Talk:1879 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1879 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130919000210/https://www.fzs.ba/Dem/Popis/PopisiStanB.htm to http://www.fzs.ba/Dem/Popis/PopisiStanB.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does someone delete data?

Can a person who deletes tables and data on religious affiliation explain why he does so?

Hi 109.165.153.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've been reverting you addition as you have not provided any references. When you add something to Wikipedia you need to show where the data comes from, you can read Wp:Verifiability for details. Please do not re-add you additions without supplying references, it is not considered correct behaviour on Wikipedia. If you have any questions please just ask.92.5.2.97 (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI you can sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. That way people can see who has made the comment. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original documents i.e. census (and very detailed with data for each village and town in Bosnia and Herzegovina) of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Austro-Hungarian period was set. Someone is constantly removing those links. https://www.scribd.com/document/24776630/Popis-stanovni%C5%A1tva-u-Bosni-i-Hercegovini-1879

The first 24 pages of the 1895. census have a brief overview of earlier censuses (including data on religion): https://kupdf.net/download/popis-stanovnistva-bih-1895_5af31ba0e2b6f50b7f4a03b6_pdf

There is no more obvious historical source than this. I emphasize - this is a primary historical source. Anyone who does not have enough knowledge to use such sources is not qualified to edit articles on this topic.

Anyone making any change should explain their actions/must substantiate it with evidence and not remove relevant historical sources (in this case official documents of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy). I see no purpose in removing the old and well-substantiated text devoid of any comment other than statistical and empirical data. Do not do that again without prior analysis of the posted sources. Someone is also deleting data related to the 1885-1910. censuses.

BY THE WAY - Obviously, you are not familiar with the history of this article. That's not my addition. These are data that were posted a long time ago. Someone (you say it's you.) has been trying to remove them lately. Without any explanation.

Hi again. The reference that you have add to the articles ONLY includes details for men, women, and the total. It does NOT include details for religion. Please ADD references for religious breakdown. It appears that the second link you've mentioned includes that breakdown, if you had added it to the articles previously I wouldn't have removed them. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad we resolved the misunderstanding quickly.

QUOTE: "The reference that you have add to the articles ONLY includes details for men, women, and the total." During the previous editing, I reversed the first article with tables and graphs, but then I did not notice that there were no sources on it that the article was previously supported by. Now that omission has been corrected.

All that I posted was on this page before, but someone removed those sources on several occasions, probably in order to create a wrong impression. As it is known, various extreme right-wingers have infiltrated Wikipedia and are trying to edit articles in accordance with their ideology and not in accordance with historical sources. It is important to note here that there were other sources (e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907-1912) but that they were also removed.

For example - relevant sources are removed first. So then something insufficiently relevant is placed instead of those sources and then after a couple of weeks or months the article is challenged. Organized team (probably with double profiles) and procedure. "Inappropriate" articles are attacked according to the "wolf pack" system, creating the illusion of consensus on the issue of challenging the credibility of an article. It is usually the same team of people whose harmful activities have yet to be eliminated. There was a warning on Wikipedia about this problem. All this will be easier to identify and remove when the appropriate software (with a database based on the Congress library) starts in-depth checking of articles, as well as the activities of all editors and all talk pages.

Requested move 14 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No overarching consensus appears present for either the proposed move or any of the other suggestions posed in the discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– This would provide general consistency for articles in Category:Censuses by country, following the similar format used for elections. It also follows sentence case. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move, per nominator. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  15:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of demonyms (Indian, Irish, etc.). After reading these a few times, the new titles do not make sense to me, and I think this is a case where "majority rules" in regards to forming a precedence on naming these titles fails. For one, using demonyms in titles can be misleading since it could lead readers into thinking the census is about all people of the demonym, regardless where they live. In addition, the move request as stated is not even consistent in that regard: If using solely demonyms, the moves involving subjects related to Bosnia and Herzegovina would include the phrase "Bosnian and Herzegovinan" in them, which they do not as they use the name of the country instead. Too many inconsistencies here, and too much room for ambiguous assumptions. (If all of the subjects of Category:Censuses by country had consistent titles, my vote would be on titles of the form "YEAR census of COUNTRY" or "YEAR COUNTRY census" since the word "population" before "census" is unnecessary, given that Population census redirects to Census.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the term census has a specific meaning, being an exercise by a state to determine the population living there, I don't think there's an ambiguity that the Indian census could actually include the Indian diaspora. There may have been such an exercise carried out by a state at one time, but I can't readily think of one, or see one within this category. As I say, most in the category use the demonym, without anyone suggesting that the 2021 Australian census is about Australians world over. I confess to having been somewhat uncertain as the best demonym to use for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there are some cases within the category that don't use a demonym, e.g. 2020 United States census or 2021 United Kingdom census‎.
    Therefore, the style I'm proposing is "YEAR DEMONYM (unless COUNTRY more common in circumstances) census", in the style of WP:NC-ELECT. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with country name—the nomination lists country names (e.g. Sweden-Norway, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hong Kong) but then deviates with India, Ireland, and Palestine. For consistency's sake—and for the least amount of ambiguity, as argued above—don't use demonyms (e.g. 1922 Palestine census instead of 1922 Palestinian census). 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've followed the use of either country name or demonym on pages such as 2021 Hong Kong legislative election and 2006 Palestinian legislative election.
    If this selection were to be moved to 1922 Palestine census and 2021 India census, that would be inconsistent with current examples in Category:Censuses by country such as 2021 Canadian census. Generally, demonym is used, unless the demonym would be unnatural or confusing, e.g. 2020 United States census. Demonyms have the advantage of being natural, if following the WP:CRITERIA. I don't think there are examples in the current subcategories of country names currently being preferred to demonyms, where the demonyms are generally used and would not be confusing.
    That said, my aim with this proposal was to find consistency in naming convention between all those in Category:Censuses by country and its subcategories. If that can't be achieved, we could at least aim toward concision, changing "population census" to "census", and using WP:LOWERCASE. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I know, atleast for the Indian Census, that the "Census of India" is the title as a COMMONNAME by 6:1 by a quick search (and many results for "Indian Census" are titled "Census of India"). I think similar rationales might apply to the other titles as well.
    IMO doing a large amalgamated move for all of these is a bad idea; moving these to the same format while moving away from the commonname (which is actually consistent for each country already, inconsistency is between different countries) is unlikely to help the reader. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: I think this merits more discussion; very divided opinions here. So far there have been at least 3 different points of view: 1. [year] [country/demonym] census; 2. [year] [country] census; 3. No particular order, use COMMONNAME —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of demonyms. These are census of populations within a state, so state names should be clear. "Indian census" can easily be misinterpreted as a census of Native Americans, "Irish census" might lead one to assume it includes Northern Ireland, "Palestinian" might lead one to assume it excludes the Jewish community, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would argue that the context of a census has a particular meaning of a state determining the population within its jurisdiction. To take the local example I'm most familiar with, I can't see any genuine confusion within context that the Irish census might be interpreted to include Northern Ireland.
However, I can also see that there isn't a consensus for a single naming convention here, so I'm not going to press the question. There might be a reason in many of these cases that what was otherwise an unwritten convention wasn't used here. In that case, might I propose that we do move at a minimum to rename "population census" to "census" to remove the redundancy, and that we apply sentence case? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1879_population_census_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&oldid=1195761219"