Talk:Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina

message: I am doing a lot of stuff to this article.  Here is a to-do list.
* Finish the major rewrite.
* Restructure (reformatting) throughout the whole article
* Strengthen some of the main points, and rewrite the weaker points again
* One final revision/cleanup
* Load it with good references, and remove data that have no valid sources and one's I cannot located any sources for.
I should be done with this all by sometime tonight. --businessman332211 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While your point is true, the title is obviously based on similar articles dealing with Kosovo and Montenegro. If a move was to be made it'd have far greater consequences than this article alone. But, like I said, I agree with your arguement. Live Forever 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree. I don't believe the Ottoman Sultans had any need to manipulate statistics, especially in the early Ottoman period. Also, as far as I know historians generally view Ottoman statistics as essentially credible and impressive for the time.  Live Forever 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While one of the main reasons might be Christian religious discrimination; European historians generally consider the Ottoman accords as altogether - unreliable and inacurrate; mainly because the Ottoman Empire was the only undemocratic state in Europe at that time (with the proper understanding of the word "democratic" during that age (when actually, only France, Italy and maybe Serbia on the Balkans were actually democratic)). HolyRomanEmperor 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: Yes; the article should deal with more than simply ethnic compostition. But the article has just been created.
Temporarely removing that part as per Dado's incinuation; no proof on the Ottomans' forging (yet). HolyRomanEmperor 16:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes 

message: Serbs lived on 64% of Bosnia's soil; while the Bosnian Muslims (a. k. a. Bosniaks) owned the majority of it. The reforms of 1918 and 1919 led to numerious confiscations of lands owned by Bosnian Muslims; of which a large part was split amongst Bosnia's Serbian population. HolyRomanEmperor 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agrarian reforms 

message: .. isn't quitte a rich page :). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina]] 

message: ... can be seen here: CIA World Factbook - Bosnia and Herzegovina I am neither skilled nor have enough free time to add it all up; so if anyone can... HolyRomanEmperor 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plenty of Demographic info 

message: ...edits made by User:Dado are somewhat biased. No one can claim that there were 100,000 Bosnians missing from the war; since some sources mention some 278,000 persons missing! Additionally; the section is slightly POV, so it might attract some predators from the "other side". I suggest re-writing it in here before re-insertion... 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bosnian War]] 

message: I will search for evidence for that info. Francly, I think that it is impossible since the Herzegovinian population was just starting to lose in Orthodox majority; and the eastern Bosnia was Orthodox since 1054 (I believe that it still is; even more after the ethnic cleansing); and the population censi state orthodox majority in Lika (belonging to Bosnia at the time) and the southwest in 1528/1529, while the Ottoman "Serbian Bosnian Frontier" plan made Bosanska Krajina almost entirely Orthodox (with the exception of most Western Bosnia, being Muslim as the Ottoman generalate of... ahh.. Bihac? (not sure)). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman censi 

message: Do you think we should move notes to its respective sections.  As it looks like now each note has only one reference and the section is quickly becoming a burden to navigate.  We could only leave notes that have multiple references if they come up.  Also I have added the table for Bosnian War casulties.  Feel free to disasseble it if need be or we can use the same system throughout.--Dado 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The victims table looks OK for now. Just note that there are between 250,000 and 300,000 people alltogether missing from Bosnia and Herzegovina. I also thought (note: unconfirmed) that there were 3,000 civilian casualties from the Serb side (I believe in eastern Bosnia 1991-1993). It is only a believing that is "generally" popular in SCG; but could be true. Also, take a note of the discussion to the up; it was noted to you.--HolyRomanEmperor 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, but is there any specific reason why you didn't comment the Ottoman censi subject? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: I re-checked the map (); and it clearly puts a territorial equalty between the Serbs and Bosniaks in eastern Bosnia. An error, sorry. Throughout the history, Eastern Bosnia (roughly Bijeljina and Srebrenica) were a part of Serbia, rather then Bosnia, until the expansion of King Tvrtko. So it is a little strange that the population became suddenly so low; as Serbs in Eastern Bosnia in 1981 were the autochtonous population, rather then refugees from Turkish conquests. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only copy of the 1991 map we have isn't detailed, as it is based on the counties' leves; on the same basis, I have here an ethnic map of BiH from 1921 which I don't want to put, as it shows 65% of Bosnia inhabited by Serbs, while only 30% by Muslims (while it is correct, it's based on the counties). The 1981 map is my favourite since it depicts almost every single village. And the natality rate is (sadly) the main reason for the most recent Islamophobia that engulphed the Crhistian world of BiH :( --HolyRomanEmperor 13:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I won't mix into the discussion all to much but emperor please choose your sources more carefully, most rather sources that aren't ex Yugoslavian. Damir Mišić 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you wish; but I think that the modern sources are pure garbage bombarded by nationalism from all sides; and sources from the pre-Yugoslav age are simply too old. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  continuing the Ottoman census discussion with Dado 

