This is an archive of past discussions about Ivo Andrić. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion
User:Garcon0101 says here that Croatian University is biased. Well, the first part of the edit is changing the location of Belgrade. Now, either he was born in the city or he wasn't. The description of where the city was located isn't from anywhere. Second, you changed his heritage but there is a cite to the New York Times (I haven't checked it yet), so your complaint is again inappropriate. Third, you add the Young Bosnia membership, without a source, which seems hypocritical. Fourth, you remove a image, which has nothing to do with Croatian University. I'll review the links to CroatianHistory.net but could you at least explain these? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, how about some geography lesson? The article states that he > died < in Belgrade, no one changed anything about his birth location, Yugoslavia; and I changed it to Belgrade, Serbia, Yugoslavia, because Yugoslavia consisted of more countries then one, like Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro. So that edit is completely logical.
About the NY Times article, it is an old article about literature on Balkans, and only small part is dedicated to a mention of Ivo, I don't see how that can be deemed as a "reliable source" of anything. It simply untrue.
Third, about the Young Bosnia, it is hard to find reliable references for it, but not even Rjecina edited it out, cause it doesn't have that much of an impact on the article, it's more like a interesting side note.
And about the image I removed that because it's the only thing that Croats try to use in their attempts to prove that Ivo was of Croatian heritage, althoughit has been explained many times why that document doesn't mean anything and that it is from the young days of Ivo, after his studies on Zagreb Univeristy. -- Garcon0101 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It is the New York Times. That's a reliable source under our policies. Period. Provide an alternative source if you have one or otherwise let it go. The rest of the article is a mess without sources. I frankly want to wipe it out and get something accurate on the guy. Second, the fact that Rjecina didn't care isn't enough for me. Things need sources. The image is an accurate description of how he described himself, correct? That's all it is. If you have a reliable source that counters it, then it's another issue. You can't claim one source isn't reliable so it's worth removing and then say other things either go or belong regardless of the fact that you have no sources. In fact, the entire classification section is without sources and is completely original research in violation of policy. There is no need for any of that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you agree to removing the description completely? Just "born in 1892 in the village..." and then start off the classification section with "While called at times a Bosnian Croat, he denies the description...."? That way, the intro goes on and the real meat of the argument is where it belongs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Long time ago I have added 5 sources for statements that his parents are Bosnian Croats and this has been disputed only by vandals and banned users puppets.
Latter in life Ivo Andrić will declare himself Serb, but this is not changing fact that his parents are Croats or somebody think that with that he can change his parents nation ?--Rjecina (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Have to agree with Garcon. The sources weren't reliable per the standards. I also removed it down the classification section. The truth is, it is disputed and that's where it belongs. Garcon, so in that book, how does he describe himself? Is he just vague? Serbian? Serbo-Croatian? Is it just a denial of Croatian as a whole? There is some room for context here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, ok, those weren't known to me before but honestly your tone is not appreciated. Also, reverting to put it just as "Croatian parentage" while ignoring the fact there is an issue is not helpful. Last, and I mean this, you call someone a "banned user" again without any evidence at all and I will block you. That's it. You have been warned enough. I do not appreciate your tone or attitude at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
In fact, Haverford has the best description: "Andric is claimed as a hero by both Croat nationalists (he was born to a Croat family) and Serb nationalists (he later identified himself with Serbs)." Would everyone agree that's at least fair? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but no. I will agree with Haverford description but not with description in article. If we write:
"Andric is claimed as a hero by both Croat nationalists (he was born to a Croat family) and Serb nationalists (he later identified himself with Serbs)" (Haverford description) it is OK, but today definition in wikipedia article is wrong and misleading and I can't accept that.--Rjecina (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I would advise Ricky81682 to avoid statements like "The other sources are in no way reliable. I'm going to remove them." In the archived discussion are given statements coming from Lovett (Anric's translator) McNeil (University of Chicago professor and historian) and Oesterling - Swedish Academy secretary. All this is the first hand information. The New York Times is just a newspaper and any information about Andric that came 30 years after his death must be taken with a huge grain of salt.--71.252.106.166 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Who cares about the reliability of sources anyway, it's the American version of history that matters. [3] - Andrić's own signature vs. NYT? Didn't stand a chance. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me be more specific. First of all, the rule here is that verifiability beats out truth. Truth is not a defense. Following the criteria for reliable sources, self-published sources such as [4] and [5] are not generally reliable. Now, the first citation does itself cite a book. If someone reviewed that book and used that as a citation, that would be fine. The question is who wrote the "A Croat by birth, he became a Serbian by choice" in the article? It wasn't Lovett or McNeil. It was the website's author. Who was that? Is he someone reliable? That's my point. Look, I hate the idea of using a decades-old Times article but the Times is reliable per the standards and it is on point. I always say the same thing: find an alternative reliable source and we can play with the language. If you want something else, offer it. And please don't offer to just revert the article back to a prior version. Compromise and I think everyone will be happy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
For the signature part, it would be a LOT better if someone could find a reliable secondary source explaining it. Just putting the image up there and making claims about it feels too much like original research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
We are having NYT, Yale and Haverford which are saying that his parents are Croats. I am sure that this is enought for verifiability. There is no question that he has latter declared himself Serb, but his parents are Croats:
"Andric is claimed as a hero by both Croat nationalists (he was born to a Croat family) and Serb nationalists (he later identified himself with Serbs)"Haverford.
"Andrić was born of Croatian parentage on 1892" Yale
"A Bosnian Croat, Andric won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1961" NYT
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Let me a make a new section, to split the discussion off. I was wrong in my edit summary. Haverford does use "nationalists" and so my argument was totally invalid. I think the article seems more neutral without the word "nationalists" because the truth is, there is a question overall of where he fits in historically. Neutral observers would want to know as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
We are having agreement. I have deleted from Haverford definition word nationalist.
Sad truth is that nobody in ex Yugoslavia like Andrić. If you ask Croatians greatest Croatian writer is Miroslav Krleža. Serbians are having different greatest writer and Bosnians are against Andrić because of reasons in this article.--Rjecina (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Rjecina, but Andrić is nowhere near Krleža. Had he not received Nobel prize, Andrić would be just an average writer that would fall into oblivion after a few centuries, being studied only by high-school kids and college undergratues because they have him on their reading list. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Signature again
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is there anything anyone has beyond an image that is impossible to authenticate (and hence original research) about his signature? If not, I would suggest removing it. Wherever the image came from, there should be someone somewhere who is a reliable source who discusses his significance. In fact, I don't think the image is even necessary to the article, as an adequate textual description would be fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Imprisonment during WWI
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is there any more information than "Because of his political activities" for Andrić's imprisonment? I would think that is something somewhat relevant to his bio. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Andrić's nationality
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
I think that we must consider that Andrić spent most of his literall life in serbina cultural area, and also he was a member of serbian academy of scientists. He also considered himself as a Serb, and he always writes about serbian culturae and history and things connected with srbia not with Croatia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.194.178 (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ivo Andric,felt and declared himself as Croat all his life, perhaps most strongly with the unfinished novel, "Omer-Pasha Latas" .. (05.03.2009)
Pa, i Krleža je svojedobno živio u Beogradu, pisao ekavicom i ćirilicom, pa ga to ne čini bogznakakvom srbendom. Andrić je bio etnički Hrvat i sâm se tako jedan dobar dio života izjašnjavao, a to što je kasnije pisao na književnom srpskom (odnosno bolje reći srpskohrvatskom sa tipično bošnjačko-srpskim leksikom i pravopisom) je potpuno druga stvar. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
i mi srbi imamo etnicki nase pisce koji zive u kanadi, pisu na engleskom i smatraju se kanadskim piscima srpskog porekla. Tako je i Andric sprski pisac hrvatskog etnickog porekla. Njegov jezik je, kao jezik Visegrada, srpski, njegov stil je beogradski i time opet srpski i konacno njegove teme su ili bosanskohercegovacke ili sprske, hrvatskih nema.
