Talk:Cazin

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

The municipality of Cazin is situated in the north-west part of B&H, with an area of 356 square km. The relief if mainly dominated by hills with an average of 300 m above sea level. The area of Cazin is under the influence of a moderate continental climate, with cold winters, hot summers and an average annual temperature of 9 Celsius degress. Cazin has a favourite geograffic position. Being in the vionity of Izačić, Maljevac and Užljebić border crossing has provided good communications with the Republic of Croatia and the countries of western Europa. The distance from Cazin to Zagreb is 146 km, and 232 km to Ljubljana. Regional and main roads connect it to Sarajevo (340 km) and to other parts of B&H, and being in the vicinity of the railway enables this type of communication as well. There is also a well developed network of local roads that connect 23 local communities, their centres and surrounding villages with Cazin. In addition to its geograffic position and favorible climate, Cazin has open to it the possibillieties and imortant potentials of natural resources: water, land, forest and nature. The Cazin area is rich natural and fresh sources of drinking water. Great numbers of those are part of the water supply network system which has been randomized in recent years. There are also many streams and brooks, the unterground river Horljava, and the Mutnica, Korana and Una rivers.


www.cazin.net

The census gives no information on a Bosniak nation in 1991. HolyRomanEmperor 20:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most census data in the United States offers absolutely no mention of "African Americans" either. I'll agree to your edit as soon as you rectify every mention of African Americans in the U.S. prior to the 1960s by switching it to negroe. Until then I simply cannot understand your logic. Asim Led 22:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Difference is in the fact that terms "African Americans" and "Negroes" refer to the same thing, while terms "Bosniaks" and "Muslims by nationality" refer to two different things. Nikola 13:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The term "Muslims by nationality" was created specifically for Bosnia and Herzegovina's Bosniak muslims, and not for any of the other ethnic groups described as registering as such on the "Muslims by nationality" page. The category was created directly in response to Bosnia and Herzegovina's Bosniaks leaving themselves 'undeclared' on the official censuses. I have an entire book, some 300 pages, entitled "Nationalization of Muslims" that contains every major or significant article, essay, letter, or excerpt dealing on this matter published since the mid 19th-century, and it fully supports this. If you want I would be more than glad to give a hundred or so direct historical references to the matter so we can end this silly little dispute once and for all.
Yes, in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. Late 19th-early 20th century attempts at creation of Bosniak nation were ultimately unsuccessful - it wasn't created until the late 20th century. Number of Muslims who considered themselves as having separate ethnicity from Serbs or Croats was falling between two world wars, for example. You can't claim continuity between 19th and 20th century people who were pushing the term "Bosniaks".
But even if you would be right, that would hardly change anything. Look what's written in the article: "In the census of 1991, the municipality of Cazin had [...] 61,861 Bosniaks (97.56%)". This is utterly ridiculous, the term was simply not used in the census. Even if you insist that is is mentioned that today they are Bosniaks, it can not be done by simply replacing "Muslims" with "Bosniaks". And you can't know how much of these people think of themselves as Bosniaks and how much don't. It is good that we are having this conversation on Cazin's talk page. Not everyone is subscribing to your nationalist ideology. As you know, in Slovenia or Montenegro, around one third Muslims have continued to declare as Muslims. Knowing how Sarajevo was loved in Cazin, when finally a census is held in Bosnia, results will probably be similar. Nikola 12:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Muslims by nationality" is just a census category created specifically for the Bosniak people before the national awakening in the late 20th century. If we were to list census data strictly by the exact terms used at whatever period of history for whatever socio-political reasons we would face thousands of complicated and unnecessary edits throughout wikipedia. Just as we can infer that the people identified by Ottoman authorities as Orthodox in Bosnia or as Eskimos in old American population data are part of the Serb and Inuit ethnic corpuses respectively, so we can infer that the people listed as Muslims by nationality are part of the Bosniak ethnic corpus. To deny this direct link between the "Muslims by nationality" census category and Bosniaks, as you are doing, is simply ahistorical. Asim Led 05:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you can just stop your (utterly vain) attempts to pressure me and several other users into backing down from our positions on the Republika Srpska articles by inserting your inherent bias into Bosniak-related articles and save both of us much time and work. Asim Led 01:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pressure you? Man, you do think high about yourself. I am interested in factual accuracy of this encyclopedia, not in pressuring you into anything. Do you want to tell me that you think that I'd stop reverting these articles if you would stop inserting your POV in RS articles? Have no fear: I would continue, because they would be as wrong as they are now. Nikola 12:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just think very lowly about your professionality and ethics. Funny that you should mention my alleged nationalist agenda when your own request for adminship failed miserably for the exact same reason (along with allegations of corruption). You are hardly in a position to lecture me, so I'd appreciate it if you toned down the uppityness. Asim Led 05:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never requested adminship. That English-speaking people here couldn't see Harven's ramblings for what they are is their problem more than mine. Nikola 14:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Census dispute[edit]