message: Serhat - Bosnian Krajina was populated by both voluntarely migrating (stimulated by Ottoman authorities) and forceful removal of Serbs according to the "Serhat" plan since the lt 15th and early 16th century. It was supposed to be a defense in the likehood of the Military Frontier; it eventually failed, but the name has remained to this very day, and the sources from then mention majorily Serb population, with some authochtonous Muslims living in the cities like Banja Luka and the arivals (like explained) to that enclave. There was also some Croat autochtonous populace. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. The Bosnian Krajishniks were much less war-like like their eastern Semberian counterparts were (which produced most of the Serb war crimes today). :) There was no specification for the Military Frontier either. Sure, the Serbs were a majority in both, but the only difference is that the Habsburg Emperors issued freedom edicts called "Serbian statutes" creating a rather vague image of a "Serbian" land. Anyway, it's the population that is in the question. It was actually the Ottomans' biggest mistake, instead of repeating the process of the Military Frontier, they kept the old Feudalism ways, making the Bosnian Frontier much less advance and/or effectable than the Military Frontier. That's actually the reason why the Ottomans eventually lost. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnian Frontier 

message: Holy, I am very tempted to completely revert your last edits for following reasons:
#You are mixing "Muslims" and "Muslims in a national sense" terms up to the 1991 most of which are factually wrong ina inconsistant.
#You have deleted all reference links to clarifications at the bottom.
#You have added maps about ownership that I find particulary problematic especially ones that deal with land ownership during communist rule after most of the denationalisation of the property have taken place.
Please explain. --Dado 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: 1. ...please sorry for that percentage part (from the population census). It was actually not sneaky vandalism as you characterised it. I used sole data found at Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. My apologies for the misunderstanding again.
* Actually it is a sneaky vandalism but obviously not yours even if youadded it.  I would not dwell on it too much --Dado 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, but we can with precise say that 600,000 were Bosniaks. The remaining 200,000 might've been Romas (not defined undecided). Correct me if I am wrong. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I was not refering to the forming of the Bosniak culture, but forceful conversion of Catholics and Orthodox. I know that the Bosniaks remember the Ottoman Empire with a warm feeling, but even Mak Dizdar accepts the forceful conversion (my personal translation: assimilation) of some Slavs (mostly Serbs, some Croats, Hungarians and other non-Slavs). It actually has nothing to do with the Poturicas.
4. The bit that the the majority of Serbs was converted to Islam has actually a near-fact status. You may see it in the source that I put to the up (a very detailed Yugoslav statistics); but note that this regards only for the first periods of Ottoman rule. As you know, the Orthodox Serbs have comprised majority in Herzegovina, but were only present in a (big, but nevertheless a) minority in Bosnia proper. So, hypotheticly, I'll use an example: If there were 10,000 Orthodox Serbs in Bosnia, and 9,000 converted to Islam. Wouldn't that make the majority?. 
*Although I accept that certain number of Serbs have converted to islam it is well known that it was a small number. The logic that claims otherwise also negates the impact of Bogumils on these regions and tries to portray non-Serb and non-Croat presence in BiH as foreign. From your edits it is obvious that sources you have used only deal with migrations and not with the social and cultural aspects of population dynamics.  Population migration data again serves to push their point that Muslims have immigrated to Bosnia and in turn that Bosniaks are either Serb converts or of foreign encestry. I would be a bit more critical of sources that you have provided but I will go through them when I get more free time. --Dado 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Very well, but please re-phrase in the sake to avoid controversy (and political historians that might invade our article soon). :) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * OK. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dado,  

