The same is for villages. All of the data used in making of my map is verified.
3) What errors? Do look the map again. It has none.
4) Laz, if you do not have sources or proofs I'm not going to waste my time on your babel. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Your map is impossible to check. Totally impossible. Give us the locations of all your villages, so that we can check it. But, here is a partial list of mistakes, from before - most of which were not fixed. [128] Your map is very disputed. Direktor told you that it is not good. Lilici told you. I told you. What more do you need to accept that the map is not good for any encyclopedia? You know, there is a page known as uncyclopedia, you might want to put the map there. (LAz17 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)).
You've got census of 1991, no? Laz, with this additude you will never be a good wikipedian. If you wish to contribute, try to cooperate. Map is good. Only two persons which dispute that map are you and your friend Lilići (wich was a cooatuthor of non-sourced map Ivan-Milan) Any of that complaints was solved, which can be seen on the map (ot it was wrong to begin with:)--Čeha (razgovor) 16:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
With your behavior I do not understand how you have not been banned from wikipedia for simple refusal to cooperate in the discussion. The discussion gets nowhere when someone else is not here to mediate it. I mean, just look at the simple facts - the 1991 census has settlements - where are those settlements indicated on your map? They are not. Map is bullshit. Direktor agreed with lilici. Further, producer has said that he does not agree with either maps. So producer too is against your map. (he said that on my talk page) So, until we get a mediator again, this discussion is lost and hopeless. (LAz17 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)).
For using the words like bullshit You should have been baned from wikipedia a long time ago. If you do not like the map that is your problem. If your friend Lilići doesn't like a map that is his problem. Without sources that is just POV. Dear Laz, wikipedia is not a forum, and you mised whole point of this discussion. Unfortunately without mediator this discussion is unpossible.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, can I suggest you put this on ice for a while? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Depends on how long a while is. What time frame did you have in mind - it is reasonable I hope? (LAz17 (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)).
Well, I think there is nothing more to gain with this discussion. When user Laz will have some validated sources which I can use then we could talk. Before that, this is useless. P.S. And some manners would be fine. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop joking around Ceha. Your map has nothing validated. Without borders it is impossible to validate your map. Otherwise we have the problem as in Kupres - one bosniak area instead of two. Everyone here has stated that the ivan-milan map is better. Now ,discussion seems to be on hold - yet you seem to be continuing it. Do you really think that the discussion is going to end if you say a controversial statement, whose only purpose is to provoke me? (LAz17 (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, no one laughs at your jokes. Give me validated sources and I will fix any possible error. If you do not have them, than the map is good. Simple. Discussion ended.--Čeha (razgovor) 17:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing here is ending. Sorry Direktor, Ceha does not want to put this on ice. As it can be seen, his map does not have any sub-municipal borders. Ceha, because of this Direktor told you that the milan-ivan map is a lot better than yours. I do not know how one would even be able to go around checking your map - other than identifying obvious mistakes like I did. The mistakes are still there, like there being a serbian settlement in cazin. Who are you kidding man? Why do you play this game? I am so sad that we do not have more people here. We already have a consensus that your map is inferior. (LAz17 (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)).
What consensus? Of you and Lilići? Laz, get to your head that wikipedia is not a forum! Again give me sources and that we can talk. Prior to that I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you. I've shown a lot of good will and didn't get nothing in return. From now on, only validated sources. Do you have a official submunicipal grid to use in any of the maps ? No? OMG. How can you then put something in a map? It is not validated. It has errors(confirmed). But you still claim that Ivan-Milan map is good? Copyrite issues? How, when and where? Laz, you realy do not have a clue how wikipedia works. My map is good. It show everything it should show, it doesn't have any copywrite issues, and it doesn't claim to possess submunicipal structure which is nowhere to be found or better said validate. Laz, dear, you wonderfully educated human, with wonderfull civil behaviour give me validated sources and than we will contiue this discussion. Until then I realy hope that you will work on your manner and try to understand how wikipedia works. I have no intention to continue this ghost on the unexistent errors. However if someone give me something argumented (and from my prior expirence I sencerly doubt it will be Laz) I am willing to listen. Over and out. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Concensus of Me, Lilici, Direktor, and Producer, all of whom said that your map is worse, or that neither are acceptable. You do not have to agree in order for there to be a concensus. Your map has no source. Period. On top of that it can not be checked. When I tell you mistakes, like that there was no serb majority settlement in Cazin, you ignore that. That and countless other obvious mistakes that I have listed. On top of that, you do not respect the census, as you exclude settlements with no people and settlements that have for example montengrin majority. We have agreed on no errors. For a start, your map needs a grid, it needs municipal borders that correspond to 1991, and on top of that it needs a settlement grid. Your map, I repeat, has no source. You made it up. (LAz17 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).
