Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:30, 13 December 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Yugoslavia Meša Selimović is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bosnia and Herzegovina Mid‑importance Meša Selimović is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Belgrade

comment

I would like to add that he himself said that his nationalaity is Serbian, you can fnd his words:

"Potičem iz muslimanske porodice iz Bosne, a po nacionalnoj pripadnosti sam Srbin. Pripadam srpskoj literaturi, dok književno stvaralaštvo u Bosni i Hercegovini, kome takođe pripadam, smatram samo zavičajnim književnim centrom, a ne posebnom književnošću srpskohrvatskog jezika." From the letter to Srpska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 3 Nov. 1976.

I come from a muslim family from Bosnia, my nationality is Serbian... you can translate the rest for yourself :)

Without public

Ajmo (bar za pocetak) malo bez publike... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Ajd kad kazes da je to bosnjacka porodica, mada je poznato da je upravo on znao svoje rodoslovlje (odnekud iz Crne Gore, valjda)... Ali, da ne ulazim u ta pitanja nacionalne konstitucije i od kada postoji bosnjacka nacija. Tako da sam to ostavio. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Konstrukcija iz one recenice koju sam obrisao je vrlo losa. Ne mozes reci "Iako je bio Bosnjak, on se izjasnjavao da je Srbin." To znaci da ti nekom nameces sta je bio po nacionalnosti, a to je, ako nista drugo, neumesno. Uostalom, objasnio si prvim pasusom da se u poslednjih jedanaest godina svog zivota izjasnjavao kao Srbin. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Ako se izjasnjavao da je bio Srbin i da pripada srpskoj kulturi, onda je, ako nista drugo, i srpski pisac. Mislim da to nije sporno. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Dakle, ajde ovo da resimo bez uplitanja stranaca. Mislim, ako nije moguce, preci cemo na engleski. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That nationalist part about the power-hungry demagogue Alija Izetbegović has no place in an article about a (very talented if I may add) writer!!! HolyRomanEmperor 16:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not participate in this discussion but it is my strong reccomendation that you switch to english as soon as possible to avoid accusations of lack of transparency . --Dado 22:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Emire, mozemo li ovo resiti mi sami ili moramo da prelazimo na engleski? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Trenutna verzija clanka je zadovoljavajuca. U dogledno vrijeme bi trebalo navesti razloge zbog cega je Selimovic otisao iz Sarajeva u Srbiju kako se ne bi izgubio kontekst cijele price, s obzirom da je clanak u startu postavljen u stilu kao hajde da zgrabimo Selimovica sto prije za sebe, kako ga Bosnjaci ne bi imali?! Tipicna nacionalisticka logika. Nigdje veze. Mogu samo reci: Jebes zemlju koja Bosne nema. Cak mi je i drago pomalo da se ovako otimaju sto Srbi sto Hrvati za nase pisce...jer u krajnjem slucaju nije ni bitno kako se ko izjasnjavao u pojedinim periodima svoga zivota, bitno je sta je pisao i sta je radio. Siguran sam da pola Srba koji su procitali Selimoviceva djela nije ni razumjelo pogotovo "Dervis i smrt", sto radi leksike, sto radi Kur'anske pozadine. Ali hajde neka bude...Emir Arven 15:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Drago mi je da mozemo da resimo to ovako. Hajde da napisemo clanak o Selimovicu koji ce opisati prvenstveno njegovu knjizevnost a ne nacionalnu pripadnost (koju treba razjasniti do kraja ali ne napadno). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Dodaj u napomenu na osnovu cega je bas jedanaest zadnjih godina svog zivota sebe smatrao Srbinom (verujem da si to napisao na osnovu nekog konkretnog podatka). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Pa zvanicno je to bilo od 76. koliko se sjecam, ali ono sto je Selimovica ganulo u pozitivnom smislu je uvrstavanje "Dervisa" u "Srpsku knjizevnost u sto knjiga", sto je on prihvatio kao znacajno priznanje (od tada se moze pratiti njegova okrenutost Beogradu, a to je bilo 1971 ili 1972. godine od tada do njegove smrti proteklo je 11 godina, iako ce mnogi reci da je to zadnjih 6 godina). Bas u to vrijeme nad njim je u Sarajevu vrsen teror od nekih kvazi-bh. intelektualaca, zatim slucaj Cvjetin Mijatovic itd. Da bi se to razumjelo potrebno je zivjeti u Sarajevu u kojem ne postoje zvijezde. Ako si zvijezda onda gore po tebe. Pa na carsiji su neki momci sreli Andrica i pitali ga: "wozdra pisac, napisel se sta?". Ako pogledas o cemu je Andric pisao (npr. Travnicka hronika) onda mozes shvatit koliko je Andric bosanski pisac, iako se i Srbi i Hrvati polomise da izbroje njegova krvna zrnca. Sto se tice Selimovica mislim prije svega da se radilo o revoltu izrazenom u tako svojstvenom bosanskom inatu (klasicni ters), kada ga nisu cijenili u Sarajevo Selimovic se pokupio u Beograd koji mu je otvorio sirom vrata. Ima tu jos mnogo uzroka. Opet kazem za sada je ova verzija zadovoljavajuca, iako npr. parcijalni citat naveden u clanku je prije svega naveden u svrhu etiketiranja pisca po nacionalnosti. Meni su dovoljna njegova djela, koja rado s vremena na vrijeme iscitavam. Takodjer napomena o izjasnjavanju Bosnjaka do sada je detaljno obrazlozena. Svako zna da prvi Ustav FNRJ nije dopustio Bosnjacima da se izjasnjavaju kako su se osjecali. Protiv tog ustava je glasao Bosnjak, poslanik iz Mostara, jer tu cinjenicu nisu uvazili srpski i hrvatski poslanici (pogotovo srpski). Nakon toga Bosnjacima se nudi da se izasnjavaju ili kao Srbi ili kao Hrvati (takva iskustva imam u vlastitoj familiji, kao i vecina Bosnjaka), nesto kasnije se uvodi rubrika Ostali. Tek dvadeset godina nakon donosenja ustava nametnuto je Bosnjacima ime Musliman s velikim M uz teska lobiranja, nametanja, pregovore, prijetnje itd. Ali eto ta su vremena prosla, a Bosnjaci su zadrzali sjecanje na svoje pravo ime, svidjalo se to nekome ili ne. Zbog toga smatram da je napomena o izjasnjavanju Bosnjaka zlobna u sadasnjem obliku u clanku, jer se implicira da je lider Bosnjaka Alija Izetbegovic bio Srbin. Dakle, taj primjer je svjesno ubacen ne kao informacija, nego kao provokacije. To znam i ja, a to znas i ti. Tebi na cast. Emir Arven 16:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sroci tu pricu o Mesi sa pocetka malo "naucnije", pa je stavi u tekst. Ocigledno je da ce o Mesi biti prvo dobrano ispricano u vezi sa njegovom nacionalnom pripadnoscu, pa tek onda o njegovoj knjizevnosti. U svakom slucaju, dobro je da to stoji detaljno razlozeno, pa da se jednom zavrsi sa tim. Vazno je imati faktografski ispravan i fer clanak kako ne bi bio predmet stalnih prepucavanja. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Moram da priznam da mi je jedina sala (dakle, nista zlonamerno) u ovom clanku bila konstatacija da je Mesa "Bosnian Serb". Eto, nisam mogao da odolim. Sto se tice objasnjenja o nacionalnom izjasnjavanju, namera mi je definitivno bila da pojasnim o cemu se radi. Ali, u nekoliko recenica se svakako ne moze sve zadovoljiti. Treba sve to prosiriti... Postoji i razlika izmedju Alijinog i Mesinog izjasnjavanja. Koliko je ocigledno da je Alija to tretirao kao nuzno zlo, toliko je i ocigledno da je Mesa imao "porodicno pamcenje" da potice iz srpske porodice (tri brata koja su se razdvojila...) i da je malo verovatno da bi se, da je doziveo devedesete, izjasnjavao kao Bosnjak. Ali, kao sto rekoh, tesko je to objasniti u nekoliko recenica, pa te molim da ne paranoises :) Ne radim nista zlonamerno. (I nemoj mi sada prebacivati salu koju sam ti priznao, jer sam i sam odustao od te konstatacije.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Andric i Selimovic su definitivno bosanski pisci. Naravno, u smislu ljudi i prostora koje su opisivali. To niko ne spori. Kao sto je Tesla i hrvatski naucnik i kao sto u ovom trenutku znam bar trojicu Madjara koji su znacajni srpski naucnici, tj. kulturni radnici. Andric i Selimovic su se, sa druge strane, jasno etnicki i nacionalno deklarisali kao Srbi. I verujem da ce svi biti zadovoljni samo ako se samo konstatuju prethodne recenice. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Po cemu je to Tesla hrvatski naucnik? Nikola 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you re-work a little on the part regarding the über-nationalist, Alija Izetbegović? The article should containt as less as possible nationalism (sincerely, I see no reason to mix politics and art) HolyRomanEmperor 21:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