message: Please sorry for the vastness of this note, but read it when you have time:
I understand. I understand that there are more possible angles of view on the fact. But one obviously sees that the ol' minority rules the majority was applied there. For instance, we have had one Islamic citizen in, say, Banja Luka, Mostar or Sarajevo; and say, 17,500 Christian peasents (only slightly protected by Austro-Hungarian laws) working on his estate alone. Plus, if we go that old way back, we could simply give the majority of the land of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the government of the Republic of Turkey. Note that the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was one of the three only Feudal Monarchies of Europe back than. The Russian Czardom relinquished its Feudalism in the second half of the 19th century, bu continued to practise it all the way to the Red Revolution. The Ottoman Sultanate had still the old religious-based Feudal Classism at hand (abolished only several years later by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - Father of the Turks). The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was rather strange. It was at the same time a Kingdom that was based on harsh Feudalism but enlightened by the revolutionary 1848-1867 movements and an Empire based on liberal social capitalism, that again turned to using the most out of the lowest classes. The Croatian nobility abolished Feudalism, but continued to practise it. Same can be said for the Hungarian nobility. The reforms in Bosnia-Herzegovina were somewhat unique, because Bosnia and Herzegovina was governed directly from the Ministry of Economy (which again turned back to the Emperor and the Imperial Court – large-scale Feudalism?).
=== An illustration of the Bosnia-Herzegovina situation during Austro-Hungary ===
Let me use a unique story of Petar Kočić to illustrate the time from Jazavac pred sudom and his other Austro-Hungarian period works. He told the tale of a Bosniak (not to be mistaken with Bosniak) that received 3 Crowns as a compensation for his son's death on the Eastern Front against the Russians. The Bosniak had a somewhat-big land, whose name was nit' njego'a, nit' carska, nit' spa'ijska; because he owned it, the Austro-Hungarian officer said that it is in the range of an Imperial forest, so it is the owning of the Empire and according to the local Spahija, it was his. So, thus, he baptised the land owned by none of the three. According to the story, a bagger desolated his field, so he took his gun and killed the vermin. His estate-holder emerged from no where, asking (and taking) 5 Crowns for the unjustified murder of a being that did not belong to the Bosniak, but to the real (wait, who?) landowner. Remember how much he got the same morning for his son's death.
Anyway, let me also note that the same Agrarian Reform was conducted in Serbia decades (nearly a century) before that. The Ottoman Feudalism was abolished as well as the nobility, which was allowed to keep its prestige only by serving as high-ranked soldiers in the army, or as artists, scientist, craftsmen, traders or politicians. The land was split equally among all citizens of the Principality of Serbia. It became a source for the new laws. The government then considered it as beneficial for the majority of the population, and damaging only to the rich, self-esteemed, full of arrogancy & pride in some cases also corrupted rich upper-class. 
=== A comparison ===
Dado, let me make a comparison. The land of the Military Frontier was equally held by the the people, the Frontiersmen. After its annexation into Croatia and Slavonia in 1881, the lands were confiscated and given to the Croatian and Hungarian (but also German/Austrian) nobility (consider it as a backwards movement to what happened in BiH), thus damaging mostly the Serbs. The Serbs continued to own (in many cases as nobility themselves, like the case with Ivan Desnica, Vladan Desnica's ancestor) over a third of the ownership land in Croatia. It is certain that the land will never be returned. After the terrifying changes of 1990-1995, the land ownership dropped to percentage that could be freely noted under others. Croatia is soon going to enter the European Union; but despite it; it is a fact that the apartments and land (all together with private ownership summing over 1,400,000,000 Euros) from this most recent war will never be returned to the people. As soon as I understood it, I could go on freely with my life. Currently, I do not know for whome to feel sorry more:
* the people that have been (including me) directly damaged by the war, or
* the fools that actually shed hope that one day something will be returned
If that is the expected reaction for little acres of land from 1991 (my presice case this time), how can I ask for a partchment of land from 1790 that could actually be seen on the geographical map of Croatia; regardless of that the Vienna Archive is overflown with my entire family tree and my ancestor's who-did-what-wheres.
I apologize to User:Dado for writing a kilometre-size note, and hope that he will have one day time to read it thurrowly. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A rather long story (sorry :) on the ownership part 