People declared as Muslims in 1991, not Bosniaks. This is a FACT. FACTS are pretty hard to dispute. I added a sentance to make clear than the vast majority of Muslims in 1991 = Bosniaks in 2005. However, Bosniaks are not completely synonymous with Muslims. In SCG in 2002 there were 20,000 Muslimani and 136,000 Bošnjaci. In 1991 these people in Cazin considered themselves Muslimani, now they consider themselves Bošnjaci, and as an enczclopedia Wikipedia should make that clear. --estavisti 12:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian and Montenegro changed its name SR Yugolsavia. The sam thing is with Bosniaks. See constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Term Bosniaks is the historical name of Bosnian Muslims. All earlier Muslim related documents are now using the term Bosniaks as well as Serbia and Montenegro doesnt use old name SR Jugolsavija. --Emir Arven 14:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the same thing. Term Bosniaks is not historical name of Bosnian Muslims, historically it simply means "Bosnians", without regard to religion. I don't understand what do you mean by "All earlier Muslim related documents are now using..." - if they are earlier how can they use the term now?
Even if it would be the same thing, do we write "Serbia and Montenegro was formed in 1991", "NATO bombed Serbia and Montenegro", "Serbia and Montenegro applied for membership in the Federation of Russia and Belarus"? Of course not. Nikola 14:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your English isn't really clear, if you want we can discuss this in our language/our mother tongues which are mutually intelligable. Muslims are not the same as Bosniaks. Historically, a Bosniak was a Bosnian, that is to say, a Bosnian Serb/Croat/Muslim, not just Bosnian Muslims. Why can't you accept the census results, which show precisely 0 Bosniaks? I have made it clear that the vast majority consider themselves Bosniaks now, but clearly they didn't in 1991. For example, as far as Montenegro(where the population has changed due to changing identity, not actual different people, like in Cazin) is concerned no-one extrapolates that 30% of the population was Serb 15 years ago from the latest census results. Likewise, the identities of today do not change the past. If you revert again, I'll seek arbitration. Hoping we can resolve this међу нама. --estavisti 15:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Muslims by nationality" are not a seperate nation, they are just a census category created specifically for the Bosniak nation. Evolution of the term Bosniak regardless, there was always an ethnic community of Islamic speakers of the central south-slavic diasystem that considered themselve's to belong to a unique and seperate ethnic group. During the initial decades, there was absolutely no option for them in the census (According to your logic, this would mean that Bosniaks didn't exist at all). They finally obtained the "Muslims by nationality" option in the 1960s, after a bitter struggle with the government. These same people who pushed for the "Muslims by nationality" option within the context of Yugoslavia chose to return the historical term Bosniak with the fall of communism. "Muslims by nationality" do not represent a seperate nation or ethnic community, its just a statistical label used for Bosniaks during one period of their history. In all the matters that make ethnic groups unique and independent, there is absolutely no difference between the people who register as "Bosniaks" and "Muslims by nationality". They are two terms for the same thing. On the ground, they both consider themselves to be part of the same thing. It was already agreed elsewhere on wikipedia that the term "Bosniak/s" would be used on pages that refer to the people by an earlier name prior to the national awakening. This is just an attempt to find a loophole to that compromise by claiming that "Bosniaks" and "Muslims by nationality" are two different people. Asim Led 17:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks seperated from the Muslims by nationality. You had/have Moslem Bulgarians and Macedonians. Does that make them Bosniaks? I don't thinks so. Besides, nothing can change what a national census once stated. HolyRomanEmperor 22:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Emir Arven 22:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Bosniaks are a nation that, in various stages of nationalization, have a centuries-long history and tradition. "Muslims by nationality" was a term that existed for around 30 years to solve the problem of these same Bosniaks leaving the field for ethnicity blank on their census forms. This category was specifically created for them; not for Gorani, Pomaks, Torbeshes, or whatever, but for Bosniaks. If you want proof you can read dozens of documents from that period that make it perfectly clear that "Muslims by nationality" was made to fit the Muslim speakers of the central south-slavic diasystem in Bosnia Herzegovina - a.k.a, Bosniaks. Asim Led 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