What consensus Laz? This is not a forum. Let me remind you of a thing what Einstein said when 101 nazi scientists attacked his theory. If it was wrong just one would be enough. Lilići is your pal. Producer newer said that there is something wrong with this map. He said that he prefered municipal map. And Director said that I should please you in checking for possible errors. But that is my good will. I'm not going to stand here will you product your wild theories. Again stop with personal atacks, stop following me this is an encyclopedia, not something bizarre. Give me sources and I'll fix any possible error. Your bablle is not a source.
P.S. I looked on to the [129] and there is realy no serbian village in that municipality. So I fixed it up. It is simple. Laz your word is not valid here. Sources like this are. I do not know why I'm loosing my time with such infamous nationalistic POV pusher like Laz17, even if there was some small improvement in prescission in my map, my patience has limits. I'm not going to waste more of it. Sources than talk. In the mean time I'm hopping that someone would explain how wikipedia works to this little POV pusher and stalker (he staked me on CB canton pages). Seek. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is not a forum. You do not need to agree in order for there to be a concensus. As Direktor said, Drago mi je sta si se ukljucia u diskusiju Lilici. Slazem se. If you had short term loss of memory of serbocroatian, let me sum it up - Direktor is happy that lilici is involved and he agrees with him. Therefore, there is a concensus.
You fixed the cazin error. I had to tell you it like what - three or four times? I wonder why you ignore the many others. What about the rest of them? You ignore them, that's how you do things. For this erason you are not a reliable partner for mapping.
I just reverted your fraud edit on the canton page. That is not considered following. I helped improve wikipedia.
Direktor asked for the discussion to stop for a bit. Yet you continue. (LAz17 (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).
You are rude, uncivil and uncooperative. Your edits here do not benefit wikipedia in any way. In the end, this is my map. If you have a problem with it, it is your problem. I'm not going to sit down being insulted by a person who swears in an every second word.
Director asked as to put it on the ice. However you continue insulting me. Do you think that is a way appropriate for a wikipedian?
--Čeha (razgovor) 13:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
1) As Direktor said, he hopes that you can understand how someone can have a problem with your map, a map which was creating with on purpose omitting serbian and bosniak settlements.
2) It does not matter if it is your map or not. It is not sourced. It is outright wrong and outrageous. It is not something that is acceptable for any encyclopedia.
3) I wanted to put this on ice, but you are the one who continued. You did not want to. You insulted my manners and you downgraded me saying that I do not have an appropriate source. (LAz17 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).
Director, I hold you responsible for this. I did not wanted to have anything to do with tis User, and now it ended that that (I'm going to be polite here) stalks my edits. Laz, get lost from me. If you give me validated sources, we could talk. Otherways.... Forget it. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
HELLO, your map has no valid source. You still have 95% of the mistakes left that I listed. Here's one more to add to the huge list, you on purpose excluded the Serbian settlement Buga on the Bihac municipality. Man, so many mistakes, so many countless mistakes, deliberate mistakes, man I do not even want to know what kind of sick planning went in your mind when you decided to "on purpose ommit countless sebrian and bosniak settlements". You addmited this. You are proud of that, and you are angry at me for pursuing this issue. You hate me because I deleted some of your unsourced fraud maps in the past. Just like those, these here are not welcome. But, feel free to go to uncyclopedia - uncyclopedia.wikia.com it is probably more appropriate for you. (LAz17 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).