E, cekaj malo. Vidis da pokusavamo da resimo clanak i mislim da ce clanak biti sredjen kako valja. Alija je najbolji primer za proces konstituisanja bosnjacke nacije. Kao sto je Emir gore napisao, postojao je jak pritisak da se ljudi ne izjasnjavaju kako zele, vec im je nametano sta su po nacionalnosti. Alija se uistinu izjasnjavao kao "Srbin muslimanske veroispovesti" dok se Muslimani kao nacija nisu ozvanicili. Verovatno je da cemo preformulisati ceo taj paragraf, ali za to treba vremena i, pre svega, koncenzus. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ne zaboravi da su Izetbegovići došli iz Beograda. HolyRomanEmperor 18:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ne zaboravi da su Izetbegovići došli u Bosnu iz Beograda. HolyRomanEmperor 18:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Meša died before the proclaimation of the Bosniak nation. HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

And the quotation clearly states that he is a Serbo-Croatian writer and a member of one nation (a Serbo-Croat, just like me) User:Emir_Arven claims that the Bosnian language is very old and distinct, yet even Meša (a Muslim) disagrees. How could then Emir claim that the Serbs are "grabbing Selimović" for themselves? HolyRomanEmperor 14:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how can he be Bosniak? HolyRomanEmperor 16:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

He was born in a Bosniak family in Bosnia (Tuzla), his novels are about Bosnia. His name: "Meša" is a typical Bosniak name. Language in his novels is a typical Bosnian language. He was aware of his roots in 1966. when he wrote "Dervish" (before he declared himself as a Serb in 1976.). This is his quotation about Bosniaks/Bosnian Muslims/Bosnians (ethnicity/religion/nationality whatever you like): "A mi nismo ničiji, uvijek na nekoj međi, uvijek nečiji miraz...Živimo na razmeđu svjetova, na granici naroda, svakome na udaru, uvijek krivi nekome. Na nama se lome talasi historije, kao na grebenu. Sila nam je dosadila i od nevolje smo stvorili vrlinu: postali smo plemeniti iz prkosa." Which means: We dont belong to anyone...etc. --Emir Arven 17:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain me how can you be a Serbo-Croat? What are criterias for that? Emir Arven 17:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hajd da odgovorim (Holiju)... Insistiram na prici na nasim jezicima zato sto ovako ne pravimo predstavu za druge, cime nase probleme sami resavamo. Holi, zato te molim da nastavis i ti na nekom od navedenih jezika po izboru. Evo odgovora: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

1. To sto su Izetbegovici u Bosnu dosli iz Beograda nije nesto preterano relevantno. Mogli su doci i sa Marsa, ali ako se izjasnjavaju kao Bosnjaci, onda su Bosnjaci. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ne mogu se nikako sloziti: da su dosli sa Marsa bili bi Marsovci, a mogli bi da se izjasnjavaju kako god hoce. Nikola 08:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Kada se pise da je neki pisac od tih i tih, onda se ne uzima jezik nego kultura. Srpskohrvatska kultura nikada nije postojala kao jedinstvo, vec kao izrazita dvojnost, odnosno implicitno multikulturna zajednica. Srbo-Hrvati, kao sto ti sam sebe deklarises, su ekstra retka pojava i mislim da je to i samom jasno. Mesa se izjasnio "da je Srbin muslimanske veroispovesti" i "da je njegova knjizevnost pisana srpskim jezikom" iza cega navodi striktno srpske autore (ukljucujuci i Andrica koji je u slicnoj poziciji kao i on). Podrazumeva se da neke sedamdeset i neke (ili vec koje godine) nikako nije smeo/mogao/zeleo napisati da pise srpskim jezikom (mada sam uveren da bi to pisao da je doziveo razdvajanje standardnih jezika; ali, to je šbb kbb, svakako). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Moze se smatrati Bosnjakom zato sto su podele na ovim prostorima u 99% slucajeva konfesionalnog karaktera: 99% onih koji su katolici ili ciji su preci bili katolici danas se izjasnjavaju kao Hrvati, 99% onih koji su na taj nacin vezani za pravoslavlje izjasnjavaju se kao Srbi, a 99% onih koji su na taj nacin vezani za islam danas se izjasnjavaju kao Bosnjaci ili Muslimani (od cega se 95% izjasnjavaju kao Bosnjaci a 5% kao Muslimani). Imaj na umu da ti ljudi koji se izjasnjavaju Bosnjacima nisu preko noci postali Bosnjaci, vec da je postojao visevekovni proces njihovog etnickog i nacionalnog konstituisanja. Pogotovo se jasno moze ustanoviti da je taj proces postojao od 19. veka do 90-ih godina dvadesetog veka, pa se ceo taj period moze uzeti kao prednacionalni period Bosnjaka (odnosno nesto manje, posto su Muslimani kao nacija konstituisani dvadesetak godina ranije). Drugim recima, to ima smisla, iako licno nemam neki poseban stav ovim povodom. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ovde nisi u pravu: ne moze se smatrati Bosnjakom jer su se Bosnjaci konstituisali 1993, deset godina posle njegove smrti. Ne postoji nacin da se sazna da li bi Mesa da je jos ziv sebe smatrao Bosnjakom ili ne. Ali ako bismo trebali da spekulisemo, najverovatnije je da bi Mesa bio u onih 1% muslimana koji se ne izjasnjavaju kao Bosnjaci. Nikola 08:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ovo je bio lapsus. Nisam mislio na Mesu nego na njegovu porodicu. To sto je odredjena grupa ljudi u odredjenom trenutku dobila medjunarodno priznanje da se zove pod imenom Bosnjaka tacno odredjenog dana, ne znaci da se ti ljudi nisu osecali pripadnicima posebne nacionalne skupine i ranije. Uostalom, po tome ni Srbi nisu postojali pre stvaranja drzave u 19. veku, pa onda niko pre ne moze biti tretiran kao Srbin u nacionalnom smislu. Niti kao Nemac pre ujedinjenja Nemacke. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Pa i sto se tice Mesine porodice, prvo, poznato ti je da je nekada procenat muslimana koji su se osecali Srbima bio i veci nego danas. Postoje li ikakvi podaci o porodici (i kakvo se to crnogorsko poreklo pominje)? Drugo, ako se i jesu osecali pripadnicima neka posebne skupine, kako su oni zvali tu svoju skupinu? Bosnjaci? I da jesu, da li je to tada znacilo isto sto i danas?

A ovo za Srbe ti nema veze. Srbi su bar kao pleme pomenuti jos pre nove ere a nekoliko vekova kasnije vec se mogu smatrati narodom. Nikola 00:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pored toga sto nemas pojma o naucnom metodu, sada pokazujes da nemas pojma ni o razlici izmedju etniciteta i nacije. Nacije nisu postojale pre 19. veka ili ti pokusavas da dokazes suprotno? Takodje, Bosanci su se kao etnicitet pojavili ako nigde drugde, a onda u krunisanju Tvrtka. Ili su i ti Bosanci bili Srbi, je li? I to po nacionalnoj pripadnosti? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Znas sta, bolje je nesto ne znati nego znati naopako. A ti sa tvojim tvrdnjama da nesto ne postoji ako nije navedeno, da minimalni par moze da postoji izmedju reci i ne-reci, da lingvistika izucava jezike ali ne moze definisati sta je jezik svakako pokazujes da nemas pojma o mnogim stvarima a ne samo o naucnom metodu.

Da nacije nisu postojale pre 19. veka je zapadna izmisljotina koju je kominterna zdusno prihvatila. Da, nisu postojale, ali postojali su etnosi koji tacno odgovaraju danasnjim nacijama. Nije sija nego vrat. Bosanci se kao etnicitet nisu pojavili nikada, ne znam zasto Tvrtka pominjes. Nikola 16:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sad smo stigli i do zavera. Etnosi jesu postojali i pre. Tvrtko se proglasio "kraljem svih Bosanaca i Srba". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Vidi, a ja mislio da se proglasio kraljem Srba i Bosne (tako se barem za vreme vladavine potpisivao). Stono rece Nusic, vidis kako covek moze da se prevari. Nikola 08:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Da, u pravu si, o veliki istoricaru ;) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Sa druge strane, aproksimativno govoreci, zapadnojuznoslovenski muslimani (koji su se deklarisali kao Srbi i Hrvati) su preci 2,5 miliona ljudi. I ne govorimo o desavanjima u paleolitu, nego o desavanjima u skoroj proslosti. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Necu sada vracati clanak na prethodnu izmenu jer cekam tvoju saglasnost. Smatram da je moja prethodna verzija dovoljno fer i da daje dovoljno jasna objasnjenja. Treba vremenom jos precizirati neke stvari, ali o tome treba prvo ovde pricati. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Imaš moju saglasnost. Ali želim da Srpsko-hrvatski ostane. Slažem se sa ostalim, samo mislim da treba naglasiti Musliman (po nacionalnosti?) Hoću još nešto da kažem: on se rodio u zemlji gdje je ranije bila Osmanska vlast. U takvom sultanatu, zakon kaže da su svi islamski stanovnici Osmanlijskog carstva - Osmanlije i da trebaju znatu turski jezik. On se izjasnio tako jer nije više bilo potrebe. 13:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Izmene

Dakle, mozete videti sta sam izmenio. Pokusajte da sledece izmene koje se ne ticu njegove knjizevnosti (tj. koje se ticu njegove nacionalne pripadnosti) prvo ovde obrazlozite da ne bismo ulazili u nove ratove izmena. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes are perfect except for the infulence and the ian and n in SerbIAN and BosniaN could buffed into a link together. HolyRomanEmperor 21:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

And, a picture could be imported from the Serbian wikipedia. HolyRomanEmperor 21:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

E, ne razumem te sta si hteo da kazes sa "SerbIAN and BosniaN". Sliku cemo staviti, ali ne znamo kopirajt status slike (sto moze da prodje na srpskoj Vikipediji ali ne moze na engleskoj). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. HolyRomanEmperor 12:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I repaired the article a little. Any objections? HolyRomanEmperor 12:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Vidim sada na sta si mislio; ok je sto se mene tice. Postoji i clanak Muslims by nationality koji mozda treba pomenuti, mada ne znam gde u ovom trenutku. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Emir Arven appears to glorify Alija Izetbegović, a man who signed the London Agreement (cantonization of Bosnia on Moslem, Serb and Croat cantons; just like the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1991 with the Serb and Croat representatives and then betrayed the understanding as soon as he returned to Bosnia, strongly supporting a unitarian Bosnia with a central government in Sarajevo; eventually leading to a civil war (aside from other reasons that followed). HolyRomanEmperor 15:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

According to ur logic, it is called Alijofobia from ur side. U two, should write an article about that...--Emir Arven 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Very funny :) there is no such a thing as a phobia from persons bearing a name... If there is; give sources. HolyRomanEmperor 16:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

For Emir

I'll explain my edits and you can explain what you find disagreeable.

1. He was not Bosnian as most people would understand the term, in the ethnic sense. He was from Bosnia and hence he was a Bosnian in the sense that I'm a Londoner(i.e. denoting geographical origins). That's why I rephrased this sentence. I doubt you'd refer to someone from Sandzak as being "Serbian" just because they were born on the territory of the Republic of Serbia.

He was Bosnian. You cannot say he was from Bosnia but not Bosnian?! --Emir Arven 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

::::He was also European, Yugoslavian, a Tuzlak usw. Saying he's Bosnian gives the impression that he belongs to the(a?) Bosnian nation. Saying he's from Bosnia is not ambiguous.

2. His family were not Bosniaks, as, quite simply, that nation only came into existance in the 90s. No amount of pseudo-historical literature change that.

His familiy was a Bosniak family. Bosniaks as a nation were not born yesterday but much earlier. During Austro-Hungarian period, Bosniak as nowdays, declared themselves as Bosniaks. --Emir Arven 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if that is true (you haven't provided a source), it doesn't mean his parents belonged to that nation. Also, you can't pretend that Bosniak meant the same then as it does now. Then it meant the same as Bosnian does now. To be honest I think we should sidestep the whole issue as I doubt we could ever agree and just say he was born to Muslim parents. I don't really want to get into a discussion of Bosnjastvo/Muslimanstvo. --estavisti 01:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to ask me to explain my other edits. --estavisti 18:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Na redu je knjizevnost Mese Selimovica

Dakle, molio bih Estavistija da prestane sa izmenama onog oko cega je vec postignut kakav-takav dogovor. (Emire, tebe bih zamolio da vratis verziju na dogovorenu, posto sam vec izgubio iz glave sta je dogovoreno a sta ne. Tj. sta je prihvatljivo svima, a vidim da se moja i tvoja poslednja verzija razlikuju.) Dakle, molio bih da se sledece izmene bave Mesinom knjizevnoscu a ne Mesinom nacionalnom pripadnoscu. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Evo ja ću malo o njegovim djelima uskoro... (ako bude bilo vremena) HolyRomanEmperor 16:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop the edit war!

Stop the edit war now and discuss here. HolyRomanEmperor 21:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Damir is a vandal. He was blocked twice because of violation of WP:3RR. He is not making edit war only on this article. And I don't see that talk is possible. I said where Selimovic said his quote and this is not relevant for him. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh you said where he said it, and you want me to take you for your word without you citing any source. Well in that case you should also take me for my word and I saw recently a rather old interview with Mesas's wife on HRT channel where she stated that mesa never decalerd himself as serb and she herself is even serb. Millosh you need to let go of the old communist Yugoslavia mentality, those days are over now let's live like normal humanbeings for once and all. I haven't called you lier or vandal even once whereas you constantly are calling me that, don't bring it to a personal level please, wikipedia is not on life and death, Have a nice day. And concerning Izehars blocking, I don't know why he did it when its obvious that you reverted as much as I did without being blocked yourself. Damir Mišić 12:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Because WP:3RR is not applicable when reverting "simple vandalism", which is the category where 99% of your edits belong. Duja 14:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you milosevic, mladic and karadzic followers maybe have izehar as your allie, the statements you have in the article is pure simple vandalism signed with the mentality of a greater serbia. Damir Mišić 14:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you cared to read the discussion above, this version was agreed by prominent Bosniak and Serbian editors. No one has denied so far that Meša did say that (e.g. Google gives this) and he was entitled to have his opinion on his own ethnicity, didn't he? You're approaching dangerously close to everyone's patience here and don't be surprised if someone takes an action (WP:AC, WP:Probation) soon.Duja 15:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please come on the sources that are being provided are ridiculuos: Author of the article provided: Dušan STANKOVIĆ. Please provide some statements that aren't made by "Yugoslavs" and are without source as well then we may dicuss. Are you threatining me with (WP:AC, WP:Probation), for your info I haven't done anyhting against wikipedia law so just leave it will you. Damir Mišić 17:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So, if his name is Dušan STANKOVIĆ he's presumably a liar, according to you, no? He says: "Da on pripada nedvosmisleno srpskoj književnosti, potvrdio je pismom koje se čuva u SANU. Napisao ga je 1975." Should I travel to Belgrade, dig it out from archives and scan it just so you could be happy?. Duja 13:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dušan STANKOVIĆ makes the same mistake as you he too cites no sources in his article. And no I am not calling this man a liar but as known it is always best to provide sources that are by persons not ethnically or religiously involved in the matter, yes?. Damir Mišić 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This so called letter must be copied somewhere on the net, if the charter of kulin ban from 11th century is on the net then selimovic letter must be somewhere also presumingly this letter actually excists, which I frankly doubt. I say remove the quote and the note 1. And then we have a deal. Damir Mišić 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the article on bs:Meša Selimović. It does not deny his own ethnic affiliation either. As for the quote, you can Google e.g. ], although it's possible that some are mutual rewrites. Both the quote and the note were made by a previous concensus to make everyone happy. (Although I'd be happier to have more about his literature in the article, instead of focusing on localpatriotic quarrels that Mesa himself was horrified with.) The author of the article, and this Misplaced Pages article likewise, did quote the letter, the age and the event, and the existence of the letter, which can be verified, but don't expect us to go ahead and scan it. Why do you suspect forgery? Admittedly, these Internet quotes come from Serbian sources, and most of them are biased, but primarily by selection of his quotes. His ethnic affiliation is a well-known fact and was a source of Bosniak-Serbian nationalistic quarrels for a long time. Now, you're insisting on your own (Bosnian) PoV about him.Duja 14:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not insisting on anything, my proposal is to remove all the quotes and national suggestions of Mesa's nationality. As you said I think the article should purely be about his works, let us make an arthicstic article instead of quotes and suggestions. The only privat thing the article should mention about him is as following: Serbian and Bosnian writer born in a Bosniak family. And we'll just leave it at that. The rest of the article should continue his books and studies at school. And observe nothing should also be mentioned about his language since that is also controversial. Mesa's language in books is the most similiar to bosnian, no wonder since he grew up in a bosnian family, but however nothing of that should be mentioned since it is controversial - the only thing that is needed to be mentioned is that he is a serbian and bosnian writer born in a bosniak family. Okej Duja? Let's forgett those nationalistic matters concerning his nationality, and it seems like the quote can't be verified after all sorry. But even if it can be verified it makes no difference - the matter is way to controversial and shouldn't be brought up! let's make an article on mesa as writer and not an article on mesa as a subject to nationalistic discussions. Damir Mišić 23:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

All controversial issues should be described as controversial. After people from Bosniak and Serbian communities made agreement about sentences in the article, we should continue to work on his literature. But, I don't see anything controversial in the fact that Selimovic was born in Muslim/Bosniak family and that he declared himself as Serb and Serbian author: both are facts. Damir, keep in mind that you are not the first nationalst who is not happy with this article and that communities decided about content with concensus. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That quote lacks concensus. I wonder which communities you are talking of, I asked Bosnian editors about this article and they did not have a clue about what you have done to it. The only "bosnian" editor that I can think of who approved to this is Live Forever. But anyhow this article is not only for serbs and bosnians, but for croats and anyone who is interessted in Mesa's work as well.Damir Mišić 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Damir, keep in mind that you are not the first nationalist who is not happy with this article" - ok good one, lol. Damir Mišić 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

let's make an article on mesa as writer and not an article on mesa as a subject to nationalistic discussions. Damir Mišić 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the obviously polemical issues appearing in this discussion, I think I should point out that there are factual inaccuracies in the article as well. Selimovic's brother did not go to Goli Otok--he was executed in Bosnia. Furthermore, the Fortress is not the only one of his work that has been translated in English—Dervish and the Death was also published in the US. Selimovic wrote a memoir called "Sjecanja" or "Remembrances" in which he speaks about his life and work. Perhaps some of the people here should make the effort to consult this book. (User:L-K)

Serbian/Bosnian/Yugoslavian in intro

I'm not particularly a yugo-nostalgic, but recent edits (Serbian->Yugoslavian) by User:209.195.160.242 struck me as the right thing to do. First, it's an obvious compromise solution, as it avoids classification into either modern state. Second, it avoids mentioning his ethnic affiliation, which is disputed and, I hope you'd agree, not a primary essential part of his life and works. Third, I'd think that Meša himself would approve it—after all, he was a proponent of Serbo-Croatian linguistic and cultural unity rather than an outright nationalist (cf. Emir Kusturica) Duja 08:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Emir, you're revert-warring again. I tried to write a neutral intro, and explained it above, which you just revert to whatever version suits you best. As for your edit comments that "I should read about his work", at least it was me who did anything on his literature (even if it was mere copy from bs:Wiki), while you just keep on quarelling about his ethnic affiliation. Which edit of yours prove your competence on the subject? Duja 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever

Why are you trying to claim his family was Bosniak, without any sources? The comparison with Kusturica is correct: both born to Muslim families in Bosnia, both consider(ed) themselves Serbs. As for the Sandžak Muslims, they show that Muslims by nationality on historically Bosnian territory didn't all become Bosniaks after 1991. So your central assertion, that a Muslim Bosnian=Bosniak is wrong. Please explain yourself, if you can. --estavisti 08:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with "Bosniak", if for anything, then for the sake of political correctness. The assertion that Muslim Bosnian=Bosniak is pretty much in order in my opinion; the case of remaining "Muslims by nationality" in Sandžak and Montenegro is fairly well analysed here. As the term "Bosniak" is in use only since 1990s, it's difficult to extrapolate the past and look into the crystal ball whether Selimović's parents would consider themselves Bosniaks if they lived long enough. I don't think that insisting on the term that Bosniak editors find offending is productive, though, and I'd rather avoid unnecessary "nije šija nego vrat" quarrels doomed to fail in reaching a consensus. Duja 09:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is utterly stupid. Some Bosniak editors find the verifiable facts offensive, and so we must all acquiesce in their guessing game?! According to them, his parents would have considered themselves members of the nation which was proclaimed 80 years after his birth! It's entirely possible that they would have, but they didn't. We must stick to the facts, and until a source is produced to the contrary, we must simply stick to what we know - his family was Bosnian and Muslim. Furthermore, consensus is not the god it's made out to be. We should reach a consensus within a context of respecting sources, verifiability etc - not simply because someone finds the verifiable facts "offensive". I hate to use the following analogy, but it's the first one off the top of my head - should we reach a consensus with Holocaust deniers? The article as it stands is a Bosniak nationalist fantasy. --estavisti 10:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nation which was renamed 80 years after his birth, actually. Without entering into exact statistics, I'd say that around 95% of SFRY's Muslims by nationality call themselves Bosniaks now.

There are similar fruitless quarrels among Greeks, Bulgarians and Macedonians; see e.g. Macedonism for the view of first two on Macedonians' (alleged) attempt to "monopolize history"; was Goce Delčev a Macedonian and Bulgarian etc. etc.

Back to the point: how far back can we go in "retrofitting" history? I stand on the viewpoint that e.g. 1991 census results should not present the term "Muslim"; doing so skews the reality that these same people didn't emigrate to Mars but changed their name to Bosniaks in the meantime. Further back, the point becomes more and more moot; I don't endorse either. But then, you don't have the proof that his parents felt as Serbs either. I don't, however, feel that your points that there are Emir Kusturica and 30,000 Muslims in Sandžak outweigh the point that there's also 1,8 million Bosniaks in Bosnia? Duja 12:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem here has nothing to do with "verifiable facts", because the "verifiable facts" (quotes, writings, etc.) pretty clearly show that Selimović came to consider himself a Serb - as opposed to being born and raised with such a view of his ethnic identity (although the quote of his own Serb wife raises questions as to the exact nature of his declared Serbdom). Rather, the problem here is that, theoretically, you shouldn't have any real preference between "Bosnian Muslim" and "Bosniak", since they both (in their own respective times) referr/ed to a unique ethnic group distinct from Serbs. Instead, you have a clear preference for "Bosnian Muslim" because, unlike Bosniak, it implies a religious identity and you take it as a term designeting something less than national. Thus, what we have here is simply another modern example of the old and tired doctrine of refusing to recognize and respect the Bosniak-Muslims' identity. Using your logic, nothing and nobody can be described as "Bosniak" in any context before 1991, when they magically dropped from the sky totally independent of any historical national development. Of course, this really shouldn't be a problem for us glupe Balije because you are "kind" enough to overlook it when it doesn't concern you. Whenever it does however (for instance, with Mr. Selimovic), it is simply your duty as the superior and more rightfully nationalized Serb people to put your foot down and put us into place. Give me a break. Selimović was born into a Bosniak family 80 years before his people succesfully fully completed their nationalization. His early views, expressed in various statements and writings, are perfectly in line with the views most Bosniaks held at the time (a sense of uniqueness from Serbs and Croats, a sense of identity based partly on Islam and partly on a strong emotional and psychological tie to the land and concept of Bosnia, etc.), and his eventual (apparent/questionable) decision to declare himself a Serb can only be viewed in context of his era, surroundings, and Bosniak heritage, which place him in the same boat as numerous other Bosniak intellectuals who opted for Croat or Serb ethnic identity during a time when such a choice was actually encouraged and no other true alternative was clearly formulated. Meša Selimović was born into a Bosniak family, is of Bosniak origins, and had a literary output that drew strongly from this heritage; these are facts that can't be brushed away no matter what he eventually came to consider himself and no matter how inconvenient recognition of a Bosniak people before 1991 is to Serbs - end of story. And I won't even get into you labeling me a Bosniak nationalist, much less comparing my viewpoint to that of holocaust deniers. Live Forever 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you two have written a lot, but failed to answer my point. The majority of the Muslims by nationality in Bosnia/Herzegovina/Sandzak may today consider themselves Bosniaks, but a not insignificant minority do not. Of course, we cannot know the precise situation in BiH, because of the political obstacles to a census being conducted, so we can only go on Sandzak, which you seem to consider part of the Bosniak space when it suits you, and not, when it doesn't. Duja, nowhere have I claimed that his parents considered themselves Serbs, you're refuting a point that you're falsely attributing to me. I disagree that the results of the 1991 census need to talk about Bosniaks, because those people didn't consdier themselves Bosniaks. Of course, it should be prominently noted that 95%+ (but not all) of those same people consider themselves Bosniaks today. Applying your logic to the census results in Montenegro would result in some truly bizarre contortions vis-a-vis Serb-Montengrins and Dioclean-Montenegrins (for want of a better term).
Live Forever, you're likewise refuting claims I didn't make - that Selimović always considered himself a Serb. Clearly, having been born to a Muslim family in Bosnia, it is unlikely (though not impossible) that that is the case. Secondly, the terms "Musliman" and "Bošnjak" do not refer to the same group of people. It is true that there is a large overlap, but the terms are not synonyms. Bosniaks did not "drop from the sky", as you accuse me of thinking, but it is ludicrous to claim that every Musliman, even in 1910 (!) would have become a Bošnjak if only they had been around '92-'93. You simply cannot refer to people who died before the introduction of "Bošnjaštvo" as Bosniaks, because there is no indication that they themselves would have acquiesed to form part of this new nation. This is where the Sandžak Muslims and Emir Kusturica come in - they are examples of Muslims who rejected the Bosniak national project. Your case simply does not have a leg to stand on. As for the analogy, as I stated above, it was not to compare you to a Holocaust denier, but to draw a parallel of logic. However, I still consider you a Bosniak nationalist (although I wasn't referring specifically to you above) - you'd like to backdate everything and include people who died 30 years ago into a nation a little over a decade old, although that is neither here nor there - I shouldn't have any need to resort to personal attacks when my arguments are superior. :-) --estavisti 18:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your 'superior' arguments have been heard thousands of times before. Seeing that claiming Bosniaks as Islamicized Serbs has gotten a little out of fashion, the new argument-of-choice is to try and completely deny them their history and heritage by way a transparent technicality wherever it's deemed inconvenient to Serbs' own national interests. Brilliant. Unfortunately, problems are abound. Assigning nationality in historical retrospect (where it is appropriate in terms of time period, political situation, nature of individual etc.) is primarily a matter of culture and ethnicity, and the name used to describe the same people at various points of time is insignificant. Black intellectuals in 19th century America were fervently opposed to names that highlighted their connection to the African continent because they in turn associated this with movements that supported relocating them to their supposed homelands. If we were to follow the logic you employ in regards to Bosniaks/Muslims here, then it would be absolutely ridiculous to label men such as Frederick Douglass "African-American", but we do so because we recognize that he was part of this same people regardless of differences in modern and historical terminology. If we were to apply the strict Puritanism you propagate here throughout Misplaced Pages we'd have to rename every individual that belonged to an ethnic group that changed its national name over time according to the exact contemporary term that they found most appropriate. Surely even you, despite the inherent and transparent agenda that exists behind your adopted argument, would be able to recognize the absurdity of such an approach. The chief problem, upon which the above-mentioned argument rests, is the popular view among Serb would-be internet intellectuals that the statistical split among those who registered on recent censuses as "Muslims by nationality" and "Bosniak" reflects the existence of two different people. It does not, and to assume so would be, at the very least, a gross oversimplification. Those who identify themselves as "Muslims by nationality" and "Bosniak" share every single trait that would typically be used to distinguish an ethnic group precisely because they are, essentially, the same people (A fact acknowledged even by them, as attested to by the presence of shared ethnic debates, cultural institutions, and a wide array of other manifestations of nationality). The only matter of contention between the two is their national name - a significant matter of contention, but not one to warrant an imaginary split into separate ethnic communities which even they wouldn’t endorse. Rather, this phenomenon can only be viewed in context of the process of nationalization of one single people, hampered and restrained by various historical and political factors (which is exactly the way in which the matter is portrayed in serious studies of the situation). Now what exactly these people should be called is a different matter ("Bosniak-Muslim" is one often used adjective to reflect the census split), but an issue wholly separate from the likes of Selimović because it is unique to Montenegro and regions geopolitically separate from Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a direct product of the special circumstances surrounding Serbia and Montenegro, the existence of 30,000 "Muslims" is completely irrelevant when discussing Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the adoption of the Bosniak name and the entire process of nationalization has been accepted and completed (In Montenegro the issue is reflected culturally and politically. In Bosnia and Herzegovina it is entirely nonexistent). As for Emir Kusturica, the man himself has stated that he and his family always considered themselves Serbs, so what he has to do with Bosniaks or even "Muslims by nationality" is beyond me (furthermore, the weight of one eccentric celebrity filmmaker against the entire course of Bosnian history is a little questionable). Both examples you brought up therefore don't stand. Your observations on the Bosniak/Muslim split in Serbia and Montenegro might demonstrate that Misplaced Pages should be careful in labeling historical figures on those respective territories, but in regards to Meša Selimović and Bosnian Muslims your points are off-mark and amount to little more than a bad attempt to deny Bosniaks their historical identity by portraying the emergence and wide-spread acceptance of the Bosniak national name as a "project" and some kind of contemporary political phenomenon, rather than the natural (albeit, somewhat unusual) culmination of a nationalization process that it is (as can be seen by the terms universal acceptance in Bosnia and Herzegovina, an increasing majority of Bosniak/Muslim-s in Serbia and Montenegro, seemingly all non-Gorani Slavic Muslims in Kosovo, etc.). Of course in overviews of Bosnian history it is reasonable (and perhaps necessary) to use contemporary terms when discussing the various nationalities (it is silly to discuss Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks in the context of the 16th century, or even early 19th), but we are not discussing history here but a specific individual and his ethnic background through a modern lens. Just as it is perfectly reasonable to describe Husein Gradaščević as a Bosniak it is perfectly sensible, through a simple analysis of the cultural, historical, and political factors involved, to say that Meša Selimović was born into a Bosniak family. Live Forever 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1. "Seeing that claiming Bosniaks as Islamicized Serbs has gotten a little out of fashion, the new argument-of-choice is to try and completely deny them their history and heritage by way a transparent technicality wherever it's deemed inconvenient to Serbs' own national interests." Again, you project onto me your own insecurities about what I brought up. You may like to reread what I wrote, nowhere did I claim that Bosniaks are Islamicised Serbs. No one's trying to deny Bosniaks a history, but you can't simply appropriate a Muslim Bosnian historical figure and use the modern term "Bosniak". Your argument is so illogical that it beggars belief. Most Bosnian Muslims started declaring themselves Bosniaks in 1992-3, so all Bosnian Muslims in history are really Bosniaks. Well, no.