listing Muslims by national censuses as Bosniaks is the same as listing Montenegrins as Serbs a. k. a. their ethnicity does not matter; what was once stated cannot and should not be changed (it's illegal) HolyRomanEmperor 12:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Analogy is not even close. Unlike Bosniaks, Montenegrins were recognized as a Nation in Yugoslav statistics and they had a choice to declare themselves as Montenegrins. Bosniaks had to declare themselves either as Serbs, Croats or undecideds from 1945 to 1968, Muslims in a national sense from 1968 to 1974 and Muslims (with capital M) from 1974 to 1993. To be acurate to the statistics data one should state "Muslims (later named "Bosniaks")" however it is just not realistic anymore and it is an obsolete use of the term (in some instances even mildly offensive). This dicotomy is explained on the article about Bosniaks so I see no point to repeat it on every article that states the word Bosniaks. --Dado 18:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Analogy is apt. The same way Communists created Montenegrin nation, they created Muslim nation. Also, the dichotomy is explained on the article about Muslims by nationality, and much better, I might add. Nikola 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Communists did not "create Muslim nation", they merely acknowledged Bosniaks' existance as a unique ethnic group seperate from the other Yugoslavian peoples upon insistance from Bosniak intellectuals and political representatives to do so. With the fall of communism and rise of democratic reforms, these same intellectuals and political representatives finally had the chance to return to the term Bosniak and decided to take it. Also, I disagree with your assesment of the articles "Bosniaks" and "Muslims by nationality", seeing as the latter treats the emergence of the category as a sudden phenomenon, and the former as a temporary solution for a result of well explained historical trends. Asim Led 20:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point is very simple - do not change the census. Changing what the sensus said is altering history. For instance, foreign readers will not even see anithing about the Moslem nation! Besides, this analogy is perfect: The grossly corrupt Cvetkovic-Macek government didn't recognize the Macedonian nation, and instead considered themselves Serbs. No one is "altering" censi about that... HolyRomanEmperor 12:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. The whole point of historiography is to interpet historical data and facts, not to directly list archaic first-hand data. Just as it would not make any sense to strictly abide to outdated census categories from the 1800s, it doesn't make sense to push communist-era terminology when its clearly outdated. "Muslims by nationality" was the official term used to describe Bosniaks by the communist government - nothing more than that. With the fall of communism, these same people switched back to the term "Bosniaks" and made it official in government-use. Just as it makes no sense to describe African-Americans as "coloreds", "blacks", and "negroes" depending on the historical period (even in the case of compiled statistics) it makes no sense to describe Bosniaks by different terms depending on the era in question. Asim Led 14:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well why don't you interpret it then but instead insist on changing it? Why don't you write something like "census of year X recorded Y Muslims/undeclared, Z Serbs, Q Croats, W Yugoslavs... Today most of Muslims/undeclared declare as Bosniaks while most Yugoslavs declare as Serbs or Croats"? Nikola 23:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are the one who changed the page's status quo and caused the edit-war. I am merely reverting faulty changes. Asim Led 00:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was already a consensus about the issue (see Talk:Muslims by nationality) so I was only bringing this article in line with other articles. Nikola 09:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously, several users disagree with the consensus reached by a staggering three people. Asim Led 17:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, calling your edits vandalism WAS cruel! When I said changing I meant the census data... This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Readers might think that those people were registered as Bosniaks... HolyRomanEmperor 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. How about this? Asim Led 20:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about my suggestion? Nikola 21:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the drawing board then. Asim Led 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is far more neutral and acurate that any of yours... HolyRomanEmperor 17:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No its not. Bosniaks did not comprise a part of the "Muslim" population, they WERE the "Muslim" population. Asim Led 21:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, they weren't. There are people who registered as Muslims then, but don't register as Bosniaks (or even Muslims) now. Nikola 11:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even OHR follows the norm that Muslims in Bosnia are now known as Bosniaks and the Census data is interpreted accordingly. See [1]--Dado 06:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even OHR? What, it is usually so anti-Bosniak that when it happens to say something pro-Boanisk it must be true? Nikola 11:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OHR is an official institution in BiH. I find that Serbia and Mone Negro government is pro Serbian and nationalistic but I don't question their decisions. Your disatisfaction with OHR is your problem. --Dado 17:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The municipality of Cazin's own official website does the same[2]. Asim Led 17:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on Cazin's page. Note that OHR's page doesn't mention census anywhere. Nikola 11:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message to all = the SCG nor any BiH or Croatia governments are not nationalistic :))) A compromise must be achieved. The population census states the Muslims; but many sources have changed over the course of history (regardless if being Bosniak nationalist propaganda or not) and it should be pointed out. HolyRomanEmperor 13:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OHR has interpreted the census data, perhaps something that we should do as well to sidestep this issue: In 1991 the ethnic composition of the municipality of Cazin's 63,406 residents was: 61,861 Bosniaks (97.56%), 765 Serbs (1.21%), 411 Yugoslavs (0.65%), 142 Croats (0.22%), and 227 others (0.36%). or some alternative to that.