I strongly recommend that the information on Ivo Andric be modified, as it is completely inaccurate. In the very book, which catapulted him to international prominence, 'The Bridge on the River Drina', the first page states that "Ivo Adric was himself a Serb". I realise you say you put things on Wikipedia that can be proven, so I suggest that you update your information to show that he was NOT in fact Croatian. Also, the picture you have claiming to be evidence of him suggesting he was Croatian and Catholic is NOT true, it does not say that at all. I look forward to seeing this error corrected.
I strongly recommend that the information on Ivo Andric be modified, as it is completely inaccurate. In the very book, which catapulted him to international prominence, 'The Bridge on the River Drina', the first page states that "Ivo Adric was himself a Serb". I realise you say you put things on Wikipedia that can be proven, so I suggest that you update your information to show that he was NOT in fact Croatian. Also, the picture you have claiming to be evidence of him suggesting he was Croatian and Catholic is NOT true, it does not say that at all. I look forward to seeing this error corrected.
I agree that Andric felt and considered himself as a Serb. He was member of SERBIAN Acadamey of Science and Art, wrote in Serbian Cyrillic and you have his signature in Serbian Cyrillic as well as name on his grave is written in Serbian Cyrillic in Belgrade Old Cemetry!
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I strongly recommend that the information on Ivo Andric be modified, as it is completely inaccurate. In the very book, which catapulted him to international prominence, 'The Bridge on the River Drina', the first page states that "Ivo Adric was himself a Serb". I realise you say you put things on Wikipedia that can be proven, so I suggest that you update your information to show that he was NOT in fact Croatian. Also, the picture you have claiming to be evidence of him suggesting he was Croatian and Catholic is NOT true, it does not say that at all. I look forward to seeing this error corrected.
There is already entire section dedicated to Andrić's classification, can't you see it? The issue is far from being as trivial as you put it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
--- Omer-Pasha Latas is key! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends, to understand „the enigma Andric“, the crucial is his novel „Omer-Pasha Latas“ and the question: Why didn't he finish the novel „Omer-Pasha Latas“? What did Andric forsaw, in conection with the ending of the novel, when he told Ljubo Jandric on 12.Juni 1974 in Sarajevo: „Other bards will come and sing a song about what my soul feels, when the evening bell rings“ (Source: "Sa Ivom Andricem", Author: Ljubo Jandric ; Publisher: Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo 1982, page 412 ). By my thinking, with the content, structure and unfinished story of that novel Andric has probably sent the last message about the future of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Particulary in the 90's of 20th century „there were many Latas“ in that country. In some way, the unfinished novel as a paradigm of mentality, continues to live on in the present. And the future? Maybe the Croats make him their greatest writer of all times and raise a monument in his honor in Zagreb.. (19.09.2009)
Ivo Andrić is croato-serbian or serbo-croatian writer from Bosnia and Herzegovina. And that is clear and self-explanatory!
I strongly think that after all these years he deserves monument in Zagreb and particulary in his native Travnik.
It does not matter what you wish for, but what IS. It was His choice to be remembered as a Serb. I can't believe how hard you try to negate his own wishes, for your nationalistic gains. Josip Jelacic, famous Ban of Croatia, was born in Petrovaradin, today part of Novi Sad, Serbia. Nobody claimed him as a Serb, he made his own choice.
Dispute
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Threats like this [6] will get you nowhere. You have introduced problematic sources: [7] is a Wiki clone, [8] unreliable, [9] unreliable Serb source. Hell the only reliable source (Britannica) you have contradicts you and says he that was a "writer of novels and short stories in the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian language" [10]. No where does it say he's "of [[Serbia]]n origin". Furthermore your removal of sourced information on various articles such as these is hypocritical to say the least. ◅ PRODUCER(TALK)16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Serbia is legal ancestor of Yugoslavia. And that sources are not unreliable, you just dont like them. You may ask if that sources are RS on the WP:RS/noticeboard, but until then, there are no problems with them. --Tadija (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"legal ancestor of Yugoslavia"? Are you actually being serious? This is your argument for your edit? For the sources review WP:RS. Your nonsensical edit here [11] blatantly calling my edits "vandalism" because you disagree was not addressed here. Again nowhere does your sole reliable source say he is "of [[Serbia]]n origin". ◅ PRODUCER(TALK)17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
LoL, congratulations you can use google. Again you bring up unreliable sources, whats your reasoning behind this? it appears on a website therefore it must be true? I urge you to read WP:RS. ◅ PRODUCER(TALK)00:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any RS that he is Bosnian? Any at all, even unreliable. And it is not unreliable, stop POV. --Tadija (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you disputing he was born where present day BiH stands? or the part claiming that he is claimed by Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian literature? if so, it says it in the sole reliable source that you provided. [14]◅ PRODUCER(TALK)15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, as you said that this is RS, i will copy something from there:
born Oct. 10, 1892, Dolac, near Travnik, Bosnia
died March 13, 1975, Belgrade, Yugos. (now Serbia)
Ivo Andrić, 1961.
writer of novels and short stories in the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian language, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1961...
It DOES NOT matter who claims him, and never was a matter of his writing. He lived long enough to declare himself what ever ethnicity he wanted, and He chose Serbian. You don't have to search for Mona Liza's smile in his book Omer Pasa Latas, or any other for that matter. There are valid documents that legally prove his will to be known as a Serb. I like Rade Serbedzija, and (he told that him self) he is Serb by birth, but he obviously like to spend his time in Croatia. It would not shock me to find him declare himself officially as a Croat (maybe he already did), if he want to do that, it is His (and I repeat) His choice. It doesn't matter what I or you think or like. Those are valid facts, that government in Croatia or Bosnia never officially disputed. He died as a Serb, and if you put nationality beneath his picture, you should put His own choice, not yours or mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavle M (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent edits.
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
As it is written on the category page: The people listed below were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with the city of Belgrade (capital of Serbia) and its surrounding metropolitan area.
So as Andrić lived here for 30 years, i will revert this category. This is out of question to discus.--Tadijataking
This category description is nonsense, "People from (city)" categories are reserved to show the persons birth place. Take a look at other city categories. ◅ PRODUCER(TALK)
Sorry? category description is nonsense? All categories work like this. This is not my invention, it was like that even before i joined wikipedia, so please, be serious. --Tadijataking
Please, wikipedia does not follow "Nobel prize official site" as it's main rule. Wikipedia have it's own ones. There are numerous sources, that claim he is Serbian, and Croat author. At the end, on the page you have image where Ivo Andrić declared himself as Croatian. And on his ONLY and OFFICIAL Foundation page you can see that he is regarded as Serbian winner. Also, wikipedia is not what you think, or what i think, it must be neutral. It so many sources claim that he is Serbian, that should be included also!
Now, please, respond, and talk to me. As you know, you have been blocked numerous times because of your blink reverts. Now it is time to talk! --Tadijataking22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
First, i created template today, and Croatian template already was on the page. As you can see, if was created week before today. You didn't say anything. Do you have any argument? List of Nobel laureates have it's own rules, and i will respect that until it is changed. Now, please, stop disusing me, and move to the content. Any argument at all? --Tadijataking22:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Then you should have removed the template because of its POV not retaliate with more POV. He was granted the award in relation to Yugoslavia [15] not Croatia or Serbia as these templates mislead the reader into thinking. The "List of Nobel laureates" article does not go by what nationality you think a person is. Ffs because we're discussing Nobel laureates stop ignoring what the official Nobel laureates website has to say.
But, my friend, official Nobel laureates website say only "Yugoslavia". As all of us know, Yugoslavia don't exist any more. In that case, legal inheritor continue. As you know, Serbia is legal inheritor of Yugoslavia. By sport medals, by international organizations membership... Also, Andrić lived in Belgrade for 30 years. He talked about himself as a Serb. By those arguments, i would return template. What are your arguments for deletion? --Tadijataking23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary Serbia is not the "legal inheritor" (assuming you mean successor) of Yugoslavia, but one of many [16]. Again we're discussing the Nobel laureates template. In the Nobel laureates related lists the official Nobel website dictates the content, your observations of him having "lived in Belgrade for 30 years" or "talked about himself as a Serb" are irrelevant. ◅ PRODUCER(TALK)23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, Serbia is regarded as a legal successor of Yugoslavia - but no you are right, under the legality of the Croat megalomaniacs and monomaniacs it sure isn't. Just look at wikipedia's political and sporting information regarding Yugoslavia and Serbia and you will see that it is the successor.
On another note, there is speculation as to whether his father Antun was his biological father and since he declared himself a Serb I don't see any contraversy on the topic of his ethnicity. He was, in his words, a Serb. Croatia, unlike the Croat megalomaniacs of wikipedia, regards him as both a Serb and a Croat writer while Serbs exclusively as a Serb. Deal with it guys. Even if it says "Bosnian Croat" on this site do you really think that changes anything, that it changes the truth? Pathetic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.25.80 (talk)
On the contrary, Serbia is seen as a successor-state to Yugoslavia primarily by the Serbs who lived there and seriously by no-one else. Such allegations wont sustain objectivity since a) Not one real proof was presented to back up his nationality you claim (i.e quote from the man himself, excerpt from a book or document), like the one on the page stating he was a Croat b) Wikipedia is obviously not a source of professional practice c) Most acclaimed citations found anywhere state otherwise c) Even if hypothetically Serbia is "successor state", you can just as much claim Miroslav Krleža and Meštrović, since both also said that they were "Yugoslavs". Things just don't go that way, I'm afraid.
For instance, union of two states led to Kingdom of SHS, which was created by both parties (ergo, jointly!), and both agreed voluntarily (at first). First Yugoslavia eventually dissolved and was again established by the communists under the leadership of Tito. This does not make Serbia as successor-state, sice the Yugoslavia Andrić lived in, was not a Serb-controlled state.
By following your analogy, we can consider Plautus as Italian (remember the Italian irridentism ?)
Wikipedia does not portray truth, but what is most accepted by a wider range of people and what is generally suited for an encyclopedia. Try looking for a photograph, citation or literature; his own handwriting or directly a quote. As it stands now; he is Yugoslav born in an ethnically Croatian family.
Perhaps you are not supposed to be here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Er-vet-en (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 December 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sure many people have gone over all of these issues repeatedly and painfully, but I can't help but mention them. I was checking the wiki for some bio information for a paper on Days of the Consuls and couldn't help noticing how much of the page is veiled arguments about his nationality.
First of all, it is a bizarre idea have a picture of a university application filled out stating his national identity. This is of dubious relevance because how Ivo Andric represented himself as a young man to a foreign university on an application he had no reason to assume anyone would see tells us nothing about how he thought of himself, then or later in life. The one word doesn't explain whether he thought of "Croatian" as his nationality, his race, his geographical location, his language, or just the identity he thought would be the likeliest to get him a spot in the university. Imagine the case of an English speaking Mexican-American from Texas filling out a similar form for a Polish university. By taking a single word out of context we could put that person in any category we want.
Even if the document were 100% and definitive, whats the point of it being one of only four pictures? Is this really one of the most important things about him? The classification of his literature is interesting but way to much of this article is about what ethnicity Ivo Andric was and too little about what he believed.
I think I speak for a lot of people who love the literature of the former Yugoslavia when I say that it is disgusting to see the bones of literary giants being picked over by nationalists who want to claim him for their own. Although its pretty clear that by today's standards Andric was a Bosnian Croat who wrote primarily in 'Serbian', that wouldn't have meant anything to him; he saw himself as writing in various dialects of Serbo-Croatian. Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro are losing a lot of their shared literary heritage by trying to force writers into one language or another and to deny that Serbo-Croatian (or whatever the politically correct term will end up being) was a legitimate literary language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.63 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
There is speculation as to whether his father Antun was his biological father and since he declared himself a Serb I don't see any contraversy on the topic of his ethnicity. He was, in his words, a Serb. Croatia, unlike the Croat megalomaniacs of wikipedia, regards him as both a Serb and a Croat writer while Serbs exclusively as a Serb. Deal with it guys. Even if it says "Bosnian Croat" on this site do you really think that changes anything, that it changes the truth? Pathetic.
I must agree. Also, it is not, and never was a matter of his writing. He lived long enough to declare himself what ever ethnicity he wanted, and He chose Serbian. You don't have to search for Mona Liza's smile in his book Omer Pasa Latas, or any other for that matter. There are valid documents that legally prove his will to be known as a Serb. I like Rade Serbedzija, and (he told that him self) he is Serb by birth, but he obviously like to spend his time in Croatia. It would not shock me to find him declare himself officially as a Croat (maybe he already did), if he want to do that, it is His (and I repeat) His choice. It doesn't matter what I or you think or like. Those are valid facts, that government in Croatia or Bosnia never officially disputed. He died as a Serb, and if you put nationality beneath his picture, you should put His own choice, not yours or mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavle M (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Birth date - which calendar?
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
9 October 1892: Is this as it was in the then-prevailing Julian calendar (which equates to 21 October 1892 in the Gregorian calendar), or has it already been converted to Gregorian (from 27 September 1892 Julian)? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
At the time, Julian was used only in Serbia proper (and is still today used by Serbian Orthodox Church), and at the time he was born Bosnia was under Austro-Hungarian rule. Additionally, since he's born in a Catholic family, I'm fairly sure that it was Gregorian calendary. I think that it is customary in Serbia and Russia to convert the dates before WWI into the new calendary, but I wouldn't put my hand in fire for that. No such user (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Croat/Serbian?
Latest comment: 13 years ago42 comments8 people in discussion
Can editors discuss here please the issue of Andric's ethnicity, with sources. I have protected the page from a slow motion edit war about this issue. Fainitesbarleyscribs14:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Great, Fainites, anyway only IP's warred, but i was just looking this page anyway.
We have numerous sources for Ivo Andrić's Serb nationality, and i will present some of those. The most important thing for me are Andrić own words: "I was born in Travnik, as a Catholic (not Croat), I feel like a Serb, and belong with my books to the Serbian literary corpus. Serbian: Рођен сам у Травнику као католик (не Хрват), осећам се Србином и припадам са својим књигама српском књижевном корпусу" On the same key Emir Kusturica is regarded as Serb, even if he was not born in Serbia, as Christian Orthodox... As well, Meša Selimović also embraced Serbia as his nation, and regarded himself as a Serb and a Serb writer, despite birth and origin, and i don't see anything problematic in there.
"The problem arose in 2007, when the Croatian Institute in Sarajevo published four Andrić books in the edition "Croatian literature of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 100 books." Croats before the publication of books offered a contract to purchase the copyright from Ivo Andrić Foundation, which refused on the grounds that Andrić "in his life time choose to belong to Serbian literature", and can not be identified in publications that they have a national mark. However Matica Hrvatska in Sarajevo has decided to publish four controversial books. Ivo Andrić Foundation, which is located in Belgrade, has filed a complaint to the Municipal Court in Sarajevo, which on 28 June 2009. ruled in their favor."
Bogdan Rakić, Stephen M. Dickey, Death and the dervish
"How else could Ivo Andric, born of Croatian parents, baptized a Roman Catholic, raised and educated in Bosnia, be hailed at his death as Serbia's greatest writer? How else could Selimovic, so closely identified with the Bosnian Muslim milieu, expect acceptance as a Serb? Many have speculated on the motivations underlying both Andric's and Selimovic's adoption of Serbian cultural citizenship..."
He was member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, he lived in Belgrade for 30 years, (his flat was transformed into Museum of Ivo Andrić), he wrote in Serbian language. I didn't include some sources that are obviously not the best for this article, nor some of those already presented in the article, and per all of those, i propose that we place in the lead that Andrić was Serb of Croatian origin. That is exactly what we has. I am afraid that this is just nationalistic claim, as he was Nobel price winner, but all of those numerous facts mustn't be neglected. What do rest of you say? :) :) --WhiteWriter speaks17:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Item no. 2 is a tabloid piece about a legal dispute which is pending court decision and which concerns claims to copyright. No court in the world can legally solve the dispute to which literature Andrić belongs or what his ethnicity was. The issue raised here is that a Bosnian-based Croat publishing house issued some of his works without approval of the Ivo Andrić foundation in a collection titled "Croatian literature of Bosnia".
Item no. 4 is of laughable quality. It looks like a personal website, and in addition states as facts several pieces of information that we know are verifiably false.