message: Dado, let me make a comparison. The land of the Military Frontier was equally held by the the people, the Frontiersmen. After its annexation into Croatia and Slavonia in 1881, the lands were confiscated and given to the Croatian and Hungarian (but also German/Austrian) nobility (consider it as a backwards movement to what happened in BiH), thus damaging mostly the Serbs. The Serbs continued to own (in many cases as nobility themselves, like the case with Ivan Desnica, Vladan Desnica's ancestor) over a third of the ownership land in Croatia. It is certain that the land will never be returned. After the terrifying changes of 1990-1995, the land ownership dropped to percentage that could be freely noted under others. Croatia is soon going to enter the European Union; but despite it; it is a fact that the apartments and land (all together with private ownership summing over 1,400,000,000 Euros) from this most recent war will never be returned to the people. As soon as I understood it, I could go on freely with my life. Currently, I do not know for whome to feel sorry more:
* the people that have been (including me) directly damaged by the war, or
* the fools that actually shed hope that one day something will be returned
If that is the expected reaction for little acres of land from 1991 (my presice case this time), how can I ask for a partchment of land from 1790 that could actually be seen on the geographical map of Croatia; regardless of that the Vienna Archive is overflown with my entire family tree and my ancestor's who-did-what-wheres.
I apologize to User:Dado for writing a kilometre-size note, and hope that he will have one day time to read it thurrowly. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comparison 

message: ...are the following: 
1. It mentions frequent attacks of the Bosnian Church by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. This is, I think, false; but if true, requires a reference.
2. The strange removal of the data on the Serbian Orthodox populace.
3. Changing the adverb Moslem to a noun Muslim everywhere.
4. In the two Turkish population censi, the Bogumils, as well as Orthodox and Catholics were added (this is contrary to the actual census.
5. Total removal of the 1895 BiH population census data.
6. The unnecessary adding of the peoples' religion in the WWII losses.
7. Enforcing the Bosniak name in census where it wasn't registered as so. 
I suggest that Damir Mishich answers all of these questions before suggesting his version of the article. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reason of my revertings on Damir's changes... 

message: I reverted Damir's edits because it is unknown whether the Bogumils were included in the "Christian" census. He also claimed that I make up different census versions of my own. Damir, aren't you doing that? I have no idea what you meant by Austria... --HolyRomanEmperor 22:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damir's edits 

message: *What is the sorce of percentage? Are those are percentages of census 1875/78? 
*If they are Serbs in it are not majority in Posavina (at least not of area between Derventa and Brčko), nor in central Bosnia (there are only few serbian villiges around Donji Vakuf). The middle lower course of Drina is where? Between which cities? 
*Why is Bosniak/Moslem majority around Drina not mentioned? 
*Croats were majority in border parts of eastern Herzegovina; Neum, Ravno, etc. some old mines (Ljubija, Vareš, Kakanj) western Herzegovina and most of Central Bosnia. Why is this deleted? 
*At the part where is talk of Slavic nations (line 134), they were not all Serbs! 
*Why is (what is the source) of calling all Catholics pesants? 
*In line 156 there is talk of Croat majority in just northern Herzegovina, and there was no such region then. There were only regions of Bosnia Krajina (Muslim/Bosniak majority), Banja Luka (Serb majority), Tuzla (Muslim/Bosniak majority), Sarajevo (Muslim/Bosniak majority) and Herzegovina(Croat majority). There was no northern Herzegovina region!
*why are better living spaces in Vojvodina deleted (line 292)? That was great improvment as most of the people came from rocky/passive parts of Bosnia into fertile plain of Vojvodina.
*Why is fall of Croat population in second Jugoslavia (line 327) deleted? It fell by more than a quater (see censuses)
*line 357, what does the word lordship means?
*Why is in line 373 deleted text about fall of Croat settlements?
--Ceha 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial distribution 

message: Well, I improved article a bit, but it is still horrible. There is a lot of unsorced data in it (or at least not with clearly shown sources) and a lot of things are really prity unimportant (for example land ownership and etc.).
Basicly whole of article is to long and badly defined.
Let's go in order. Migrations and other don't talk about nothing. Before 1453 western bosnia was part of Croatia and northern banates (Usora) where catholic with dualistic tendensies no? 
Ortodox were confided to eastern parts of Herzegovina (I think there was 9% of ortodox over all).
Please source your data... some data with nationality which reported (parts with Austro Hungary). 
Sources again on territorial distribution in A-U?
Private ownership of the land? That is from Rastko project? How reliable is that date (or NPOV)?
I'm going to try to fix it all, my god what a mes..Ceha (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edits 

message: This map has sources in  . Laz, removal of sourced material is considered vandalism. If you do not return that map you will be blocked for vandalising wikipedia. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: BiH_Austria-Hungary_ethmoc.png 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130919000210/https://www.fzs.ba:80/Dem/Popis/PopisiStanB.htm to http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/Popis/PopisiStanB.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified