Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hrvatske opcine u BiH.png

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hrvatske_opcine_u_BiH.png

This map is messed up. The reason why is because the municipalities are totally wrong. You can see the political division here, so clearly this map is very troubling as it claims that all these blue units are municipalities. The map is not used anywhere, so deleting it does not hurt. And on top of that, it has no source. LAz17 (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Kept Jcb (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hrvatske_opcine_u_BiH.png

Not only is this not used anywhere, it defies logic. These territorial units do not exist! Nor have they ever looked anything like this. One may see the map of municipalities here, [1] , and here, [2] - please delete this unsourced insanity. LAz17 (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC) The most simple explanation is that there is no source. (LAz17 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)).

 Keep - DRs of maps for this kind of reasons are mostly inspired by the other way around POV - Jcb (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Before you blindly disregard the deletion as POV, do look at the reason why it is being listed for deletion. These units "DO NOT EXIST". Is it hard to understand that? Is it? Can I make a map of the US that shows 78 states instead of 50? Can I? No, I can not. Same for this map, there a bunch of made up units that do note exist. (LAz17 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).

• Comment but inclined towards  Keep - The user that created this map has not been active here since 10 November 2010. meaning it's not likely he/she will appear. Visually, the borders of the individual municipalities seems to match File:Bosnia and Herzegovina Political.png. If there are extra municipalities then that may be explained by w:Municipalities of Republika Srpska#Former Municipalities which resulted in the deletion of 18 municipalities in 1996. The map shows the state of the country in 1991. I found File:DemoBIH1991.png which also shows the state in 1991. I did not do a point-by-point compare but again the maps are similar. It also appears he/she gave a source "Borders of municipalities which would include most of Croats in BiH(1991 status). Red borders show municipalities in RS, orange ones in Federation." Beyond that, I have no way of evaluating the claims of the map maker nor the person who wishes to delete this map. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Oops - I just noticed this was a closed discussion. I'd come here as a result of seeing the DR request and wondered why the xFD was still open... Marc Kupper (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

1) The Discussion is not closed. It was reopened. I then saw Jcb list comment and thought that he closed it again without any thought, and so I listed it again by accident - that's why the date's moved. The case is open.

2) Your claims that the maps are similar is an obscene statement. It's downright mind boggling and shows that you did not look at the map. Because of that I decided to chew the food for you - you did not want to do the chewing so I decided to. I this link I have labeled what is wrong, [3] - all the yellow are "made up imaginary" entities that do not exist. Now, take the map that you mentioned, File:Bosnia and Herzegovina Political.png , and you can clearly see that every one of those yellow areas does not exist. The conclusion therefore is that we are dealing with a bullshit map. Ceha is one of those promoters of a "greater croatia", and has had lots of problems on the english wikipedia for repeatedly posting false inaccurate information. It is true that one should assume good faith, but with this map there clearly is no good intention.

I have taken the time to label the mistakes in yellow. Now the least that you could do is look at it and compare it to the administrative map. You can do that, can't you? When you do that you will see why this map is up for deletion. (LAz17 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).

On the map with errors labeled in yellow, I made a mistake - there should be some more yellow, a couple more polygons. But, I think this is enough to prove that the map is very flawed and thus should be deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).

The map you're comparing appears to be modern, whereas the map under discussion is intended to reflect the situation 20 years ago. Do you have any evidence that the map under discussion is incorrect in that respect? Powers (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Here're borders from 1991. [4], they're the same as they were in 1971, and 1981. These units in this map are fabricated units that did not exist back then, nor do they exist now - nor does anything that resemble them exist now nor in the past. Is this enough evidence that the image up for deletion looks like something that a bullshit artist would concoct? Can you make a map of the 50 US states by drawing out 30 states correctly, and then adding another 63 on the territory of the remaining 20??? (LAz17 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).

•  Delete - Frankly, in maps there are so much political issues, potential for conflict and misunderstandings, and worse yet, potential for malicious "education" of unaware users of Commons with fabricated info with obscure purposes, that I believe no map should be allowed here without a clear source for its info. I know that Commons usually does not worry with original research, but in those cases it should. In my view, fabricated or imaginary versions of maps without a clear source, or at least a clear rational, should all be deleted from here. Commons should not be a forum to advance political agendas.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete As all maps of this user, it is a political and unsourced map. If we are honest, what kind of educational value does a map have which is based on sciance fiction? If something like this will be keept, we should think about the real wikipedia goal: to make knowledge accessible to everyone. Otherway i wrote this user some months ago and even he agrees with deletion of his unsourced maps. Just take a look at his talk page. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete - Hahaha comon guys, that map is so ridiculous, that we didnt need to discuss about it. If the situation were like on the map, they would been majority in Bosnia, and not minority :). Check this www.izbori.ba and see were Croats live and were they are majority, that are the result of the last elections in 2010. If wikipedia is a serious project, it must be deleted !!! dino hattab
•  Keep Well it is just some of the maps which speak about territories on which Croats are/were present or have/had pretensions to. In the territories marked in RS Croats were significant porcentage before the war. Borders of some municipalities shown are purely historical (for example Derventa or Ljubija). Some territories should be wider, for example there are some Croat villages in municipalities of Srebrenik and Gradačac which were suposed to be part of new municipaly Brčko-Ravne, but plans for it were dropped where Brčko was proclaimed a district. Similar goes for Tramošnica municipality (today's Pelagićevo municipality). Comment of wizardOfOz is purely political, and comment of dino hattab is a bit laughing to the refuggies. Laz17 is of course in a habbit of deleting my maps :) I'm not here often so just read a first two sentences. That should provide enough reasons for keeping the map. Best regards --Čeha (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Ceha your statment above just confirms what i wrote: this is science fiction. What kind of educational value does it have? Showing that there are Croats in Bosnia and Hercegovina? Sure they are there, but we don´t need to cut the borders of the municipalities just to show every single farm where they are majority :D If we go straight ahead, the same map has the same menaing for Bosniaks or Serbs or any people living in Bosnia, because I´m sure that in those borders you draw are also some farms from they. I wrote you months ago to use those sourced which are relevant and not some fictional sources which "could be" or "could show" something "if they are implemented as source". All your maps are based on the same map which has bean deleted on enwiki as unsourced. If you fallow your maps, there are only vice versa sources and you are jumping from one to another. To be honest, I have nothing against your maps if they are sourced so everyone can verify the facts, but I´m against putting such maps in articles all across the projects where uninvolved peaople will be desinformed. If your truly goal is to help to bring the whole human knowlage to all the people of the world no matter where they are, you should add something like: this is my imagination how it could be, so peaople can search for evidence how the status of your maps realy is. This is just original research and nothing else. --WizardOfOz ^talk 15:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, wizard I can now see that you don't know what are you tallking about. My maps rage from dialectal maps of Croatia to maps of war fronts in BiH. How, by the holly cow, can they all be from one source?

Second I'd be very gratefull if you would read the map name. If you wish to make maps of Bosniak or Serb municipalities, that's fine with me. This map speaks about the Croats, theirs settlmenst (in some cases ex settlments) and their's interests.

Further more, map title is in Croatian. So every one who could read it has some knowledge of the sittuation. --Čeha (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also on info about map it clearly states ; Borders of municipalities which would include most of Croats in BiH(1991 status). Red borders show municipalities in RS, orange ones in Federation or in Croatian Granice općina koje bi uključile većinu hrvatskog pučanstva u BiH(stanje iz 1991). Crvene granice pokazuju općine u RS, narančaste u Federaciji which describes intent of the map. I'm very certain that everywone here knows what conditional is for:) Please leave your petty politcs for somebody else.--Čeha (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• CommentCeha's response shows that he has nothing to say to the evidence of how this is a bad map - a map that has no source whose borders are totally wrong. Hence I feel that we have all the evidence we need for deletion. (LAz17 (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)).

• Comment As first, taking care of your answer Ceha, the title is wrong. Is this map showing us croatian municipalities or not? If the map do, which kind of source have you use for the non existing municipality borders? But if it just shows terrain where Croatian are majority, than it should at least be renamed, and the borders of municipalities removed so it can be taken for real. Such as it is now, it´s just a original research and nothing else. We can´t create new borders just to get all sheeps in one stall. --WizardOfOz ^talk 16:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Title is correct. Read the info part and you'll see that title is appropriate. Same would go for municipal borders in some time period (which is not present), or suggestions of border changes. Please do read the whole case before making persumtions.--Čeha (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn´t answer the two questions: Is this map showing us croatian municipalities or not? If the map do, which kind of source have you use for the non existing municipality borders? If you can answer those, i will change my opinion. If you say yes the map shows croatian municipalities, as stated from ip below, you are lying. So the name of the file is wrong. If you say that you have sources for the borders, i would like to see them, even if i need to buy a book to proove that. But you will never find a source which can explain a wild drawing around real municipalities. So please stop your POV pushing and try to understand that this and all projects of wikimedia are not here for desinformation but to provide well sourced knowlage. Once you get this, i think it could be fine to work with you. --WizardOfOz ^talk 15:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, please read the previous response. Pay attention of words as time line and plans of making new municipalities. There is also part on Croatian, which I'm sure would help your understanding. As for details of changes, there are really so many of them that I don't have time nor will do document it. Say for example that in 1991 people of 7 villages in Doboj municipality organized a referendum to unite those villages with Derventa municipality. That's an easy thing to google. That's just a sample of the changes that happened. --Čeha (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy plans according to nobody? Where is the source? You know, I had plans for the northern part of the state in which I live in to become its own new separate state. Nobody really cares about my personal fantasy, just like nobody cares about your personal fantasy either. Your dream is a totally unacceptable source. (LAz17 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)).

Sources are numerous. Google them:) It is easy --Čeha (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep This sort of discussion is exactly why we have things like {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}. Commons is not the place for political discussions, or judgements about the accuracy or otherwise of maps, flags, graphs etc. If the map is in dispute, upload one with 'correct' information under a different name (no overwriting). The wikis can decide for themselves what diagrams to use, don't bring those fights here. Yes there should be a source for the data in maps, diagrams, graphs etc, but frankly we are lucky if there is a description, let alone a source for the data. That sort of thing has never been a criteria for deletion, it just means the file (like most here) needs more info on its description page. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

While unsourced maps are allowed into Commons, those fights will always, always end up here. Sincerely, I'm having trouble in understanding why unsourced maps should be kept here. I would believe that maps suspected to be forgeries and of being planted here with political motivations would be out of scope of this project.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

But that is the point, in any political debate there will always be accusations of incorrect, inaccurate, false, forged, POV, biased etc, etc. What do we do?, set up a panel of unbiased experts to consider each map and adjudicate? Are we to judged which wiki is using the right map? Wars are fought over this sort of thing, we can not and do not, try to solve that sort of dispute here. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I have explicitly proven how the map is wrong. The guy uses "fake boundaries". You are basically saying that we should have unworthy maps on wiki commons. There is a better map that shows croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is here, [5] , so there is no need to keep this bullshit "fake" map. The map which I linked right there is a super map. It's superior in every way compared to this thing whose boundaries are very messed up. It's not like there is a small error. There are MANY MANY errors. Did you see the map that I posted which indicated where there are errors? Did you see it? Here is the link again, the yellow is what is wrong - [6] - I forgot to label a couple other yellow spots. The coloring of colors on the map is not something I have brought up yet - what I have brought up is these "fake municipalities"... you can not just draw random lines all over and produce a bullshit map. Such maps are not good for anyone.

I have proved quite well that this map is wrong - not just wrong but very wrong. I swear to you that I will start uploading bullshit maps that I will make wrong on purpose if this improper map is allowed to stay here. I'll make maps of the US that have 60-70-or even 80 states on them. If this guy can get away with that thanks to your opinion that "bad maps are okay", then I can and will do the exact thing that you are supporting. I promise you that. (LAz17 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)).

And tony, one more thing... it's not rocket science to figure out if a map is problematic or not. You make it sound like it is something hard to do, which is actually quite sad. In this case the thing is obviously very flawed. (LAz17 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)).

I agree here with Darwin. I can´t understand why unsorced maps are alowed on commons. Even if commons have it own rules, its a part of Wikipedia and the files are used there to ilustrate the article. If the reader klicks on the map to see it, he will allways be desinformated. So what is the goal? Writing a sourced encyclopedia or desinformation of half of the world? I think that this discussion will lead us higher were we need to discuss unsourced maps for general, and which sources should be used for creation of maps that shows demographical content. But even if we start this discussion elswhere, this map should still be deleted. --WizardOfOz ^talk 16:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete. To an extent, I agree with DarwIn. I wouldn't go as far as to say that every map should always have a source or be deleted, but if the accuracy of a map is disputed we should be able to base the information on a source to be certain that what we're hosting is educational content and not misinformation. Jafeluv (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Darvinus, map is well documented and it's usage is well explained in info text. There is no political or other usage of the map, and correct usage is expained in info text. I'm sorry to see that some people would not take the time to read the whole case before they make such accusations. But that speaks more of them than anybody else. --Čeha (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't need your original fantasy research. It is disinformation in this case. (LAz17 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)).

•  Keep I see no problem with this.Quahadi Añtó 18:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This user is a croat, therefore he likes imaginary croatian municipalities that misinform people. He, like Ceha, is thrilled to see any map that has more "fake municipalities" so long as they somehow suggest that Croats have a bigger share of bosnia and herzegovina.

Here's one for a start - these units do not exist. That is the problem. The units do not exist. Understand? The units do not exist. They never have and they never will. No room for fantasy maps. May I make a map of "supposed" serbian municipalities in Croatia where they never existed? Or a map of 70 states in the US? No. (LAz17 (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)).

Ethnic bias from you Laz is not a nice thing to do/say. One thing more, just to show that your arguments are flawed, is state of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state). Pay attention to map. --Čeha (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking with me? The state of jefferson is an idea, yeah, but there are no firm borders of the thing. It's something that only naive idiots think will happen. But yeah, if they let you keep your map then the state of jefferson will take half of california, a bit of Nevada, and I'll label it as the state of ceha. That, and another 40 er so other new imaginary states.

Your "imaginary municipalities" were never mentioned by anyone. They're your fantasy and have no source. They never existed, nor will they ever exist. On top of that nobody ever suggested such idiotic borders, ever. (LAz17 (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)).

•  Delete. Speedy delete. Ceha has further distorted the map, adding more "imaginary" areas. The more we wait the worse it will be. On top of that, a place like drvar, which traditionally has no croats is labeled as Croatian. Same for some other places where croats traditionally have no presence, like Glamoc or Grahovo. So we see that a map that disinformed now only disinformes only more. Cherio. (24.15.189.122 22:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)).

Town of Drvar had large portion of Croats until the ww2. Just for info :)--Čeha (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Man what the hell do you take us for, idiots? This is really going to far. Drvar is labeled as a Croatian municipality. This was indicated as a mistake. To counter that you do not say yes I did this wrong, or yes I did this wrong on purpose because I like to misinform - you try to make up excuses. It proves that you do not have good intentions, and hence are a detriment to wikipedia.

1931 - back then municipalities were much smaller than they are today. Drvar was a small municpality that was part of the bosnaski petrovac municipality. In fact it was not a town but a small little community. We can look at the census data. Croats are catholic, serbs are orthodox... total population of the small drvar municipality 8627. Catholics/Croats are 305, or about 3 percent. Serbs are almost all the remaining. And you get to the conclusion that Drvar is a Croat municipality? In your sick dreams perhaps. This is very offensive to any serb. It's advocating genocide.

I took time to obtain you data from 1931. [7] This only proves that before WW2 and after WW2 Drvar was not a croatian place. It also proves yet more flaws on top of "imaginary unsourced municipalities". Drvar is a municipality that exists... you did not chop up its borders... but croatian it is not. It's known as the most ethnically pure serbian municipality in the country for crying out loud! I mean come on people, the map is retarded, it's proven to be wrong with imaginary boundaries and then there are boundaries like this which are labeled wrong... it's a map of a person's dreams of a greater croatian territory on bosnia and herzegovina. We must not support nationalism in the form of these maps. It is misinforming people, it's wrong. We've shown so many examples of how this map is wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)).

5 things:

1.Mind your manners. That is reason why I do not like talking to you.

2.Read my post(s). There were a lot of Croats in the small town of Drvar (at least until 27.7.1941.) Town had a Catholic church back than, no?

3.Croats made majority in Drvar in the years after the war (post 1995), and now there is about 1000 Croats in municipality, more or less in the town itself.

4.It is certainly not "most Serbian municipality in the country". Because of Genocide in eastern and western Bosnia, there are municipalities with 100% serbian population.

5.This is all of topic. Map is good, read the info and try to control your emmotions, we are not in kinder garden.

--Čeha (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, people, let's focus, ok? Being an imaginary map is not a problem on itself, as it's not a problem if it "promotes nationalism". I would not have any problem with a map of Eretz Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, given that it was well sourced. If the source is biased or not, it's not that important, really, given that such source is well visible. Then let the Wikipedias fight over it.

The problem in this case is that it has no source at all, as far as I can see. Ceha, you could start sourcing your affirmations above about the demographics of Drvar. And please, don't tell people to go Google it, such kind of comments are annoying and not helpful in the least, as the comments about genocide made by Laz17 and you. Please stay academic and present your sources as requested, ok?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Darwin. It really is stupid to go into details. My only point was that even some municipalities that have okay borders are not croatian yet he labels them as.

What happens if he can not provide the source to this catastrophic map? (LAz17 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)).

What happens would depend mostly on the evaluation the closing admin would do of all the debate. But IMO, unsourced maps which are contested should be deleted from Commons, otherwise they will be always a source of trouble and conflict, and the educational potential for such things is arguably null.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source is the net. Discussions and plans of making such municipalities. That's the reason I talked about google and referendum in those 6 villages at the north of Doboj municipality for rejoining Derventa municipality. Or changes in Travnik municipality, and it's division in 6 municipalities (parallel to Mostar, as garanteed by washington agreements). And those are just few. As you can see from the map changes are quite numerous.... --Čeha (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, Ceha, be serious and try to not insult other's intelligence. "The source is the net" means nothing, really.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something is lost in translation here. Source is data from the net. Everything you need, you shall find there. Let me be more specific;

Posavina;

• Derventa municipality is shown in pre 1963 borders.
• Modriča municipality is shown in borders suggested by Contact group plan
• In territories of municipalites of Srebrenik and Gradačac (in federation) shown is the part which Croats suggested to enter municipality of Brčko-Ravne.
• Parts of Pelagićevo are shown as distinct municipality (Tramošnica) where the settlments (all but one) which in 1991 had Croatian majority. To Tramošnica municipality are also added (1991) Croatian villages in Modriča, Šamac and Gradačac municipalities(leaving Serbian coridor intact).
• Shown area in Donji Žabar is area of Oštra Luka, and one small part of the village which were Croatian in 1991, but became part of RS in Dayton.
• Shown part of the Šamac includes Croatian villages of Gornji and Donji Hasić, Tišina, Grebenice and Novo Selo as well as Serbian enclave around Crkvina and town of Bosnian Šamac.

Northern Bosnia:

• Croatian villages in Ćelinac,Tuzla and Živinice are shown as part of Soli municipality (it is a bit unprecise here, some villages of Lukavac should also be part of it and includes a lot of Muslim/Bosniak settlments).
• Usora is enlarged by few Croatian villages which in Dayton became part of RS.
• Parts of Maglaj and Zavidovići which are shown on the picture were part of croatian war municipality of Žepče
• Parts of Teslić showed are parts of suggested Komušina municipality which had Croatian majority before the war and was held by HVO during its initial phases.
• Parts shown around Vareš had in 1991 Croatian majority
• Parts shown in Kakanj and Visoko were controled by HVO in 1992-93,had Croatian majority and were suggested to form Croatian municipality of Kraljeva Sutjeska (Kraljeva Sutiska).

Central Bosnia:

• Shown parts in Mrkonjić grad and north of Jezero include Liskovac and Majdan, which were Croatian settlments by 1991 census.
• The rest of Jezero was part of Jajce municipality before the war. Also Jajce municipality is enlarged by part of Vlašić in Travnik municipality.
• Travnik municipality is divided on Muslim/Bosniak Turbe municipality and Croat Travnik municipality (census of 1991).
• Vitez municipality is enlarged for Čajdraš and some other smaller Croatian villages (census 1991) in Zenica municipality.
• Kiseljak municipality is enlared for Croatian villages in Visoko municipality.
• Parts of Fojnica municipality which had Croatian majority (including town itself and its subburbs) is shown as seperate municipality (that was the territory which HVO held in the beginings of Croat-Muslim/Bosniak war)
• Croatian villages in western part of Fojnica (which were part of Novi Travnik until 1918) are added to Novi Travnik, as well as Croatian villages in north Bugojno (census 1991).
• Most of Croatian villages (including Muslim/Bosniak enclaves) are shown as part of Croatian municipality of Uskoplje.
• Most of Croatian villages (including Muslim/Bosniak enclaves) are shown as part of Croatian municipality of Bugojno (including 2 Croatian villages in Donji Vakuf municipality).

South western Bosnia

• Municipality of Kupres in elarged by settlments aroun Šuica in Tomislavgrad municipality.
• Municipality of Grahovo is added to Livno municipality
• Municipalities of Drvar and Glamoč are united in one municipality (as for the ethnic situation, most of yunger generation are Croats, I think that 60% of students in schools listen to Croatian program in Glamoč, and that there is 20% of Serbian students and 20 Muslim/Bosniak).

Herzegovina

• Western part of Jablanica, which was held by HVO during the war and which had Croatian majority in last Census is shown as Croatian municipality of Doljani.
• Western parts of Konjic in which most of Croatians lived, including war held enclave of Turija are shown as seperate municipality.
• Western part of Berkovići (settlment of Sv.Stjepan Križ, Croat 1991 census) is show as area which should be added to Stolac municipality.
• Border Croatian villages in municipalities of Berkovići, Ljubinje and Trebinje (including Serbian enclaves) are shown as area which should be added to Ravno municipality.

Western Bosnia

• Croatian Plješivica villages in Bihać municipality which were until 1947 part of Croatia (and Croatian parts of neighbouring villages) are shown as seperate Croatian municipality.
• Croatian villages around Ljubija which had Croatian majority in 1991 census (including not Croat enclaves) are shown as seperate municipality.
• Croatian villages around Sasina which had Croatian majority in 1991 census (including not Croat enclaves and Croatian parts of not Croat settlments) are shown as seperate municipality.
• Croatian villages around Ivanjska in Banja Luka, Gradiška, Laktaši and Čelinac municipalities which had Croatian majority in 1991 census (including not Croat enclaves and Croatian parts of not Croat settlments) are shown as seperate municipality.
• Croatian villages around Kotor Varoš which had Croatian majority in 1991 census (including not Croat enclaves and Croatian parts of not Croat settlments) are shown as seperate municipality.
• Croatian villages in eastern Prnjavor and western Doboj are shown as seperate municipality.
• Croatian villages in Gradiška municipality (including not Croat enclaves and Croatian parts of not Croat settlments) are shown as seperate municipality.

As can be seen, this map reflects plans of Croatian people in BiH in 1991-2005 period. --Čeha (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I´m talking about: could be, was, sugested to be.... and so on. The title is Croatian municipalities in Bosnia and Hercegovina and not Croatian municipalities the way they could be if we compare the last thousand years of history and take care about the future. Just as citation: Croatian villages in eastern Prnjavor and western Doboj are shown as seperate municipality, Croatian villages in Gradiška municipality (including not Croat enclaves and Croatian parts of not Croat settlments) are shown as seperate municipality, Croatian villages around Ljubija which had Croatian majority in 1991 census (including not Croat enclaves) are shown as seperate municipality, Border Croatian villages in municipalities of Berkovići, Ljubinje and Trebinje (including Serbian enclaves) are shown as area which should be added to Ravno municipality... and so on... I´ve just took the last sentences. So now we know that this map doesn´t show municipalities but parts of those which aqre shown as one. Ergo as i wrote houndred times above: Science fiction, unsourced, original research, no educational value so out of scope... and so on... --WizardOfOz ^talk 16:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you can't just create municipalities out of the blue based on demographic data. It has no foreseeable educational use.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Promoters of a "Greater Croatia" can not understand this. This is basically a map that show's Ceha's ethnocentric nationalist ambitions. As such he adores this map, he loves it, and there is no way that he can see that there is anything wrong with it. It is "his" own personal dream, and so he feels that he is helping wikipedia when he is in fact disinforming people.

What is worse is that most of ceha's maps revolve around this principle, to disinform people by making maps that show some greater croat units in bosnia and herzegovina. He has gone out of his way to edit other people's maps - he has no shame! (LAz17 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)).

Darwin, as I answered below to Laz some of this municipalities in this borders existed(most of it) during the Bosnian war. For example Komušina existed until it was conquered by Serbian forces. Others were planed and demanded in numerous peace plans during the war.

To add one thing more, Census of 1991 is still valid in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is the last census and it is used in elections (national representatives) etc.

Name of the map is Hrvatske opcine in BiH with info text that clearly states Borders of municipalities which would include most of Croats in BiH(1991 status). Red borders show municipalities in RS, orange ones in Federation.

I'll repeat again, educational purpose of this map is quite clear. It shows Croatian plans and municipalities that existed in the time period of 1991-20005.

I do not see a problem here. Title is in Croatian and in the info part is pretty much explained. Municipalities in those borders existed in 1991-2005 period (some less, some more time), or were planed (as abbolishment of Grahovo municipality due to the small population there). I explained here every line, and it's educational use. Were is the problem? --Čeha (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that what you are saying now is not clear in your relation above. For instance: "Municipality of Kupres in elarged by settlments aroun Šuica in Tomislavgrad municipality" (randomly picked) - What is your source for this enlargement? If you could document what you wrote above with the sources for such plans of enlargements and new municipalities, I would not have any problem with this map.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Like you can see, there are 35 changes of border municipalities and municipalities itself. Documentation of every change would took to much space even on wiki pages :) So basicaly I do not have the time (nor will) to do it.

Thet's all. But this could be solved. I can add two more categories, one indicating municipalities that existed during the war, and other municipalities which were planed during that period. Would that simplify the situation? --Čeha (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And answer to this randomly picked question is ethnic composition of Kupres and Šuica (enlargment of Croats numbers in mixed municipality). This proposition was made in early years of BiH war. --Čeha (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You still failed to present your source, even for such a simple request. And I doubt that it would be so difficult to document your map, unless there are no sources at all, as everyone is suspecting here - and you are not doing any effort to dismiss those suspicions. Look, maps pretending to present the Portuguese Empire in the 16th century, taking into account the Portuguese presence in the various corners of the world, where deleted for OR, and those were sourced (the OR was to assume that mere Portuguese presence would make those places part of the Portuguese Empire). This is a similar situation. You can't transform Croatian presence in a region in a true municipality, that is even much more far-fetched than claiming that Vietnam was Portuguese because we were there (which was indeed the use at the 16th century).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Map changed. File:Hrvatske_opcine_u_BiH.png Armed presence and existent bodies of authorities are enough proof :) As for example, both Kupres and Tomislavgrad are municipalities with Croat majority (today in this borders). There change would not mean nothing in the terms of territory expansion (today, but it would 1991). Others here (I mean Laz and Wizard), have a bit bias to Croats, so I'm a little sceptical of theirs motives. What's the story about Vietnam and Portugal, I did not know it's presence there? Obrigado antecipadamente :) --Čeha (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, we were in Vietnam, and our presence was significant enough that they still use today the Latin alphabet introduced by us. We established there a number of missions and commercial posts, though since we were (and are) a small country, our population was not sufficient to establish a grip everywhere we went. That's also the reason why we never established in Canada and North America, though there are documented Portuguese expeditions in the 15th century to those parts before anyone else from Europe being there (besides the Vikings, perhaps).

But to the point: You must document that map with the sources you consulted to dismiss the suspects of OR. You can't take some data from the region and depart from there to conclusions that were never seen before, such as inventing municipalities based on that. If you have sources that refer those municipalities, or projects of municipalities, please state them in the description of the file, it doesn't matter how long it gets. It's very important to know where that information came from, so that your map can be considered educational and useful, and not some wishful thinking dream.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Obrigado :) I new about Newfounland in Canada, but didn't new about Vietnam. It makes sense, Vietnam was in Portuguese sphere of influence established in Las Tordesillas.

But, to the point:

• This is for Ravne Brčko the changes influence Srebrenik and Gradačac, there is a list of settlments which are included in new municipality.
• Opcina Soli
• Kraljeva Sutjeska

Some of the war lines can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_war

Are this enough? The map is changed, so I belive there is no need to source war municipality borders?--Čeha (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Better said, which sources should be added to the map? --Čeha (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you are changing the map, attempting to make it better or something. We have a discussion going on, please don't tamper with the material.

You can not take small enclaves and things where there was presence and declare that a municipality.

Posavski-obzor is not a legimate source. Look at what it says man... for Kraljvska Sutjeska the date is from 2010, and it is simply a discussion that has been transferred from some forum. It is not official in any way. What's more it does not mention anything about a new municipality, it simply talks about the croat presence there. The only place where they speak of a municipality/opcina is in the comments where some people express desires for this. Opcina soli is a similar "idea" that some people thought up in 2010.

You seem to not understand that you can not take an area where there were croats and declare it a municipality. (LAz17 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).

Posavski-obzor are daily Croatian newspapers. In the text they provided map of Kraljeva Sutjeska, an area which was under Croatian defence Council (HVO) control during the early phases of Bosnian war. Municipality of Soli is a demmand by Croat authorities in 1994 to Federation, and a theme which was discused during the war. You have all of that in the newspaper, try reading it for a change. --Čeha (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Kraljeva Sutjeska is not in any way talked about as a municipality. Your article talks about that area. It is not in any way a municipality, nor has it ever been, nor will it be. The maps are maps which have been made my Milan Djogo, a serb, in 2010, to show where croats lived in that area.

The two articles you linked are under the category "komentari" which means that it is not something of the newspaper.

We return to the same problem, that your map is not acceptable and that you can not label an area where croats lived as a municipality. (LAz17 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).

Moreover I'll be gratefull, wizard of Oz, if you could keep this discussion accademic. I see that you didn't read my whole post (which I spent half an hour to wrote) and that you are not well informed into history and demographic of this areas. Or maybe is my English unappropriated for this discussion? The point be, I've given the sources (if you wish, we can go into the details, for example those four villages in Bihać municipality were even claimed as part of Croatia in international talks of marking the border) for every line and every of that lines existed some time in 1991-2005 period. So it's a little not accademic to speak of this map in one thousand years context when our fathers wore furs and axes, don't you think so? --Čeha (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Laz, I think that it would be best of you to stick to the subject (or better be take a vaccation of it). Add hominem atacks, rude language is not something which wikipedia is for. So I'm putting you on my ignore list. Best regards. --Čeha (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ceha, I think that it would be best for you to stop making fantasy maps with no source. We have indicated repeatedly that your map has no source. What you do is that you disregard this and say "the map is fine, google it"... you are therefore very arrogant and ignorant. You do not want to engage in constructive discussion. We feel that the map is wrong because of this this and this - and you reply with something unrelated. It's as if you're making fun of us/wasting our time. (LAz17 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)).

It is fair to say that Ceha does not understand english. He does not understand what we are saying. That is why he is repeatedly just repeating his useless comments. The problem is that this is the way that he operates. Many of his maps have been made like this, on the basis of nothing. (LAz17 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)).

So Ceha... Yu´ve claim that I should keep the discussion accademic? No problem! Than stop kidding with us. You´ve spended half of a hour to write this above? Respect, but it was just wasting of your and our time, we already know that this, like all your maps, is an unsourced imaginery map. Your comment was just a confirmation. I don´t know which part of the discussion you can´t follow, but as i don´t like to repeat over and over again, last time for your information: all of your maps are kind "take a look at google maps". So let us see it from readers side: I open this map which illustrate something, and as a reader i can expect that is true. But not on your maps. You are expecting that every reader, even if this is a child looking for informations for a homework, starts to search to search for every single municipality and border if they exist or not. That is a kind of not educational. Furthermore, you´ve added borders and municipalities where those not exist! And that is desinformation, as it looks the only puropose of this map. I´m just wondering that Mostarac hasn´t take a part in this discussion, as he is the one who allways makes suggestions how to draw your maps. Just take look at history of your and his talk page on hrwiki. So once more: your map is unsourced, is imagination, has no educational value, is original research and therefore for deletion. --WizardOfOz ^talk 09:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I expect that person who reads this will read info part. That's all. It is just when someone rent's a movie, he should see it is for appropriate age. Again, it would be good that you stick to the subject and not to gossip other wipedia members, is that to much to ask?

P.S. As I explained in answers above, almost all of municipalities did exist in mentioned period.--Čeha (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We have proven that they did not exist. What's more, these imaginary dreams will not exist. (LAz17 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).

Like municipality of Srbobran on Srbinje did not exist? Laz, you start to contradict yourself. But I suppose that is not something new? --Čeha (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Srbinje is called Foca and has nothing to do with this map and discussion. Srbobran is not even in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so it too is redundant for our purposes here. I do not understand why you bring them up, for it does not help solve this problem. (LAz17 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).

•  Delete per Wizard, Jafeluv et al. What's the purpose of this image? There is no sources, the image isn't used anywhere. mickit 16:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• So lets come to your sources: according to the first:

Narodnosni sastav stanovništva općine Brčko, po naseljenim mjestima, prema popisu iz 1991.
naseljeno mjesto	ukupno	Bošnjaci	Hrvati	Srbi	Jugoslaveni	ostali
Bijela	2,539	5	1,729	730	34	41
Boće	1,253	0	1,242	0	4	7
Boderište	965	1	952	2	1	9
Brčko	41,406	22,994	2,894	8,253	5,211	2,054
Brezik	413	0	3	408	1	1
Brezovo Polje (selo)	335	0	3	330	1	1
Brezovo Polje	1,393	1,158	11	89	96	39
Brka	2,044	1,921	3	40	27	53
Brod	1,042	938	6	50	28	20
Bukovac	364	6	69	279	9	1
Bukvik Donji	212	0	3	192	16	1
Bukvik Gornji	378	0	9	328	23	18
Buzekara	430	0	0	422	5	3
Cerik	280	3	25	221	18	13
Čađavac	74	0	60	0	6	8
Čande	377	377	0	0	0	0
Čoseta	507	502	0	0	0	5
Donji Rahić	647	4	552	48	12	31
Donji Zovik	481	0	465	0	0	16
Dubrave	1,338	1	1,310	18	1	8
Dubravice Donje	396	1	368	0	0	27
Dubravice Gornje	319	0	20	280	2	17
Gajevi	196	0	1	188	3	4
Gorice	1,097	1	894	174	19	9
Gornji Rahić	2,167	2,131	6	8	5	17
Gornji Zovik	1,569	0	1,454	9	0	106
Grbavica	557	13	21	499	16	8
Gredice	303	0	121	168	2	12
Islamovac	105	97	0	0	0	8
Krbeta	244	0	4	240	0	0
Krepšić	1,156	0	721	383	9	43
Laništa	656	1	648	0	0	7
Lukavac	225	0	8	208	7	2
Maoča	2,886	2,815	5	11	36	19
Marković Polje	470	0	362	88	2	18
Ograđenovac	734	723	0	0	1	10
Omerbegovača	895	792	73	1	7	22
Palanka	1,394	1,381	1	0	9	3
Popovo Polje	248	0	0	245	1	2
Potočari	893	3	2	838	26	24
Rašljani	1,155	1,073	0	76	2	4
Ražljevo	341	0	2	331	4	4
Repino Brdo	246	240	4	0	1	1
Sandići	420	1	0	410	7	2
Skakava Donja	2,272	2	2,175	40	12	43
Skakava Gornja	1,737	3	1,581	142	5	6
Slijepčevići	371	0	2	363	1	5
Stanovi	353	0	2	345	0	6
Šatorovići	1,238	1,216	2	0	0	20
Štrepci	861	5	804	25	4	23
Trnjaci	313	0	0	310	2	1
Ulice	1,266	1	1,108	136	7	14
Ulović	912	200	606	73	8	25
Vitanovići Donji	419	5	324	82	4	4
Vitanovići Gornji	286	1	158	98	9	20
Vučilovac	700	1	0	673	11	15
Vujičići	284	0	1	270	9	4
Vukšić Donji	644	1	633	3	3	4
Vukšić Gornji	821	0	805	1	4	11
ukupno	87,627	38,617	22,252	18,128	5,731	2,899

And this are official counts from 91. Your source for Ravno-Brcko has took those from the list where the croats are majority, but has remove all of those where they are not majority. According to they list, they have make a try to unify those villages to a municipality which was only a union to a katholic parish. Futhermore, thay´ve added Prijedor (?!?) which is near 70 km away from this region (just read the last sentence on the page of your source)!

According to Soli, it was a creation after war, but doesn´t exist and was only declared by the croatian citizens, and never accepted from both others.

According to Vares or Kraljeva Sutjeska, your source is writing that there were:

• Croats= 8. 982 (40, 62 %)
• Bosniacs= 6. 721 (30,39%)
• Serbs= 3. 630 (16,41%)
• Jugoslav= 2. 049 (9,27%)
• others= 732 (3,31%)
• summary= 22. 114

But official stats say that there were:

• Croats - 9.016 (40,60%)
• Bosniacs - 6.714 (30,23%)
• Serbs - 3.644 (16,41%)
• Jugoslav - 2.071 (9,32%)
• others - 758 (3,44%)
• Summary: 22.203

And as you can see there is something wrong on your source like above. I would like to note that your sources are not realy notable, as they are croatian pages which have no validation. I´ve already told you that you should use those which are official. And those are the statistic agency of Bosnia and Hercegovina ( www.bhas.ba ) and the federal statistic agency under www.fzs.ba. So could we please end this unneeded discussion and just delete this nonsense? --WizardOfOz ^talk 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I can see that you are just malicious. What on earth would Croatian settlments on Croat (HVO controled area) would do in Croat municipality?? And why would catholic parishes be marked on a map which shows Croat dominated area (Croats are mostly catholics, are they not?).

Prijedor is local community in Brčko district which has the same name as town 70 km away. Which just shows your knowledge of the area Mjesna zajednica Prijedor --Čeha (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Shame on me, I didn´t know that there is a sattlement called like my hometown. But this doesn´t change the proove that your sources are interpreting the census the way they want. Could you please answer with yes or no the following questions:

• Have you created a map with borders that doesn´t match the borders of the municipalities today and have describe it in the title like they do?
• Have you used the only valid source for demographic data, those two i linked above?
• Is a daily newspaper for you a notable source?
• Is the pruopose of this map to show some municipalities the way that they are dominated by Croatian?

And please if possible just with yes or no without the same prologue over and over. Thanks in advance. --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, to ilustrate your demand and to give you a few questions (if you wish you can answer on them with yes/no).

• Have you read info and legend of the map (time period of municipal existance is quite clearly explained there)?
• Does census of 1991 reflect war time or postwar changes on municipal borderies?
• Does BiH has on-line service in which every of the municipal changes is shown? Is report in daily papers enough to assume that some civil servant done his/her's job? If the answer of any of this questions is no, please give me the sources for change of borders of Bihać municipality (it is far away from entity line).
• Is it easier to you to ask a non logical question than to read the info part or the legend of the map? Alternative question would be, define domination. Is that something from dungeon and dragons or some kinky sex game?

Thnx in advance. --Čeha (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ceha's link on Kraljeva Sutjeska is simply an analysis of croats on that area. It is not about any municipality. From the title to the content it does not talk about a municipality. It's one of the many plans/discussions that nationalist biggots from the online forum herceg-bosna have concocted, in their dreams of a greater croatia. This map is nationalist bigotry. (LAz17 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).

Nationalistic biggotry? Greater something? It is nice to see that wording in an academic discussion which analyzes how few thousands of members of one nation established their's municipality, defended it in the war against aggression of overwhelming odds, just to be expelled by members of another nation for the thanks and their's help in deffence. Splendid words indeed. Laz the academic. Not biggot ....

This discussion is going into overkill. It's ceha's famous method, to deny everything, with no arguments, but to produce large quantities of writing for no purpose, avoiding questions, and refusing to provide the source of his image-which I prefer to call his dream in this case. That way he hopes that someone in charge will think that there is legitimate discussion going on and avoid looking at the problem. (LAz17 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).

Guys (Wizard and Laz), I realy do not want do discuss with you. You showed complete and utter ignorance of sittuation and Laz showed also something of (what's that word on B?, how does he calls himself:)? Darvin, if you wish help me source this map, I'll gladly cooperate with you... You two, guys are definately on my ignore list (Laz was there before, but man never stops learning:) Cheers --Čeha (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You can ignore everyone you want, but not facts my dear. And it´s the easy way to go out of discussion if you have no more evidence for your claims. :D --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please, people, this debate is already so poisoned and confuse that it will certainly scare away everyone else. I will make a proposal below, please give it some attention:
• 1) It is certainly appropriate for Ceha to correct the map and upload new versions during the debate. If there are errors in the map, they should be corrected if possible, and not force a delete based on the first version, that is absurd;
• 2) Ceha, please document the map stating every source you used (as you began doing now), so that a rational discussion can ensue, and not a flame war based on the old wounds of the past conflicts in the region;
• 3) Ceha, please make an effort in ascertaining the notability of your sources. Forum threads and comments in websites should not be used, for instance. The reliability of the source is not that important, given that it's notable enough, in context and clearly stated in the description;
• 4) Ceha, please review your map, source it and do all necessary corrections, according to what has already been discussed;
• 5) When you finish that, open a new topic below, to separate it from this mess, so that a fresh discussion can start.
• 6) Any admin following this, please give more time to this DR and do not close it hastily;
• 7) Everyone else, please keep regional conflicts out of this discussion. It doesn't matter if the map is a "nationalist dream of Greater Croacia", given that it's well sourced. Keep a cold head, ok?
• -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How much time is appropriate? A week perhaps? (LAz17 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)).

Probably less, since Ceha seems to be actively engaged in resolving this issue. If it's almost only a matter of sources, as he maintains, a few days should be more than enough, though only Ceha can say.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Such maps already exist, and are based on the census from 91. Even if they are unsourced, they are using the last valid census and statistical data from the statistic agency. One of them is just based on estimation, but as the statistic agency and cia worldfactbook provides the same information, this is valid and educational.

• 
• 
• 

I just hope that everyone can see the diference and what has happen with Ceha´s map. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Illustration of problem

I have taken the time to label in yellow what are imaginary/fake municipalities. There is no source for them. The case has been presented above, and with this section I simply illustrate how obscene and ridiculous this image is. Link: [8] I thank you for your time to look at this and am sorry that such a stupid image is being discussed so much. Thanks again for your time. (LAz17 (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)).

hm, again:

• 1. you misinterpreted the map. New lines show new municipalities. So, on this map Grahovo is part of Livno municipality.
• 2. Please, please, preaty please read my posts. Also have in mind that on the territories of western Jablanica during the war existed Croatian municipality of Doljani. The same goes for Komušina, Derventa in Doboj villages, Modriča, parts of Maglaj and Zavidovići, Fojnica, Bugojno, Uskoplje, Vareš, Travnik, Konjic, and during and after the war there borders were/are debated. Žepče and Usora are good examples of borders being changed in Federation.
• 3. By the way, I find it ammusing that you use different criteria on Grahovo or Novi Travnik (which you painted as seperate) and not on Žepče or Usora. Or on Vukosavlje-Modriča and Derventa-Doboj municipalities?

Let's just say that your interpretation of my map is full of errors, including ethnic ones; 2011 Kreševo, Usora and Žepče municipalities in current borders have Croatian majority. --Čeha (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please man, you put your garbage imaginary municipalities up above. We don't need you to list them here. I have simply looked at a municipality map of bosnia and herzegovina, the official ones - from both 1991 and the present day... I have seen a great many municipalities that you labeled that do not exist. Therefore I have simply illustrated this fraud. (LAz17 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)).

Accademic discussion? Ignore button. --Čeha (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Added changes

Is it ok now, Darwin?--Čeha (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Does it has anything more to be corrected. As I saw, Wizard put 3 pages which shows after Dayton municipalities (not on 1991 census, but on post war situation, I know, as 2.one is my work). Period of this map (Hrvatske opcine u BiH.png) are municipalities which existed in 1991-2005 period, as it is clearly stated in the map legend. If you think there are more inconsistencies/errors, please report them to me, I'll be glad to fix them. Cheers!--Čeha (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You did not do what Darwin said. You added no source, that's the primary problem. Therefore the accusations that these entities are imaginary nationalism still stand. (LAz17 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)).

There were sources added, tough some of them seem to be quite vague and unreliable, namely the wikipedia articles. It would be better for the debate if the real sources would be added there, otherwise we risk debating an wikipedia article, when all that matters to keep the map is to know if it is based in something more material than sheer imagination. But some of the sources seem to be valid on first sight, "report for 1994 demand for Soli municipality" and others. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well wikipedia article, with much of the maps there, realy solved my problems on lines of front and similar issues. If somebody has noticed some border errors, please inform me, and I'll try to fix it. It would be good if there was some official site with fronts of bosnian war, but unfortunately we do not have it, so I used wikipedia... --Čeha (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... But the Wikipedia article has sources, no? Otherwise it may be just a collection of unreliable stuff. Wikipedia should never be used as a source on itself, it was never intended to be used that way. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

His editing did not cover most of the problems. For this thing called Soli - perhaps there is some sense in that - but even that is questionable. For the rest of the map, which I colored in yellow, it is clear that he does not address the concerns. Should I list the unsourced things myself - I thought that making a map was enough. The list is big and ceha has not shown willingness to address the problem. The map is obscene to all non-croats from the region. (LAz17 (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)).

Sorry Laz, but that is your (or just common) nationalistic POV. We disscussed your map in upper article. War made municipalities are sourced by link to the bosnian war pages, there is a quite large collection of war fronts, so sources for it exists. Sincearly, I do know what your map presents? Do you deniy existance of new war time municipalities like Doljani near Jablanica or Komušina near Teslić? What's the problem (note that I do not like it is not an argument)? Best regards --Čeha (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was already stated that one can not declare an area controlled as a municipality. DarwIn, any comments? You seem to me the mediator, and Ceha disregards what I say as nationalist POV... he's more accepting when you say something, even if it is the exact same as what I say. (LAz17 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)).

I'm indeed trying to mediate this and see if a solution can be reached, but fundamentally I'm trying to understand if this file has a place in Commons. Ceha presented some valid sources to at least part of the map, and apparently the map could be useful if changed to reflect only what has been correctly sourced (not wikipedia, e.g.). Would you agree with that?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel that his sources are not useful. "fronts of the war" can not translate into municipalities. The only source that he listed which I feel has some merit is the Soli municipality - though that is simply a suggestion, and not an official one. It's questionable, I'd say. In general, he has not addressed this almost all these yellow areas, [9]. (LAz17 (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).

Would it help if I made the complete list of problems on this map? (LAz17 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).

Yes, that would help very much. About the suggestions of municipalities, there is no problem with that, if the purpose of the map is to show them. But I fully agree that there has to be solid evidence for those suggestions and proposals, and not translate everything remotely associated with a wish to make a municipality into a real suggestion or proposal.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 03:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

'morning. Later today I'll post a new section that details the mistakes/obscenities of the map. It will be a list, yet I am a afraid that Ceha will simply say "it's correct, what are you talking about LAz17???" - that way it will become a yes no yes no sort of discussion - leading to his strategy of "overkill" by making the discussion unnecessarily longer and pailful to look at. Have to go right now, but I'll post the list later. I hope that you comment on the list before Ceha comments - since he prefers to ignore me, it would be of great help if you ask him the favor to not comment before you. (LAz17 (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).

illustration of problem explained/quantified

So here goes. First of all, the map claims that these units were municipalities, and it also claims that this is about what "would be" municipalities. Very subjective and clearly original research. But since that obvious part is not enough, here we go with a complete list.

1) [10] As we see, a Croat municipality is labeled there. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.

2) Top part of Ostra Luka has a municipality. It goes over into four municipalities. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.

3) Bottom part of Ostra Luka has a municipality. It crosses into three or four municipalities as well. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.

4) Northern part of Banja Luka is labeled as a municipality and it crosses over into other lands from other municipalities. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.

5) Eastern part of Banja Luka has a small municipality. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.

6) The northern part of Gradiska has an area that is labeled as a municipality. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.

7) Part of Mrkonjic Grad is labeled as a municipality. It is not a municipality. That is a problem.

8) The Jezero municipality has been butchered, and put into yet another imaginary thing. Those products are not a municipality. That is a problem.

9) Jajce seems enlarged into yet another phony municipality, taking the municipality beside it with it. Fun fact on the site, the croats were not a majority there in 1971, 1981, or 1991, not in the town or in the municipality either. Source: data on [11] , which was transfered from official population censuses. So yeah, that is not a municipality, that is a problem.

10) Two parts of Travnik have been ripped off into other imaginary units. Those are not municipalities. That is a problem.

11) Vitez has been expanded. Such borders do not exist. That is a problem.

12) The dominantly Bosniak town and municipality of Bugojno has been malformed into what ceha claims to be a municipality. It is not one. That is a problem.

13) Novi Travnik has been expanded to the north and to the south, in order to appear as an even bigger municipality. Croats were not a majority here, and they never had more than 25% of the town's population. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.

14) One part of Fojnica has been added to Novi Travnik, while another imaginary unit from the east of this municipality has sprung up. That is not a real municipality. That is a problem.

15) Most of the Bosniak municipality Gornji Vakuf has been transformed into some new municipality. One part got kicked out of it. Weird. This is wrong. This is a problem.

16) The Konjic municipality is not shown correctly on this map. To be precise, the northern part is labeled as a Croatian unit. This unit is not a municipality. This is a problem.

17) The municipality of jabalanica, got its two or three croatian villages separated into a separate municipality. As in many cases so far, we see that ceha has taken settlements and declared them to be municipalities. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.

18) It is extremely controversial to label Mostar as croatian. As census results show, the bosniaks were the more numerous group. This is a problem.

19) Ceha's map shows Livno annaxing the serbian municipality called Grahovo. This is not acceptable. This is a problem.

20) Drvar and Glamoc, two dominantly Serbian municipalities, have been labeled as Croatian municipalities. What's worse, ceha's new territorial unit has them joined together. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.

21) Kupres has taken the top of the Tomislavgrad Municpality, which is just south of it. This is not true. This is a problem.

22) Kiseljak has some land added to it. Hence it is enlarged. That is false. That is a problem.

23) Bosniak municipality of Zepce has been labeled Croatian, and it has usurped land from neighboring municipalities such as Maglaj. This municipality has not been enlarged, nor did the town or municipality ever have a croatian majority. This is a problem.

24) The southeast part of Teslic has been declared a municipality. It is not a municipality. This is a problem.

25) A village in the north of Teslic is also labeled a municipality. It is not. This is a problem.

26) Croatian villages in the municipality of Kotor Varos have been conglomerated into a single municipality. This is not a real municipality. As tends to be the case, ceha is labeled villages as municipalities. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.

27) A southern village in Prnjavor is labeled as a municipality. It is not. This is a problem.

28) Vares has its northern part, along with parts of Olovo and Kakanj as a separate municipality. This does not exist. This is a problem.

29) Kakanj has a southeastern bit as a separate municipality. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.

30) The serbian municipality of Derventa is labeled inappropriately as Croatian. Ceha decided to kick some serbian settlements out of the municipality, and add some settlements from northern Doboj municipality. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.

31) Brod is not a croatian municipality. This is a problem.

32) Vukosavlje is not a croatian municipality, nor is it acceptable to add the northern part of Modrica to it. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.

33) Modrica also has an eastern part of it labeled as a separate croatian municipality. This is also not true, this is yet another problem.

34) There is this Samac municipality. Ceha took the town itself and labeled it as croatian, kicking the rest of the municipality out. Samas is not and never was croatian. There is no such quazi entity. This is a problem.

35) Orasje has been expanded a little bit. This is not right. That is a problem.

36) A part of Gradacac has been butchered. This is a problem.

37) The serbian pelagicevo municipality has been labeled croatian, and a new one that is on similar territory, though slightly different has arrisen, labelled as croatian. This is a problem.

38) Brcko is not a croatian municipality. The map seems to suggest that it is. This is a problem.

39) Municipality Soli is just an idea, and is not sourced properly. This is a problem.

40) Ceha has labeled the bosniak municipality Stolac as croatian. Further, he expanded that municipality to have bogus borders. This is a problem.

Well I be damned, that's a whole lot of problems. (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)).

Alright DarwIn. This is my list. As we see Ceha has disregarded nearly everything on it. The map is as bad - actually worse - then it originally was. Ceha added a couple more units since I submitted it for deletion, hence the map is actually worse. I hope this is enough evidence to any admin with decision power to delete this silly map that has no source and is the work of an angry croatian's nationalistic baised original research. (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)).

I also ask Ceha to not respond to this - he would probably address each one of the points and say that they are all correct, hence further promoting "overkill" by his endless unproductive worthless discussion. As we see, he always stalls discussion with irrelevant things. Therefore, I ask him to refrain from posting until Drawinius makes a statement, for he is the mediator. (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)).

If anyone has any more obscenities and unsourced monstrosities to shout out, please do so. I think I got just about everything though. (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)).

Thanks for that data, Laz17, it is very evident that the map as a lot of unexplained and unsourced municipality divisions. It was already stated before, but this exhaustive list makes it very easy to spot each of them. Frankly, my opinion is that if those issues are not resolved, the map has no educational value, an should be deleted from Commons.

I ask Ceha to have a serious look into this and try to resolve or explain each of those issues without resorting to unreliable data such as a Wikipedia article (it's circular logic, something is written in a Wikipedia article, then a map is made using that something as source, and then placed in the article to reinforce the original claim, which may be totally baseless and unsourced).

I must recall, however, that you must not block direct dialogue with Ceha, I'm trying to help a little here informally mediating the issue, but I can't serve as a messenger between both parts, nor such is the role of a mediator. If both of you keep the focus in the issue of the map, instead of the supposed intentions behind it (and behind the wish to delete the map), it would help a lot. The intention is not important. As an example, I'll appeal to Godwin's law to say that I could be a neonazi uploading war-time anti-Jewish propaganda to Commons with the most sordid intentions, and those intentions would still be completely immaterial given that the material is genuine (and thus educational) and properly licensed.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. The problem is when Ceha starts going off on unrelated tangents. It serves to ruin the discussion's value and make it annoying. To me it seems that he goes off on fewer tangents when you talk to him, because in my opinion he does not want to cooperate with me.

However, thus far Ceha has refused to admit any flaw, despite numerous obvious errors on the map. He actually made the map worse by adding more imaginary units. I somewhat doubt that he will be inclined to cooperate in a constructive manner, but we'll see. (LAz17 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)).

Well, I realy do try to comunicate with people, but unfortunately some people are best held ignored.

Darwin, I've gave wikipedia page as source to map as it showes lines of front for wich is no official source (just data from the net). I'm certain that other wikipedians with knowledge of the reggion will affirme that. Let me start with list.

1. Those 4. villages were part of Croatia until 1947. Croatia even asked for them when border was (between BiH and RH) drowned. During the war, those 4 villages (one was depopulated, but nonethe less) were held by HVO. Local Croat goverment submited proposal for making Croat municipality (as did serbian one during the war). The link Laz proposed is municipal line from 2002-2011 when Bihać municipality expanded to include few of the villages from eastern part of prewar Drvar municipality. Does Laz opposes the thesis that territory was controled by HVO during the war and that a Croat municipality existed there in that period?

2. Again, villages around Ljubija had Croat majority in 1991 census. During early phases of Bosnian war, there were suggestions of Croat municipality there (which is even showed in SDS suggestion of entity borders in 1991). Village and its suroundings were briefly controled by Croats in that period. Map which Laz showes is 1995 map. Does anybody opposes this?

3. Again, Sasina was 1991 settlment with Croatian majority. During early phases of Bosnian war, there were suggestions of Croat municipality there (which is even showed in SDS suggestion of entity borders in 1991). Village and its suroundings were briefly controled by Croats in that period. Map which Laz showes is 1995 map. Does anybody opposes this?

4. The same here, just for Ivanjska.

5. The same here.

6. The same here. (I'll try to find SDS suggestion)

7. & 8. Those parts are suggested to be part of enlarged Jajce municipality, which would include whole of prewar municipality of Jajce (Jezero was part of it) as well as border villages from Mrkonjić. That suggestions were part of Ženeva conference of BiH (see Bosnian peace plans) as well as 1995. sugestions when HVO forces controled the area).Does anybody opposes anything of this?

9. Actualy, no. Jajce with Dobretići (and few Croat villages in Mrkonjić) has Croatian majority, as Muslim/Bošnjak percentage is just a few points higher than Croats. in 1961 that municipality included Dobretići, and in that borders, Croats would have absolute majority in the area. Whole area (expect 2 southern villages) were held by HVO in 1995, and affter 1995 municipality is assumed to retained Croatian majority. (see fronts, 1961 census, etc). Does anybody opposes anything of this?

10. Washington agreement. There is a paralell between Mostar and Travnik. It was divised to be equality, and that part of municipality (actualy all of it) was controled by HVO during the early phases of the war. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

11.Vitez was enlarged by Croatian villages in Zenica municipality which were under HVO control during the early phases of the war. They were under Vitez municipal goverment. Do anybody opposes anything of this?

12.Municipal borders in Bugojno show what area HVO controled, and what area Croats labeled as theirs. In first municipal elections Croat parties (HDZ) were the victor of municipal ellections. It is interesting to ask Laz, what Bosniak domination means? In what period? The town itself did not have a mosque before the war (Bosniaks are majority muslims).Does anybody opposes anything of this?

13. & 14. Croats have been majority in Novi Travnik municipality whole of 20th and early parts of 21 century. See censuses. The border is changed to include Croatian villages in Fojnica and Bugojno municipality (which were HVO controled) in Ženeva peace conference (see David Owen's Balkan Odyssey). That villages in Fojnica were also part of Novi Travnik municipality in the beginings of 20th century. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

15.In the early part of 20th century (Austro Hungarian rule) today's Gornji Vakuf-Uskoplje (not just Gornji Vakuf, as Laz wrongly calls it) were in fact 2 seperate municipalities. In eastern part Muslim/Bosniak were majority and in western were Croats. Showed part was under HVO control in the early phase of the war. In Ženeva conference (again David Owen's Balkan Odyssey) Croats asked for themselves the western part as a bridge to other municipalities. 1991 census shows Croatian majority in that part of the municipality. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

16. Shows part of municipality which HVO controled, and which was asked in Ženeva conference.Does anybody opposes anything of this?

17. HVO controled, Croatian municipality of Doljani existed until 1998 (if I'm not mistaken). Post war plans for reorganization of municipality also existed. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

18. Croats are majority in municipality of Mostar in 2011. borders. As shown in ellections there is a 60:40 ratio in Croat favor. Croats were majority in the municipality of Mostar in every census except the one in 1991. In first democratic elections, Croatian parties (HDZ) won majority there. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

19.Acceptable to whom? Grahovo has a small population, and there is a suggestion to annex it to more populate Livno (as most of the municipalities are on the peace of land known as Livanjsko polje). In 1910 census (I think) they were part of the same municipality. Croats were majority in Grahovo in 1995-98 period and are majority in Livno (in today's borders).Does anybody opposes anything of this?

20. Croats were majority in Drvar and Glamoč in 1995-98 period. Croats are today majority in the town of Glamoč (local elections are regulary won by Croatian parties). Drvar is depopulation area. Same case as with Grahovo. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

21. As explained before. Suggestion during early phases of the war. In post 1995 world, both municipalities have Croatian majority. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

22. Kiseljak is enlarged by few villages in Visoko municipality which were HVO controled during the war and claimed by Herceg-Bosna.Does anybody opposes anything of this?

23. Municipality of Žepče had Croatian majority until 1981 census. It also has Croatian majority in 1995-2011 period (as seen by local elections). During the war Žepče and that part of Maglaj were controled by HVO.Does anybody opposes anything of this?

24. Southeast part of Teslić was a war time municipality known as Komušina under HVO control. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

25. Same thing, just for Usora. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

26. HVO control, peace plans, Ženeva conference, Washington accords, were to start?

27. Croat control in early phases of the war. Suggestions for municipality. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

28. Again, Vareš was a Croatian municipality in 1991 census, plans for expanding it onto neighbouring Croatian villages were made during the war and in peace plans . Does anybody opposes anything of this?

30. 1948 municipal borders, referendum in Doboj villages in the 90ies, HVO control. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

31. Brod is a Croatian municipality on every census that happend. Does anybody opposes anything of this? It is actualy interesanting how Laz uses different standards for Mostar and Brod or Žepče.

32. Croatians were a majority under 1991 census in Vukosavlje. North Modriča is drawned as in Contact group peace plan. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

33. Eastern parts of Modriča were claimed as Croatian during peace talks. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

34. Šamac municipality had Croatian majority in 1991 census (and before). This line is shown as one suggested in numerous peace talks. Does anybody opposes anything of this? Again, Laz'sdoble stards are clearly vissible.

35. Orašje included Croatian villages (Oštra Luka) which were part of prewar municipality of Orašje, and were controled by HVO during the war.Does anybody opposes anything of this?

35. Again, peace plans, war control....Does anybody opposes anything of this?

37. Today's municipality of Pelagićevo (also known as Gornji Žabar) had Croatian majority in 1991 census. Peace plans, war control is somwhere similar to the above. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

38. Brčko is shown (and wrote in the legend) as separate district. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

39. Municipality of Soli was a suggestion made in 1994. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

40. There is a clear majority (as shown in local elections) of Croats in Stolac municipality. In that part of Stolac (pre war municipality also included today's municipality of Berkovići) Croats are majority from 1992. In local elections there is a 2:1 ratio for Croat parties. Bogus borders are borders which where suggested during peace plans. Does anybody opposes anything of this?

So let's conclude in wich parts this critisim is flawed:

a) Critic not read leggend (in wich border creation is explained), nor info part of the map.

b) Critic used arbitrary rules (for example in Mostar, although there are different borders 1991 census is still in power, while in Brod and Šamac it is not), whith clear anti-croatian byass.

c) Critic used some miss informations and false data (example Novi Travnik)

d) Critic does not recognise war time municipal borders, nor plans for municipal changes made on long talks at Ženeva Conference and Bosnian peace plans....

So unforutnately, Darvin, this critisism is of no value. If you have any questions I'll gladly answer to it. --Čeha (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided to cave in an ram you hard on population figures. Lets start with mostar. The bosniak were the biggest group in the town in 1971, 1981, and 1991. In the municipality they were the biggest group in 1971 and 1991. In 1981 many declared themselves as yugoslavs, otherwise they would also be the biggest group then too. If we look at zepce in 1971, 1981, and 1991, we can see that the bosniaks had some 60% of the town's population, while croats had about 20%. In the municipality the bosniaks had about 45% vs the croatian 40% for those three census years. Meanwhile, municipalities like pelagicevo were over 95% serbian... before and after the war. So, clearly ceha does not know what he is talking about. If anyone wants I will provide much data with direct links from the official statistics office that shows this. I know what I am talking about. (LAz17 (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)).

This is the stuff, I'm talking about. From the text Laz posted it is not even certain that he recognaises official censuses in BiH. More over, when he is caught red handed he starts to confuse towns with municipalities. Mostar municipal borders are not the same in 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2011. I'm not even going to comment the claime that some of the people are in fact of one nation when they registered themselves as members of another nation in official census. Non recognizing official data? POV. Žepče under current municipal(2011) changes had Croat majority by the census of 1991. The difference is that in 2011 municipal borders is old 1991 Žepče municipality and a list of Croat villages from Maglaj and Zavidovići municipalities as it can be seen on this map .

More over, Pelagićevo municipality in 2011 borders included settlments of Njivak, Orlovo Polje, Gornja and Donja Tramošnica, Turić, Blaževac, Porebrice, Samarevac and Pelagićevo. From 9 settlments, Croats were majority in 6. 5 from the settlments were somewhat larger, and out of those 5 Croats were majority in 4. Map of Pelagićevo can be found in here and list here. In 1991 census territory of today's Pelagićevo municipality there had 6.154 Croats and 4.280 Serbs (out of 11.156), or 55% Croats and 38% Serbs. In territories shown on map Croatian percentage is even higher. So this is a blant lie.--Čeha (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 (UTC)

Mostar's municipal borders were the same between 1971 and 1991. In 2011 a small part was not part of it - the so called Eastern Mostar. But it only had a thousand er so Serbs, so it doesn't change the overall picture much. Now then, since you are clearly not aware of the population census, here are the figures and go educate yourself before you accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about. 1971[12] 1981[13] 1991[14] So clearly you do not know how to look at numbers. If you want a visualization of how you are wrong, here, [15].

Zepce's borders were not changed. That's pure bullshit. YOu tried pulling that fake map that you produced on the english wikipedia, and it was quickly deleted. It's a shame that the croat wikipedia let you rip off an image produced initially by crostat.

Nice, you give us a link on pelagicevo that states that it was 99% serbian. Yet you claim the opposite. Here's even your croat wikipedia, [16] Enjoy.

We clearly see that this guy is very troubled. Ceha, don't bother replying, just wait for an admin or someone to close this out via deleting the worthless and misinforming image. (LAz17 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)).

Ok, this is not accademic discusion. Firstly here is the link about changes of Žepče municipality.

See any of the maps of 2011 municipal borders and compare them to 1991. I dot know if Laz is intentionaly lying or is his english is just bad. If the latter is the case, I'm certain that he can notice the difference between village of Pelagićevo (one settlment) and the 2011. municipality (wich includes 9 villages) and which had croatian majority in 1991 census. Difference is clear in my post, so I'm afraid he is just lying. --Čeha (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ceha, did you look at the official censuses that I linked? Did you see how I proved you do not know what you're talking about for places like Mostar? Where is the sorry from you?

There is not a single map produced by any branch of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last ten years that shows that Zepce enlarged. Modern maps do not show it. Hence, the whole thing is a silly idea.

Lets look at the official website. на овом простору прије рата живјело негдје око 11 000 становника, а од тога око 55 % су били Срби, а око 45 % Хрвати. on this territory before the war there lived somewhere around 11,000 people, of which 55% were serbs, and 45% were croats. Aren't official statements beautiful? [17] (LAz17 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)).