Stating census data word for word has no basis in reality today and it does not make this article better. If you click on the link "Stanovnistvo" on Cazin web site you will find the information.--Dado 15:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dado. He seems to be one of the rare with a sane personality... :) HolyRomanEmperor 17:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with Dado. First, the census was conducted and interpreted by SFRY. And OHR may read anything it wants into it, but that will never change its results. Stating census data word for word is the only thing that has basis in reality today. Everything else is simply a speculation on someone's part. Nikola 22:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although: I am well aware about the fact that most Muslims are today Bosniaks; but it seems unappropriate in accordance to their decision. If a Bosniak nation has been officially proclaimed, why didn't they declare so in the population census. If they want to be Muslims, why take that away from them? HolyRomanEmperor 18:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The last census was in 1991. The name change happened in 1993. There were no censa since than. The development of the Bosniak national name and identity that led to today's use of the name is perhaps one of the most complex issues in the BiH in the 20th century and even the simplest explaination would take long time. See Bosniaks#The_struggle_for_recognition for more information. --Dado 18:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What? I thought I already agreed with you? :))) HolyRomanEmperor 20:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the devolpment of the term "Bosniak" is far older than most consider... HolyRomanEmperor 20:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I know you did and I am glad that you see it that way but it apparently does nothing for Nikola. --Dado 22:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Holy, numbers cannot be estimated and precise (63,406) at the same time. It just does not make sense. Could you explain your edit. --Dado 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to feed (just a little) the hunger of anti-Bosniak nationalists; since the census stated them as Muslims, I thought that it would be most appropriate to say that its estimated that all of them were/are Bosniaks. You don't agree? HolyRomanEmperor 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I meant to say that it is bad english and someone who cares to correct it will pose a same question. I will not remove it but someone else may. By the way when you throw "food" to nationalists as you point out it comes with the fish hook that they grab on an will not let go even for rational reasons. --Dado 19:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know; I will go more along Tito's path, rather then King Alexander's, if you know what I mean. :) If you don't agree; just clearly state so, and I will delete estimated rapidly. By the way, I got that map from the post-war Yugoslav territories justifyig my long-age mentioned historical fact. You still didn't express your feeling about it (I said that I will not upload it; nor push the information to be accepted if you say so) HolyRomanEmperor 17:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy, I appreciate that you are trying to help, but removal of facts is not helpful. "In 1991 the estimated ethnic composition of the municipality of Cazin's 63,406 residents was: 61,861 Bosniaks" - no, in 1991 no one has even heard about Bosniaks. If we would go down that route, we could only write "Today's Bosniak interpretations of 1991 census claim that the estimated ethnic composition was..." Not that I recommend that. Nikola 08:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nikola, I am trying to make a compromise here and you are helping 0%! HolyRomanEmperor 14:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cazin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cazin&oldid=1200714704"