Items no. 1 and 3 come come from the same source (the Belgrade-based Ivo Andrić Foundation), which is in turn a party in the court case mentioned in item no. 2.
Item no. 6 is a short blurb describing Andrić written by Robert Elsie, a historian who specializes in the history of Albania (not "literature in Yugoslavia") and who re-printed Andrić's thoughts on Albania as Ivo held diplomatic posts during his eventful career.
Item no. 7 is a copy-pasted biography which was taken from an earlier revision of this same Wikipedia article (?!).
Item no. 8 is a quote which does not come from Starling Lawrence but from one Donna Bird, a book reviewer at what seems to be an online magazine Green Man Review. Donna btw is a former "adjunct associate professor in the Sociology Department at University of South Maryland" and is currently unemployed. I'm inclined to think that her fact-checking abilities leave much to be desired.
Quote no. 9 (which is mainly about Selimović and gives Andrić a passing mention) talks about the "porous boundaries" between ethnic groups in former Yugoslavia and is trying to explain the reasons why Andrić and Selimović chose to identify themselves as parts of Serbian culture rather their own and goes on to add that "Many have speculated on the motivations underlying both Andrić's and Selimović's adoption of Serbian cultural citizenship, and the unkindest have often posited mean self-interest. In both cases, however, it seems clear that the writers saw Serbdom's tent to be more larger, more inclusive, more varied and inviting than the far smaller tents into which they had been born. In the context of the Slavic-speaking Balkans, the Serbs had the most cosmopolitan culture; the rest were more provincial and (consider th Croatian laureate Miroslav Krleža) even stifling." - Now this source is interesting as it specifically spends time and space to explain how someone who had little to do with Serbian culture by birth chose to be associated with it later in life and how in turn those writers became to be accepted as part of the Serbian literary canon. If Andrić was originally a Serb this would all be redundant.
So what do I say? I say that we have two issues here which should be distinguished: 1. The issue of his literary legacy which is claimed by everyone but which is clearly regarded as belonging to Serbian literature more than others based on the fact that around two thirds of everything he wrote was written in what is described as the eastern standard of what was known as Serbo-Croatian language (although in my opinion - and btw I majored comparative literature if that means anything - the debates are pointless and if Andrić belongs to any present-day country's heritage it's Bosnia and Herzegovina). The man is world famous for writing exclusively about Bosnia and people of Bosnia.) 2. The issue of his ethnicity (which is different from nationality). His nationality was Yugoslav throughout his entire life, bar the earliest period as he was born in Bosnia which had been an Austro-Hungarian condominium at the time. As for his ethnicity, there is no doubt that both his parents were Catholics and Croats and that he had been brought up as any other Catholic Croat boy in Bosnia was. If I'm not mistaken, in the Balkans ethnicity is regarded as a hereditary disease (compare Josip Broz Tito, who was born to a Slovene mother and a Croat father and who never referred to himself as a Croat but is still regarded by everyone in ex-Yugoslavia as such). Claiming that Andrić was "born in Travnik by happenstance" is a) totally irrelevant and b) speculative to say the least.
I do think that ethnicity is a matter of choice and if Andrić chose to be regarded as a Serb than that should be taken into account - but on the other hand, the fact that a) neither of his parents were Serbs, b) the place he was born in was not in Serbia at the time nor is it in present-day Serbia, c) significant chunks of what he wrote was in a language somewhat different from what we refer to as "Serbian language" today, and d) he is not known for writing anything about what was Serbia then or what is Serbia today - should all be taken into account and clearly stated in the article. Ignoring all this just to score points and squeeze in nationalist-minded wording in the lede is the very definition of WP:SOAPBOX. Yes I'm looking at you WhiteWriter.
Btw, the you statement you described as "his own words" lack any sourcing. I copy-pasted the Cyrillic version in Google (I assumed you posted that version here because you were lazy) and the only thing I got was an anonymous poster's comment which someone had left in the comments section below the ALO! article in which the person said that "At least three times in my life have I read the following statement" without saying where[17] (so I guess asking you to provide a source for it is pointless). For somebody from Bosnia to say that he was "born a Catholic (but not a Croat)" is like someone from Northern Ireland saying that he was "born a Catholic (but not Irish)". Andrić may have chosen to consider himself an Eskimo later in life but we are incapable of choosing when and where we are born and who our parents are. And if you're into gossips about the exact circumstances of his birth (like the Ivo Andrić Fondation seems to be) here's a nice article about it. Timbouctou (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh and btw here's a few links for good (counter)measure:
"Croatian Nobel Prize Winners" - 2002 article in Vijenac, a Croatian cultural magazine, published because Croatian Post had printed stamp picturing Andrić. The Vijenac article calls him a Bosnian Croat and says that his first published works were appeared in an anthology of poetry titled "Hrvatska mlada lirika" ("Young Croatian Poets") in 1914 in Zagreb. It even goes on to say that "contemporary literary theory which enables writers to belong to more than one literary tradition can be applied to Andrić: he equally belongs to Croatian literature - in which he began writing - and Serbian literature - in which he worked afterwards until his death".
Yale University Library which says "Andrić was born of Croatian parentage on 1892, in the village of Dolac near Travnik, Bosnia, then part of Austria-Hungary and today part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. He studied philosophy at the Universities of Zagreb, Vienna, and Cracow. Andrić started his literary career as a poet. In 1914 he was one of the contributors to Hrvatska mlada lirika (Young Croatian Lyrics)".
"Memories of Our Future" (selected essays 1982-1999 by Ammiel Alcalay) says: on page 233: "Andrić, although adopted as part of the Serbian literary canon (often as an antidote or in direct opposition to the Croatian writer Miroslav Krleža), was himself a Croat."
"Andrić in court again" - an April 2011 article published in the Croatian daily newspaper Vjesnik which details the legal battle over publishing rights. It refers to Andrić as "undoubtedly belonging to three national literatures - Bosnian (on account of his origin and literary themes), Croatian (on account of his ethnicity) and Serbian (because he claimed so himself and because Serbian cultural circles consider him as one of their own)"
(It's a very informative article because it offers an overview of the whole issue, talks about what Andrić said himself on the matter and sheds some light on his will which the Foundation base their claims on. It also says what exactly the foundation is against (the Foundation allowed for his works to be published in Zagreb but is opposed to it being issued in a series of books titled "Croatian literature"). Whoever is interested in this whole issue should read the Vjesnik article.)
Kirjasto.sci.fi (a Finnish website which is a good source for all authors who are lesser-known in the English-speaking world) describes him as "A Croat by birth, he became a Serbian by choice.".
In addition, I found this scan. It is an entry form issued by the University of Zagreb in 1912 where Andrić transferred to from the Sarajevo gymnasium after obtaining a scholarship. The document is dated 10 October 1912 and was filled out and signed by Andrić himself (see bottom). It does not contain an "ethnicity" box but it does clearly state that his native language was "Croatian" and his religion was "Catholic". Timbouctou (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If I was in his place I would have declared myself as a catholic nationality out of self interest. I mean hey, who wouldn't have? Not like they can tell any difference, so why label myself as a group which might not be looked at as kindly? When in rome do as the romans do as the famous saying goes. Is this not a possibility?? (LAz17 (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)).
I shall not bother to look at most of the discussion. But, Kaplan caught my eye. He's a sad source, for he's a western rubber stamp, anti-serb in other words. (LAz17 (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)).