Also, you have changed your map many times so far. It is still the same bullshit, and each time you claimed that it was perfect - yet countless mistakes always fall out from it. So, be kind and just stop editing, and go forward with deleting the garbage propaganda creation of yours. (LAz17 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).
One word. Sources. Prove your accusations.
As for the rest of the kind words, they just describe you dear Laz. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
One word? That's it? Then your map is 100% wrong by default, as there is no source. I am glad that we can agree.
Do you really think that people are such idiots to provide you an entire submunicipal grid of bosnia and herzegovina? That would take so long to make. How you can ask for such a thing is really scary. It shows just how committed you are to supporting your fraud. But your fraud has no source. As you said "One word. Sources." then your map is shit by default. Cheers/Zivali. (LAz17 (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).
The fundamental error is that your attitude told me to try to find mistakes in your map, to prove the obvious. [130] Well think about that just for a minute. A more honest thing would be for you to prove that your map is correct. You can't! Haha! You never were able to! Ever since you made your shit fraud, people such as Pax have been very alarmed. You can't prove your shit fraud, because it is shit fraud. (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).
More swear words ? Cool. They just show you in your natural light :)
Census of 1991 is a valid source for my map. And I'm certain that person is innocent until proven guilty. So, do show me your sources for that.
And a recomendation, user pax was baned forever(Serbian POV?) from wikipedia (latterly revoked, but:) is it smart for you to call his name?--Čeha (razgovor) 01:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
When it came to maps, pax was honest. As for other stuff, I do not know that pax was banned a second time? He was unbanned the first time because his account was hijacked, I thought.
1991 census is not a valid source for your map, because your map does not respect the census. The municipal borders do not match those in the census. Census data does not match your map data. The census is complex. It was not just three possible ethnic groups. There were other groups to, and uninhabited places. You on purpose exclude them. Hence, your map has nothing in common with the census. Your map has no source. Sad but it is so. (LAz17 (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).
I'm sorry, but that is your POV. Let me disallude you. That group others, that is not an homogenic group. There are all kind of people there. Yet in censuss it is showed as one. And if somebody made the map on the censuss but did not show that group but just the 3 constitutive nations would it be some data from Mars, or from the census? Do you understand? --Čeha (razgovor) 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry ceha, but the census has more than three categories. Therefore you do not respect the census. (LAz17 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).
We agreed on no mistakes policy. By respecting census one must include about 100 settlements that have no people and fourth ethnic groups. (LAz17 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).
100 settlments? There are top 20 settlments which are uninhabited, or have majority from one of the BiH minorities. And the number 20 is to much. From larger there is one in Zavidovići (which is shown as Bosniak), one near Bihać (which is shown as Croat) and one in southern Banja Luka (which is shown as Serb). I do not see where is the problem if the map shows just three constitutive nations. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If your source is the census then you must respect what the census says - that there are more than three groups. Otherwise don't make settlement map.
There are far mroe than three. Man, you did not even look at the census. How sad. Lets get a list of the uninhabited...
Bihac - two!
Banja Luka - two!
Glamoc - one
Gornji Vakuf - one
Konjic - two
Trebinje - four
Gacko - one
Kalinovik - two
Trnovo - four
Pale - one
Gorazde - two
Visegrad - one
Srebrenica - one
Ilijas - two
Zavidovici - one (was serb before, not bosniak)
So lets do the addition...
27 settlements with no people. And you equate this with three?! Dude, you obviously did not use the census to make the map. OBVIOUSLY. You have been proven to be a liar again, when you say you used to the census to make the map. The more accurate statement is that you used to census a little to help improve your map. The census was not a source for your map. The map clearly has no source. (LAz17 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).
Try reading my post(s). [131] There are top 20 settlments , From larger there is . In most of the municipalities uninhabited area is so small that you can not even see them in the map. Start thinking for a change.--Čeha (razgovor) 08:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You clearly stated that there are not 100 such settlements, that there are at most 20, and that 20 is too big of a number. As can be seen, there are 27, much more than you claim. They are not too small to include. You do not include any one of them. Your map is not acceptable, as it has no source. These settlements are nicely shown in the milan-ivan map. Therefore, please stop wanting to use your map, when nobody but you wants your inappropriate map. (LAz17 (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)).
You said And the number 20 is to much.. This shows that you do not understand the census, that you have not looked at it and do not care about it. The number is about 40. I said 100 at first on purpose, to see what your response will be. You fell for the bait, and have proven how you do not know the census, have not looked at it much, just used to to correct a few mistakes out of many on your map. (LAz17 (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laughable POV. From a guy which claimed there is 100 of villages and managed to count 27. Bait? Please restrain yourself from fairy tailes. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You are avoiding the issue, that there are about 40 villages with no people or fourth minorities. Your map has no source. (LAz17 (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).
Your simple statement, "And the number 20 is to much." Clearly shows who is lost in his fairytales. It's so mind boggling to imagine someone making such a bullshit map. So, it has been proven that the map has no source. Therefore we are forced to drop this option, as the map clearl is not appropriate. (LAz17 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).
This discussion is meanless. I do not have nothing to more to say to you as your words and acctions describe you the best. [132]. And I don't realy care what you meant. This is a commons map. It is perfectly sourced, and if you have an issue that is your problem.
Bye, bye.
Sorry, but I have proven that your map is shit. There clearly is no source. You only used the census to help improve the map a little bit. (LAz17 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, you just proven you do not belong to wikipedia. That's all. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That may be your opinion, and it is not important in regard to this discussion. Please stick to the discussion. Can you provide a verifiable source for your map? I have identified very many errors, which make the map problematic. You have at first resisted to change your map, then when Direktor came you used the census to improve the map. You fixed some mistakes that I have mentioned. But, the map is outright wrong. So, if you can provide a source, lets see it. Your source was deleted because it was found to be "fake". [133] That there is your original source, determined to be a fraud. I still have an image of that awful fraud, right here... [134] We can see that your map is clearly based off of that one there, that got deleted. It has many of the exact same mistakes. THAT IS YOUR SOURCE. 100% fraud. It was deleted from wikipedia. That was your source. You have been caught red handed, as the saying goes. (LAz17 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).
For a fraud theoriser I think that everything is possible for you. Even blunt lying on the wikipedia. It is obvious, just by looking on your first page [135] fraud theories part to get some conclusions. I've gave my sources and the map is good. I do not think to waste more time with you in this discussion, hower I'll try to found someone or something to stop your vandal behavior. For the good of wikipedia we can all hope that I'll be sucessfull and that when I'm through there will be no more fraud theorisers here. Cheers :) --Čeha (razgovor) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop lying. The source of your map is a deleted image. The talk page for the deleted image is here,[136] and the image itself is here. [137] (LAz17 (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)).
I supose, that for a fraud theorizer, every word contrary to its POV is a lie? --Čeha (razgovor) 09:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no lie from me. If you go to the image page you will see that the source is that deleted map. So please stop lying that you used the census. Most mistakes are the same errors on that b.s. map that I have linked. (LAz17 (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz, here page is a witness to your "civil" behaviour and "truthfulness". And it will stay here for a long time :) --Čeha (razgovor) 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep irrelevant discussion out of here. So, you want this page to stay here a long time. This means that you do not want to help move forward with the problem. Well, back to where we should have been before, to get Direktor to come back.
Since you have no response to the fact that your map's source is a deleted map... we have to wait for someone else to show up to help move this discussion forward. (LAz17 (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)).
Laz if you have read previous posts (and behave civil) than discussion with you would not be impossible. Like this, there is nothing to discuss. At least without a qualified mediator. And even then I'm not sure I'm willing to waste my time onto your frauds. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census&oldid=1078408040"