Jump to content

Talk:Ilidža

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

Untitled

[edit]

In his last edit, Asim suggested that similar standards should be applied to former YU censa as to USA ones. Difference lies in the fact that, while "African American" and "Negro" are two different terms for the same thing, "Muslim" and "Bosniak" are two different terms for two different things. See the article on Muslims by nationality for more on this. Nikola 05:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

However the amount of Muslims by nationality that are not the same as Bosniaks in the whole Balkans was a very small percentage, and this is taking into consideration all the regions that had Muslims in the ex-yugoslavia. Within Ilidza itself, it is a well known fact that the overwhelming majority of muslims by nationality were Bosniaks. The number of non-Bosniak Muslims by nationality in Ilidza during the 1991 census was so small (If at all existant) that the difference in percentage of Bosniaks would be negligable. In an effort to provide accurate information wikipedia can and should label the muslims by nationality in Ilidza as Bosniaks. Otherwise it would just seem like cheap attempts at a Serbian nationalist agend.. oh wait. Asim Led 12:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. The census didn't record a single Bosniak and saying that it did is pure falsification of its results, and nothing more--even if we would somehow know for certain that all people who registered at the previous census as Muslims are now declaring as Bosniaks. Of course, if you think that it is important to mention the fact that most people who were registered as Muslims are now declaring as Bosniaks, I won't be stopping you. Nikola 16:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nikola, I perfectly understand your concern about possible misinterpitation of the census results. Perhaps you're a statistician? To solve our dispute, I've taken out any mention of the 1991 census and left rounded numbers of ethnicities. This way your concerns about accuracy of census results are soothed while foreign wikipedia users aren't confused. Asim Led 04:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Having made the article on demographic history of Montenegro, you can see that I am interested in censa. I will pretend that your lowering of the number of Serbs ten times was a typo, but anyway I don't think that it is a good idea to have inaccurate data when there are accurate data. I will return exact census results with a notice about the thing, please comment on it. Nikola 02:06, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is more understandable. And as for the number of Serbs, sorry, that was a typo. Asim Led 14:35, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think that the change from pre-1993 "Bosniaks" to "Muslims by nationality" is factually correct, but it's also important to make sure that we don't sidestep the issue that the vast majority of Bosnian Muslims (by nationality) became Bosniaks. If a sentence talks about the population of a place in Bosnia in 1991 and after the war, it's also correct to refer to both as either as Bosniaks or as (Bosnian) Muslims (by nationality), both terms will be understood correctly.
I can see how the mass change to link to Muslims by nationality could be interpreted as an anti-Bosniak-national-determination agenda, but given that that page doesn't misconstrue anything (e.g. it does not suggest that a non-negligible Muslims by nationality in Bosnia aren't Bosniaks today) and says rather clearly what happened, it shouldn't be a big deal. --Joy [shallot] 20:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Bosnian Muslims is a dumb and outdated term that implies some 200,000 of us give a damn about Islam, when we don't. And the changing of links to Muslim by nationality, while technically correct (And this is only when describing census results), is obviously meant to imply to foreign (non yugoslavian) visitors and wikipedians a wide number of things (That there weren't as many Bosniaks back then as there are now, that Muslims overnight magically turned into Bosniaks, that Bosniaks or a seperate sense of national identity independent from religion only materialized in the past 10 years, etc. etc.). To resolve the conflict, I've taken out any mention of the 1991 census. I believe we can now live in peace. Asim Led 04:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Name derivation?

[edit]

Could it be that the name Ilidza might have derived from Ilıca in Turkish meaning "warm thermal spring"? There is no such word in Turkish which means "giving health" or is spelt the way it is in the article. --leandros 18:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, that is possible... maybe the official website got it wrong. Feel free to change it into something like "Ilidza is possibly derived from...". Asim Led 03:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ilidža. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ilidža. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilidža&oldid=1241508298"