Anyway, question is still on. He was of Croat origin, nonе questioned that, but he was, by his own word Serb. So we should add "Serb of the Croatian origin" in the lede. Do we all agree on that? --WhiteWriter speaks16:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Well there's a lot of choices if it needs to be in the lead at all. Currently the lead says he was a Yugoslav. The rest - ie Croatian origin, subsequent self identification as a a Serb etc, is all in the body of the article. Fainitesbarleyscribs16:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion other than that it should be well sourced and accurate and be able to survive in the article! I would suggest either the lead says as little as possible - as it does now, with all the Bosnian of Croat origin (or ethnicity), who in later life self-identified as a Serb stuff in the body of the article - or - if it goes in the lead it all goes in the lead.Fainitesbarleyscribs16:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The current version is perfectly fine. For those interested in finding out more about his pedigree there's a dedicated section for that. WP:LEAD states that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". The sheer lack of non-Balkan sources talking about his ethnicity as compared to the quantity of sources talking about him in general proves that the issue of Andrić's ethnicity is not really important to the topic anywhere outside the former Yugoslavia (the most reliable sources do not mention his ethnicity at all or give it a passing mention at best, for example, see the Britannica entry). Timbouctou (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That fact that person, despite its own ethnicity decided to self identify as member of some other nation during his life, IS of outmost importance, and as identifying point, just the pick from WP:LEAD. As you may know, encyclopedias like Britannica are not the best sources regarding subjects of question (ethnicity, etc...). The current version is, unfortunately, not perfectly fine, as very important fact is not mentioned. That is the reason for IP edit warring, and my post above. Proposition is to add that in the lead, as explained by Fainites, and to see how things are going on. As for now, this article lacking in NPOV a bit. --WhiteWriter speaks21:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see why his ethnic preferences are of "utmost importance". His main claim to fame and probably the only reason he has an article here is because of his Nobel Prize. And they (the people who gave him the award in the first place) do not mention his ethnicity at all in his 491-word biography posted on their website, simply saying that he mainly wrote about "his native Bosnia". Sure, Britannica is not a good source to determine his ethnicity just like it would be a bad source to confirm that someone is a closet homosexual. You will notice that I did not use Britannica as a source for fact-checking. I used it to illustrate the marginal nature of a piece of fact you are trying to push into the lede by pointing to an encyclopedic entry which totally dropped the factoid for which you claim is of "utmost importance". The first question you need to answer here is why is this important for his biography at all? The second question you need to answer is why does it have to be in the lede? And the third question you need to answer is where on earth are you going to find any source describing any person as a "Serb of Croatian origin"? There is no such thing. You are claiming that there are POV problems here (I don't see any) and you're offering to fix them by demonstrating OR. Timbouctou (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not of utmost importance, but a parenthetical remark could be added at the end of the first sentence, something like this: Ivan "Ivo" Andrić (Serbian Cyrillic: Иво Андрић) (October 9, 1892 – March 13, 1975) was a Yugoslav novelist, short story writer, and the 1961 winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature (a Croat by birth, also self-identified as a Serb in later life). Since a whole section of the article, "Classification", is related to this issue, adding that remark wouldn't go against WP:LEAD. Ref no. 3 is superfluous in the lead, and the page on that link does not mention Andric at all. Vladimir (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You will notice that the majority of the Classification section talks about which literature his works belong to and not about his ethnicity, and the debate whether he belongs to Serbian literature or some other focuses on the language of his works, not what he himself claimed to be, what his parents were or what his passport said. These are two different things. He could have said he was an Eskimo in a letter to a friend in 1952, which an Eskimo editor might scan and upload to commons. But that would not make Andrić an Eskimo writer. Consult the wording of the last part of the Britannica entry. Also, any references in the lead section of any article are superfluous in the lead per WP:LEAD (the lead recounts key points of the article and the key points would not be in the body if they were not supported by references - which are in turn required for "introduction of new information". Hence the lead by definition is not supposed to introduce anything which is not already said in the body). So feel free to remove inappropriate references and move the appropriate ones to the body. Timbouctou (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, in his case, the variant of language he used in his works is not so unrelated with his self-identification as a Serb (which is, btw, evident from official documents, and not some casual letters). References can appear in a lead in certain cases, that's a fairly common practice. Vladimir (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Speculations are to be avoided. Yes, references may appear in leads but they are never required. There are plenty of featured articles without a single reference in the lead. Also, I must correct you - the reference no.3 does mention Andrić - it is an article in the New York Times broken up into 10 sections for easier viewing and the link points to the opening section. Here is the entire article in which Andrić is referred to as a "Bosnian Croat". Timbouctou (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I never said that references are required in leads. That should have been linked in the first place, and not the opening section which does not mention Andric, but still that reference is unneeded in the lead, as there is nothing controversial about it. Anyway, whether that parenthetical remark I proposed is more or less related to the section "Classification" (or, as you seem to suggest, not at all related), I still think that adding the remark would be useful. It doesn't disrupt the text of the lead, it's factually correct, and the fact is also mentioned in the main text. It might even discourage IP edit warring. (Actually, you don't deny that Andric self-identified as a Serb?) Vladimir (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course, edit warring will completely stopped, i can guarantee that. My post here in the first place was proposition regarding that subject. Also, your proposition, Vladimir, "(a Croat by birth, also self-identified as a Serb in later life)" is ideal, and we dont need reference for that in the lede anyway if we have it in the article below, so, i dont see any problem regarding this. Regarding your questions, Timbouctou, most have been already answered, but that is important fact, that none question, that is not presented in the way it deserve, that will only do good for the article, stop edit warring, and make article better. I support Vladimir's proposition, it is better then mine... --WhiteWriter speaks20:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've seen copious amounts of text written here about how Andrić "self-identified" but I have yet to see a single quote by him published anywhere and cited by anyone in which he explicitly said so. Not even the Vjesnik article which agrees with that idea was able to find a quote by Andrić confirming this. Since it is widely held that he did regard himself as a Serb I have no reason to doubt this - but it does make one wonder what this wide belief is exactly based on because it certainly is not the identity card which only surfaced very recently. And as for discouraging edit-warring - leaving this bit out of the lead and just calling him Yugoslav will probably do the trick. Saying that the man thought something without supplying a direct quote from the man himself is hardly going to convince IPs of anything.
@White Writer - you have discredited yourself by trying to pass off a whole lot of rubbish as credible sources and you failed to demonstrate why this whole thing would be essential to the man's biography. The only place where Andrić's ethnicity is a life-or-death issue is within the borders of Serbia and the only source which claims Andrić was Serb and nothing but a Serb comes from - guess what - Serbia. And I guess it's total coincidence that both of you are Serbian. Also, I have no clue what edit-warring you are talking about. When did I edit-war? If the situation surrounding his ethnicity is a tad more complicated (and it is) then that's all the more reason to explain it in the biography section and avoid sticking simplifying labels in the introductory section because that will attract vandalism. A number of reliable sources do not talk about his ethnicity at all, evidently considering the whole issue marginal. Other reliable sources call him a Croat or a Bosnian Croat and some other sources (far fewer than what you would have us believe) called him a Serb. The majority of sources (including Croatian and Bosnian) talk about how he belongs to two or more literatures - but only the Serbian ones think of him as purely a Serbian writer. And that my friends - is called POV. Franz Kafka lived most of his life in what is today Czech republic and at the time in Austria-Hungary - but he was neither Austrian nor Hungarian nor Czech. Go and see what his lead looks like. Timbouctou (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Timbu, you´re not presenting this fairly. Your sentence of "The only place where Andrić's ethnicity is a life-or-death issue is within the borders of Serbia" is incorrect since it is Croats that claim him in the infobox, and Croats are the ones fighting to deny him labeled and link to Serbs... I really share Vladimir´s touth of the case of a Serb wanting to be Croat, we (Serbs) wouldn´t even think of deniying him being labeled as Croat... I am sad a bit on the tone this is getting, because after all, he did embraced Serbian language, and he lived in Belgrade, and he even forbitten Croatian publishers to translate his works into Croatian, quite clear about what he stands. We all know how feelings about this ethnic disputes get exagerated, but we (Serbs) have had cases of non-Serb people embracing Serbhood troughout history, and maybe nowadays after all that recently happend, that may seem strange, but in other historical periods it was not at all, since being Serb-friendly meant allmost a way of life, and meant unity, many times in oposition to regional separatism. Andric certainly didn´t embraced Serbian nationalism from the 1990s, but he did embraced Serbian culture that btw was quite diseminated in Bosnia where he was born and to which he was never distant (so the argument of him writting about Bosnia not being related to Serbia also goes down). As exemple, Arsen Dedic is a ethnical Serb who embraced Croatian culture, and that is why I support him being labeled as Croat (in oposition to Croat Serb), but Andric himself choosed to move into Serbian area of Yugoslav literature, and he could have choosed Croatian, but he didn´t. Now, I understand you wanting to have more sources, and trying to find balance, but don´t exagerate, please. FkpCascais (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As I understood from the discussion here, nobody is wanting to label Andric as only Serb, as you presented, and correct me if I am wrong. All the discussion here goes around the fact that including links to Serbs and Serbian have also their share or right. As from the exemple of Kafka that you gave, he is categorised as Czeck and Austrian writter (see down), and from that exemple, for Andric we should simply begin Andric´s article with: Ivo Andric was a culturally influential Serbian-language novelist. I doubt that is what you want, but that is how the exemple you choose treat the issue. FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've read everyone's arguments here, but I'm still confused--is this for the lead? Because I thought this was already dealt with in the article. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I also want to say that I like the way everyone is discussing this rationally, but I'm afraid it might soon disintegrate. Please keep it calm. Also FkpCascais, please don't speak for all Serbs. I do not mean this rudely; I think you probably didn't notice you were doing so, but it is bold to assume one voice for everyone.--Jesuislafete (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I was never included in any edit waring at this article, but I think it all begin because of some edit warring that happend here. However, I also think it was related to the fact that we are in process of re-selecting people for nationality infoboxes (as we did in Serbs of Croatia), so it seems that it came from that side as well (check Talk:Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, User talk:LAz17 and here). But Jesusislafete, I certainly want take you wrong, but I really don´t understand from my comment what you mean when you refer that I tend to speak for all Serbs... I basically expressed my opinion on why the relation of Andric with Serbs/Serbia shouldn´t be disregarded. Reading all now, I honestly think that Timbou over-reacted a bit because he missunderstood that editors discussing here were wanting to somehow label him only as Serb (when I think no one propose anything such as that), while I also missunderstood Timbou´s reaction as thinking that Timbou wanted to disregard all relation of Andric with Serbia (when seems he doesn´t defend that either), so don´t warry, I think after a good night of sleep we´ll all see this more clearly. I think this all goes about the right to possibly include Andric as option for Serbs infobox. What you meant about me talking for all Serbs? Are you sure you didn´t missunderstood me? FkpCascais (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you serious? Read what you wrote "we (Serbs) wouldn´t even think of deniying him being labeled as Croat.." Nice to hear you speak for 7.3 million Serbs.--Jesuislafete (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Those were Vladimir´s words in a recent comment of his, here, and I just said that I share his touth about it... I could/should have put them as citation, but I touth it was unecessary because it happend recently in a related discussion. FkpCascais (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
@Casais:
"It is Croats that claim him in the infobox, and Croats are the ones fighting to deny him labeled and link to Serbs..." - 1. I don't see why Croats wouldn't include him since he was born as one. It is obvious that more than one group can claim him as his own and you will notice I did not object to Andrić's inclusion in mm.srb's list over at Talk:Serbs. I don't see why he couldn't be in more than one infobox. Having said that, I don't know where did you get the impression that "Croats are fighting to deny the link to Serbs". I have posted here links to articles in Vijenac and Vjesnik, which are both rather conservative Croatian publications and who both admit that Andrić chose to be associated with Serbian literature. The main issue here is whether his ethnicity is important enough to be included in the lead section. Not what the ethnicity in question is.
"and he even forbidden Croatian publishers to translate his works into Croatian" - that's not entirely true. He allowed for his works to be published in 1947 by Matica hrvatska but was appalled by the editorializing of the Croatian publishing house which chose to replace non-Croatian words with "Croatian" ones, which is something he adamantly protested. I totally understand him because making Bosnian characters talk Croatian would be like synchronizing Bosnian or Serbian films for Croatian audiences or like "correcting" localisms into standard Croatian. That's nonsense. But this does not mean he "banned" his works to be published in Croatia, just like the Andrić foundation did not reject the idea Matica hrvatska should publish them today. They were only bothered by the fact that Andrić was supposed to be published in a series titled "Centuries of Croatian literature".
"As example, Arsen Dedic is a ethnical Serb who embraced Croatian culture, and that is why I support him being labeled as Croat (in opposition to Croat Serb)" - This is offtopic but maybe should be tackled here. See, this is what I totally don't understand. Nobody ever questions Dedić's ethnicity. His both parents were Serbs from Šibenik, the man never claimed to be anything else and he has a living and breathing brother in Belgrade who considers him a Serb. He is a perfect example of a Serb of Croatia - but in Vladimir's and Cascais' mind when he was brought up at Talk:Serbs of Croatia he was deemed "not Serb enough". On the other hand we've got Serbian editors and Croatian magazines who take it for granted that Andrić chose to belong to Serbs or Serbian literature (depending on the interpretation and regardless of the widely accepted fact hat he was born a Croat), but I have never seen a direct quote from him confirming this. If this was so widely accepted and understood (and it seems it was) then what was it based on?
"As from the example of Franz Kafka that you gave, he is categorised as Czech and Austrian writer (see down), and from that example, for Andric we should simply begin Andric´s article with: Ivo Andric was a culturally influential Serbian-language novelist." - But this "categorization" parts is exactly the point I'm making here. The lead of Kafka's article only says that he was an "influential German-language novelist" and in the last part of the lead adds that "Kafka was born to middle class German-speaking Ashkenazi Jewish parents in Prague, Bohemia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire". This other part can be dropped in Andrić's case as this too is irrelevant and is likely to attract vandalism. Just read WP:OPENPARA which says in no uncertain terms: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." So we don't need to say he was born as a citizen of Austria-Hungary, we don't need to mention that his parents were Croats and we don't need to mention that he saw himself as a Serb later in life. All we need to say is that he was a Yugoslav novelist and that he wrote in Serbo-Croatian. Unless you can prove that it is relevant to his notability I see no reason to include it in the lead section. White Writer tried and failed. Vladimir merely proposed a different wording and Cascais is telling me what the situation with Andrić is. How is any of this relevant for Andrić's notability? Only some sources mention it briefly but they all say in th very first sentence that he was a "Yugoslav writer", that he was from Bosnia and wrote about Bosnia. As for the language, most sources go on to add that he wrote in "Serbo-Croatian". Not Serbian. Not Croatian. And IMO this is a pretty good description as Andrić mixed language standards of what later became known as Serbian and Croatian. Timbouctou (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It is quite obvious what is question here. As he declared him as Serbian, he should be regarded as Serbian Nobel prize winner also. That IS notability of this data, and that is undisputed. Per that, it should be mentioned in the lede. Per that, it is very important to mention his decision and will. I am afraid that you, Timbu, just don't want that to happen, per some questionable nationalistic views, as i really don't see any problem in this edit, that should be even uncontroversial and ok. Also, please, try not to write such TLDR posts, it will not help in our solution quest. Please, dont be offended, but your posts are quite near to bad faith, and we dont need that. I feel a bit attacked... Just ceep it calm, and friendly in here! :) And one more smile, just for you! :) Kafka and Andrić are not quite comparable, so i dont think that comparation is ok in this case. For references, we have tons of documents during at least 20, 25 years in which Andrić self-declared as Serb, and Serbian. ID's, wedding list, communist party member card, etc, etc. Some of those are on the wiki, and some can be seen in the news, while all are located in Ivo Andrić Foundation. Per OPENPARA, and per other more relevant guidelines, we must ahead to the NPOV. He was born as Croat, but we also self-declared as Serb. Why is this so problematic? You are only user that disagree. --WhiteWriter speaks13:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Although there are a number of editors who are determined to see this as "us" against "them", I have the following observations: a) there is ample sourced evidence that he is a Croat, born in Bosnia. There is therefore ample sourced evidence to warrant his inclusion in the Croat infoboxes. b) there is no reason as such why someone should not appear in more than one infobox if the inclusion is warranted by sources. c) writing in Serbian doesn't make him a Serb. d) self-identification as a Serb is worthy of note in the article, but not necessarily in the lead. Timbouctou has already made the point that it would need to be relevent to his notability. As he is largely seen as a Yugoslav writer who wrote about his native Bosnia in Serbo-Croat, it is difficult to see how this can be argued. e) His purported self-identification as a Serb has yet to be evidenced in appropriate sources. f) query whether self-identification as a Serb warrants his inclusion in the Serb infobox. This needs to be discussed on the appropriate talkpages. It is, however, irrelevent to whether or not he is included in the Croat infoboxes.