Well Laz I'm really sorry, and I do not realy know why am I wasting time with you? You gave me map of census of 1991 on Mostar? Mostar's borders changed in time and in 1995. few villages were left in RS in a new municipality (Eastern Mostar) and few villages from Nevesinje (I think Žuja and parts of Rabina and Sabinjani). So you realy do not know what you are talking about.

For Žepče, I've gave you link on goverment (federation) decission. It was also the source how municipality of Žepče got it's local autonomy in school department as in new borders (but by census 1991) Croats made majority there. But that's not important. The same goes for your false claim of Croat minority in Novi Travnik. Missinformed. Pure fellow.

Pelagićevo? First thank google for translation. Second local community Kladuša does not exist in that municipality (at least not by 1991 census, link2 and local community Ćendići is in reality not a settlment, but few of it (as it is not found on settlment list)link. Third Sa određenom dozom rezerve možemo procijeniti da je na ovom prostoru prije rata živjelo negdje oko 11.000 stanovnika, a od toga oko 55% su bili Srbi, a oko 45% Hrvati. Bio je određen broj i ostalih nacionalnih kategorija, ali u vrlo malom i zanemarivom obujmu is translated as With a certain amount of reserves we can estimate that in this region before the war was around 11,000 inhabitants, of which about 55% were Serbs, and Croats 45%. He has a number of national and other categories, but in a very small and negligible volume

in other words, it is just their's gues. As I explained in my post before, that gues is false. Municipality realy had 10 434 residents, of which were 55% Croats and 38% Serbs. But, yes it is easier to fabricate data than to use excell, census and see for yourself municipality numbers. Frankly I did not expect anything better. --Čeha (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

To summarize in short...

You reject any criticism, regardless of the issue - in general.

Your excuses for keeping certain things are the following... "territory controlled by Croatian army units" - in no way does that make that area a municipality. "Territory where croats were the majority" - again, in no way is this a municipality. That's basically it. This is ridiculous. I can go into detail on each thing that Ceha said, but I'll basically keep repeating myself over and over. I am not sure how to even respond to some of his stuff - for example he says that Grahovo is a depopulated area - yet they have about 10,000 people, almost all of which are serbian. Or, for example how he does not know census results - I'd link exact results if necessary.

This map is a biased stupid map, from the very outset. It is something that is nice for croat nationalists, who want to claim more of bosnia and herzegovina. It is necessary to stamp out original research, especially if it is biased in a nationalistic tone. Therefore is is necessary to delete this map which almost nobody finds to be of any usefulness whatsoever. (LAz17 (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)).

Grahovo had 8311 residents in 1991 census Bosansko_Grahovo and now has got maybe a few thousands. It had 10 residents for square kilometar! In 2011 it maybe has 2 residents for square kilometar... Other commentaries are basicly nationalistic POV. In the majority of areas which HVO controled during the war there was not only military, but also and civil goverment. And that was a municipality. As for Croatian majority critisism it is only noted that Croats on the areas they were majority organized their's local goverment (municipal), or had plans of doing so. I do not see what is the issue here. --Čeha (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please, people, stop debating demographics, that is completely irrelevant to the main stated problems with this map which are about municipalities which allegedly don't exist. Ceha, this: "In the majority of areas which HVO controled during the war there was not only military, but also and civil goverment. And that was a municipality." is the sort of claim that can't be made without a solid source supporting it, for each of those alleged municipalities. Demographic data is a minor issue and can be more easily fixed using the Census after the main problems with the municipalities are resolved, please don't bring it again here, it only confuses the whole question.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Maps shows Borders of municipalities which would include most of Croats in BiH(1991 status). Red borders show municipalities in RS, orange ones in Federation. Map does not shows 1991 border of municipalities and is a collection of municipalities which existed during 1991-2005 or were planed in that period (which is stated in the leggend).--Čeha (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, why are we discussing war time municipalities here, in a map that is supposed to be the state of the country as of 1991? Am I missing something here? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Answered above. One question, how do you stand for Laz's wording? --Čeha (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? Because it's his way of promoting greater croatia, and greater croat places in its neighbor. Many like to do it from all sides, to try to use maps and whatever convoluted reasoning they could find to try to somehow justify their dreams. People even wrote books on this subject... How to lie with maps for example. Good book though. The very sad thing is that nowadays anyone can make a map, while in the 1800s only few could. Too bad. (LAz17 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)).

Not even the 1800s maps are safe here, a 19th century map from South America here in Commons has been uploaded with a retouched version which includes the city of the uploader, which was nowhere into existence at the time the map was done - and the map is still there. Anyway, if the map is supposed to represent the municipality status in Bosnia as of 1991, it's completely wrong from top to bottom (as has been claimed from the start, granted).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

His map represents "potential municipalities". At least that's what I seem to get out of it. Very subjective and not fit for an encyclopedia. It's just original research. It disregards all borders, as he goes about creating criteria to create a new Croat municipality in order to suggest to people that "oh my look at their presence", at a time when their numbers are ever decreasing. (LAz17 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)).

Laz an conspiracy theories:) Darvin, you should have read map descriptions. --Čeha 10:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have red the map legend and description. It says "Borders of municipalities which would include most of Croats in BiH(1991 status)". this is plainly confusing. What does that mean? What is the 1991 status? The demographics only? And nothing there hints that the map deals with fictional municipalities, since it says "borders of municipalities which would include...", it can be assumed that we are talking about real municipalities which would include that ethnic group, not fictional municipalities designed with some unclear criteria.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding now is that you intended to design a map showing potential new municipalities that would be created after the Croatian invasion of Bosnia (don't know if this is the PC term for it, but whatever) in places where there was a Croatian majority as of 1991. Is this correct? If so, I urge you to correct the map description. In any case, all those "potential new municipalities" must be individually sourced, as well as the demographics data.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 07:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Status is wrong word. Census would be better. I'll change that. Map speaks of the territories were in that perriod existed Croatian municipalities. There was newer Croatian invansion of Bosnia. Croats are one of 3 nations there. --Čeha (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In what period? During the war? What is the time frame? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (I don't know the details of that war, from my understanding Croatia assembled an army there, that's why I called it "invasion", I suspected already it was not the proper word for it)

1991-2005. No, HVO was an army made of local Croats. Croatian army interveened in BiH in 1995 on the call of Federation goverment, thus making the necessary prequsitions for making Dayton agreement. Also Croatian army interveened few times in the war near the border. But all of that is beside the point. --Čeha (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, knowing that, here goes a suggestion to solve this question:

First: Change the map description to something like "Municipality status of BiH from 1991 to 2005, displaying municipalities which would include a majority of Croats according to 1991 census". Done

Second: Edit your map, and place some ID in the questioned municipalities, a number or something.

Third: Complete the description with a source for every number, both for the census data (if it does not come from a single source) and for any changes of municipality status (new municipality, proposed municipality, etc)

Once you have done that, I believe we can close this DR and continue any eventual discussion on the File talk. But please, use valid sources, not Wikipedia or something, though you may link to the Wikipedia article if the issue is better explained there.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ddarwin, this remains original research that is unsourced. His logic that since there were croats here at some point in time, that is a municipality. That is plainly wrong and very biased. This region is very controversial, and this original research is a big insult to other ethnic groups in that country. (LAz17 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)).

That's why I asked for every questioned municipality to be numbered and independently sourced. The map can include planned municipalities such as Soli or others for which a source is found. I agree that this is more an "ideological" map than anything else, which possibly follows an agenda, and its purpose is not very clear to me, but that is the kind of thing that should not get in the way of DR decisions. It is also possible that the map is being made in good faith to provide some understanding for the situation during the war. If Ceha manages to source it, it should remain. If the sources are find to be biased, then another map can be done without them or with other sources, and then let the Wikipedia projects chose between the two. In any case, the sources must be minimally notable, no Internet forums, no comment sections in web pages, no Wikipedia, and so on.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ceha, please refrain from inserting your comments wherever you want. There should be some chronological order, you are making things only more messy. (LAz17 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)).

Comment: Well, I am mostly not interested in this discussion, but there is one thing that user Ceha should clarify. He provided description that this map show municipalities that were "planed in 1991-2005 period", so my question is: planed by whom? If creation of these municipalities was planed by some Croatian organization or by some politician, it should be specified which organization and which politician are in question here. The reliable source that mention such plans should be also provided. If that info and source are provided then this map could serve educational purpose of showing Croatian political plans for creation of ethnic Croatian municipalities. However, without clear clarification of who exactly planed creation of these municipalities, educational purpose of this work would be unclear. PANONIAN (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, if it is correct (as user LAz17 suggested) that this map is some sort of original research of uploader and that uploader presented his own assumption that "where ever Croats lived in BIH that would be a municipality at some point in time", I would suggest that user Ceha modify this map in a way to show only those municipalities that really were planed by Croatian politicians and organizations. In that case, educational purpose of this map would not be disputed. PANONIAN (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Kept. What a waste of time, effort, and 17,000 words.

Please understand that Commons firm policy is that we do not judge the accuracy of maps such as this one. Commons is a repository of images. Whether or not to use this image is up to editors on the various Wikipedias and other users throughout the world. We simply keep it here so that it can be used. We do not attest to its accuracy, nor will we delete it if some parties believe it is inaccurate.

Please do not waste our time by opening this a third time.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Hrvatske_opcine_u_BiH.png

This image is NOT USED ANYWHERE, and LACKS A SOURCE, not to mention how many countless mistakes there are. This should be deleted asap for we can not accept unsourced original research. LAz17 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Speedy keep. The source of the image is "own work" by Ceha. I have added {{Disputed map}} which you should have done long ago.

Please read my comments above. We all have better things to do. If you nominate this image for deletion again, you will be blocked from editing on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)