That leaves the two matters to resolve here. Sourced evidence that he self-identified as a Serb and a decision as to whether this is relevent to his notability. If it is decided that it is - an appropriate formulation might be along the lines of Bosnian Croat who later self-identified as a Serb whilst keeping the description of him as a Yugoslav writer. Another approach might be to describe his writing rather than his ethnicity, ie that he wrote in both the Croatian and Serbian forms of Serbo-Croatian, contributing significantly to the corpus of literature in both cultures. Fainitesbarleyscribs14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the point e) (though I thought it was already evidenced)
Most often inspired by non-literary motives, the debates and polemics which are from time to time renewed on the subject of "whose is Andrić", i.e., to which literature he belongs, have acquired a new dimension with the newest reserches by Žaneta Đukić-Perišić, an advisor in The Ivo Andrić Foundation. While she explored material on Andrić's life and work for her PhD dissertation, Žaneta Đukić-Perišić came across two important documents--Andrić's identity card and soldier's booklet [vojna knjižica, military identity document for male adults in ex-Yugoslavia]--which give an evidence about his ethnic declaration. Večernje novosti are exclusively publishing facsimiles of these documents, which have been, due to circumstances, forgotten and out of reach of the public in Ivo Andrić's Museum.
In the identity card issued on 15 June 1951 in Belgrade, in the "Ethnicity" rubric, Andrić wrote "Serbian". A month later, on 19 July, in his soldier's book he entered "Serbian" for "Ethnicity". Some time later, in 1955, as is already known, when he joined Communist Party Andrić wrote "Serbian" in the "Ethnicity" rubric of the register form. The same stands in his marriage certificate from September 1958, when he married Milica Babić in the Municipality of Stari grad...
How does one's identity card determine the question which Večernje novosti succintly described as "which literature he belongs to"? I suppose you never took the time to read the Vjesnik article I linked to twice already, but perhaps you should have because in it Dragan Dragojlović (manager of the Ivo Andrić foundation) is directly quoted as saying that "Nobody questions where Andrić was born or that his parents were Catholic Croats, but these are not the criteria which determine which literature a writer belongs to. This is determined by the language in which he writes or wrote." where he argues that he is a Serbian author (e.g. belonging to Serbian literature) on the grounds that the language of his works was Serbian. What has his identity card got to do with this? Besides, if you really think that the card represents proof that he is a Serbian writer then how on earth did you know he was a Serbian author before the picture of the card was published by Večernje novosti on 16 May 2011? Because his Zagreb University entrance form was filled in by Andrić, signed by Andrić, and in it a 20 year old Andrić explicitly describes his native language as "Croatian" and it was uploaded to Commons in 2006 (some five years ago) and had been published in 1980, some 31 years before the fantastically irrelevant identity card discovered just now. You seem unable to separate two distinct issues here - which ethnicity Andrić belongs to vs. which literature he belongs to. And the fact that a tabloid newspaper such as Večernje novosti contradicts both itself in its own article (by describing the issue in very specific terms and then offering a "proof" which is totally irrelevant to it) and contradicts the man supposedly paid full-time to defend the claim that Andrić is part of Serbian literary canon does not lend it much credibility as a source. OK? And besides, what exactly can you offer to support the idea that his ethnicity is "relevant to his notability" to satisfy WP:OPENPARA? Timbouctou (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait a sec Timbou. The discussion here actually does include both aspects, his ethnicity and how it should be presented in a more balanced way (given the fact that he was a Croatian born person who declared himself Serb later in life); and the fact to which literature he belongs to. You can´t just interrump one discussion about, exemple, ethnicity, by saying "how does this affect his literature?", and then when discussing his literature, you interromp by saying "How does this affect his ethnicity?". Both are discussed simultaneously here. FkpCascais (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
What we all know for sure is that he wrote in Serbo-Croatian e.g. that was the name of the language at the time of his writing and that is what virtually all English-language sources say about him. We also know they all describe him as a "Yugoslav writer", from Britannica and the Nobel Prize committee to Kaplan in the New York Times. As for ethnicity the question is whether this piece of information should be put in the leading paragraph at all e.g. is this relevant for his notability. Nobody offered any proof that it is. As for which literature he belongs to - like Dragojlović said, it's his language which determins it. As for both topics - if his ethnicity and the details of his language were clearer (which would be relevant as what we are doing is imposing criteria which simply did not exist at the time), e.g. if he was simply a Serb who wrote in the eastern standard of Serbo-Croatian all his life, we would have no problem with saying it in the lead, like we don't have a problem with calling guys like Miroslav Krleža Croatian or Milorad Pavić Serbian. But precisely because the situation is not so straightforward with Andrić we should avoid reducing it to labels and especially putting it in the opening paragraph. For comparison consult leading paragraphs of Danilo Kiš or Meša Selimović. Andrić's situation may be unusual but he is far from being the only writer with a complicated background and legacy. And what we normally do with people like that is we avoid starting the article with it and instead dedicate a section in the article body to it. E.g. exactly what has already been done here. WhiteWriter and Vladimir are fixing a non-problem here and neither of them has been able to demonstrate that the current layout of the article is problematic. Timbouctou (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I see your point. I actually agree that he could (and should) be quite fairly described as Serbo-Croatian language writter (kind of lead from Kafka, just replacing the language), and I don´t opose at all to be label him as Yugoslav (as he was during his entire professional life). I kind of touth the debate begin as a right to include him at Serbs infobox, but maybe I´m wrong, I actualy don´t know what WhiteWritter and Vladimir pretend, to categorize him as Serb? To expand that issue in the article? On the other side, do you Timbou claim he didn´t declared as Serb since 1951? You disregard the veracity of the documents? I mean, what are our goals (of all of us) in this discussion? FkpCascais (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The goal of this discussion is only how the opening sentence(s) of this article should be worded and whether the opening paragraph needs to state that he was born a Croat and later saw himself as a Serb. WW and Vlad think it should and I tend to disagree. It has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of that statement or infoboxes in other articles. As far as I'm concerned at least two ethnic groups and three national literatures can claim him as their own if they wish to do so (hence he can obviously appear in more than one infobox around wikipedia) and this article has a dedicated section talking about this situation already. Nobody is disputing that he as born a Croat and later defined himself as a Serb. But does this need to be in the very first paragraph? Timbouctou (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I raised it on this talkpage because there was an ongoing slow-motion edit war about it. Not a real problem. It's been pretty stable apart from SPA/IP type stuff. The "debate" was originally raised in relation to infoboxes by Laz17 who seemed to be under the impression that he could only go in one box (which of course is not the case). The infobox discussions are not really relevent here. This is - as Tim says - about whether these complexities need to go in the lead.Fainitesbarleyscribs20:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks Timbou (and Fainites), it may seem silly, but I was actually having some trouble understanding why we were discussing this so hardly. I have actually defended the point 3.2 of the WP:OPENPARA lately in several ocasions, so it would be nonsensical for me to ignore it suddenly here, however, I would like to hear the proposals of WhiteWritter and Vladimir for the lead, so I get a more precise view on what they stand for. About you Timbou, you say the one we have now is ok, right? FkpCascais (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
@Timbouctou. Are you really unable to comprehend the purpose of my post above, or are you just using any opportunity to vent your rage? Let me draw it for you:
Fainites wrote: e) His purported self-identification as a Serb has yet to be evidenced in appropriate sources.
I wrote: Regarding the point e) (though I thought it was already evidenced).
Then I presented to Fainites my translation of a source in Serbian (for which I presume he is not fluent in) which enumerates documents in which Andrić declared himself a Serb (the fact that you actually don't deny).
What's with that little "lecture" of yours, where you're "explaining" me things for which you assume that I don't know. It's totally irrelevant to the direct question Fainites asked, and to the direct answer to it that I posted. Are you aware that I made absolutely no comment of my own in that post, except though I thought it was already evidenced? Whom are you arguing with? Where have I claimed that his identity card will determine the question of "which literature he belongs to", and all the other nonsense you're ascribing to me? I'm afraid that you have turned out not to be someone capable of a normal discussion.
@FkpCascais. I proposed a wording above. Accept it or not, it's not "a life-or-death issue" for me (to paraphrase prof. Timbouctou :lol:).
After all, is there any point in asking Fainites whether his point e (because of which all this misguided discussion arose) is resolved? Vladimir (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Just like Tito, Andrić was a Yugoslav. It doesn't matter that he was born as an ethnic Croat, he is connected to Bosnia (born around Travnik and wrote about that region), Croatia (studied philosophy in Zagreb and started his literary career as a poet) and Serbia (worked later in Belgrade and died there). You can't separate him from any of these countries. --Kebeta (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well at the time he was working in Belgrade - for the Yugoslav government - Belgrade was the capital of Yugoslavia so that says nothing about identification as a Serb. What i was wondering is - if aside from ID cards, there is any secondary source which discusses his having made a point of self-identifying as a Serb. Bearing in mind that there is a big difference between identifying with a group to make a point as in ich bin ein Berliner and actually endeavouring to alter ones nationality. This is all aside from the issue of whether it should be in the lead.Fainitesbarleyscribs17:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the lead should stay as it is. If somebody doesn't wants to improve the article up to GA, there is no point in changeing the lead. Regarding the ID card, can anybody find his new ID card (not from 1951). since he changed his ID card couple times from then (as everybody else did). --Kebeta (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2011 (UT
I am confused. Everyone is talking about him being a Serb or being a Croat....., when he is actually Bosnian. He was born in Bosnia,his schooling was in Bosnia.... His nationality is Bosnian and his religion was Roman - Catholic and that is IT. He doesn't have absolutely NOTHING to do with Serbia.
Recent edits
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
First, i added Serbian, as Cyrillic is Serbian letter, not croatian, and article name is Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, so no need for disambig. Then, that ID is not false indetification, but his own will to be presented as serb. In section above we already agreed to that. "Andrić's Yugoslav identity card issued in June 1951 describes him as Serb." meaning that someone else describes him as Serb, so that is wrong. And Serbian was moved to first place, as per majority of sources and arguments in them, per Serbian "Andrić foundation" and relevance of data. The rest of the information's where false. --WhiteWriter speaks15:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Name, family
Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion
Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He never used "Ivan" as his first name, it was always Ivo. "Ivo" is not diminutive of "Ivan", therefore the statement "He was born as Ivan, but became known by the diminutive Ivo" is false
His work "Razvoj duhovnog života ..." is falsely referenced when claiming that he was born to a "Bosnian-Croat family"
His mother was a Serb which was stated by W. H. McNeill but deliberately omitted in the article
He refused to be mentioned as a Croat in the Jugoslav Encyclopedia - see the referenced Enes Cengic, Krleža post mortem I-III. Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990. 2. part, pages 171–172 – here Andrić refuses to be listed as a Croat
Bottom line: there are just opinions, not the facts, about Andric being a Croat. Please, free this biography of the balcanisms, follow the line of biography of the writer (McNeill) and the translator's Foreword (Lovett) in The Bridge on the Drina from August 15, 1977. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.12.17 (talk • contribs)
Support - summoned by bot. I am neutral in this area but can contribute this:
(1) Ivo is most definitely not the same name as Ivan, though they are from the same root (like Nikita and Nikolai are related, but Nikita is not a common diminutive of Nikolai). Ivo is the equivalent of Yves. This had been inserted into his Croatian bio, citing page 5 of a Croatian biography. But I found this bio on Google Books and it says "Andrić je, međutim, opovrgnuo Wiesnera, objavivši 1920. u Beogradu, pod imenom Ivan Andrić, oveću novelu". (My translation: "Andrić denied to Wiesner that in 1920 he published a large book in Belgrade under the name Ivan Andrić.") However, I found a website with a Serbian domain but in Croatian that claims he was born Ivan, son of Antun and Katarina. This is conflicting with an English book, that says he was the son of Ivan and Katarina. I don't think the Serbian website is official but is a fan site. The English book is by Celia Hawkesworth, who is emerita Senior Lecturer in Serbian and Croatian at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College, London and is described here as "one of the pivotal translators of literature from the former Yugoslavia." I think she is a better neutral source, as she is not Bosnian/Croat/Serb.
(2,3,4) I agree with OP that we should free this article of balkanisms - looking at the other language articles, it's absurd: the Bosnian one describes him as "Bosnian," the Croatian one describes him as "Serbian and Croatian," the Serbian one describes him as "Serbian and Yugoslavian" and the Serbo-Croatian one describes him as "Yugoslavian," all of them sourced. The Croatian and the English one (via categorization) are the only one that describes him as Croatian. Hawkesworth identifies his father as Ivan (generic name) and if I had to guess, the insistence that his father was named Antun (Croatian for Anthony) comes from Croatian revisionists. I skimmed what I could of Hawkesworth's book - she says he was born to Catholic parents but everything appears to be about his Bosnian identity. IMO he should be described as as a Bosnian and Yugoslav writer. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I'd like to accept the above suggestion with a slight modification: remove any 'proofs' of his Croatian identity for he refused it publicly. The school records or the Church records used to 'prove' his (Croatian) identity are not legal documents nor seriously validated by Ivo's biographers (Lovett, McNeill for example).--72.66.12.17 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I thought about removing the categories that place him as "Croatian writer" etc but think it's better to wait for the outcome of his RfC. I corrected his info that claims his father was Antun, as this is not reliably sourced. Lovett and McNeill are also neutral sources, and unfortunately the nationalistic POV at play here forces us to be extremely selective in ranking RS. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Update. I verified that his birth name was Ivan indeed and that his father's name was Antun, and updated the article accordingly [18]. Multiple sources and birth documents [19] corroborate that. Hawkesworth got it wrong, apparently. As for the attempts by 72.66.12.17 (talk·contribs) and 178.221.37.150 (talk·contribs) to whitewash his Croatian/Catholic origins: all sources, Serbian included, corroborate that the family was Catholic, which means Croat (unless you'd like to pursue bullshit about "Catholic Serbs"), and I don't buy the appeals to McNeill, particularly without exact citation. I don't care too much if 72.66.12.17 is a sock of Asdisis or not, as long as their behavior is indistinguishable. As somebody said elsewhere, sr:Korisnik:72.66.12.17 aka sr:Korisnik:Djura aka sr:Korisnik:Milos zankov was indefblocked on the Serbian wikipedia for the same kind of POV-pushing and disruption. My AGF is on a short supply with them. If you want something in this article, give us a hard proof and citation, as I've been doing since August [20]. No such user (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@No such user . We are here to talk only about the article quality without attacking other users. So, you publicly claimed that this IP belongs to Asdisis, now switched to other former user. Could you, please, stop slandering others. Now about the article and "all sources, ...". The most reliable are here Lovett (the translator) and H. W. McNeill (world-renown historian and the lifetime friend of Ivo). Neither of them talks about Croatian-Catholic origins of Ivo. I am going to revert your changes for they are against this RfC and against mandatory civilty in communication with others.--65.220.39.97 (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Support Croatification should not be performed on an unwilling (and deceased) subject, as it is irrelevant in this context and appears to be added to the article for chauvinistic reasons only which is WP:NOTHERE imo. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Invalid RFC
This RFC is started by prolific banned sockpuppeteer User:Velebit, based on cherry-picked and downright lying statements. There's currently ANI report going on [21], and a SPI.
@Hebel: If I may ask, why do you feel the urge to stir the pot by summary reverting referenced and relevant article improvements of mine? [22] Even if the RFC were valid (and it is based on cherry-picked and downright lying statements by a prolific sockpuppetteer), it is not a reason to stop article development, and WP:RFC nowhere says so. My edits did not even address the ethnicity of his parents or his own, so they weren't even relevant to this silly "RFC".
I agree this RFC was flawed from the get-go. From it being likely started by a permabanned user to the initial RFC statement. No one can take this as a serious survey of consensus. --Potočnik (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Velebit is a banned user and any user is allowed to revert their 'contributions' on the spot per WP:BMB. If anyone wishes to take ownership of whatever this issue in this RfC is, they should do it on their own accord and repost it anew. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ivo Andrić has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