Overanalyzing and misconstruing what I wrote.

1. "Black intellectuals in 19th century America were fervently opposed to names that highlighted their connection to the African continent because they in turn associated this with movements that supported relocating them to their supposed homelands." This analogy is faulty, because as far as I know there isn't a significant minority of black people in the US who reject the term "African-American". Even given that this is the case, these historical figures should not be considered African-Americans, although it is obvious that they are closely connected. If they are (wrongly, in my opinion) considered African-Americans, it's probably by people who have just as much of an agenda as you do here. The term African-American is itself problematic, but let's not get into that.

There is no significant minority of Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina who reject the term either, so the analogy stands. As for your belief that it is wrong to label any American blacks before the last quarter of the 20th century "African-American", have fun editing the several thousand articles that follow that widely-accepted reasonable convention.

1. "If we were to apply the strict Puritanism you propagate here throughout Misplaced Pages we'd have to rename every individual that belonged to an ethnic group that changed its national name over time according to the exact contemporary term that they found most appropriate." I don't see what your point is. That's exactly what should be case, given that ethnicity is primarily a matter of self-identification. Of course, we can explain each case (born to parents of aaa ethnic group, today most xxxs consider themselves yyys, he had a strong influence on the development of ethnic group zzz etc), given the specifics.

The point is that such an approach is completely impractical and more detrimental than beneficial.

1. "The only matter of contention between the two is their national name - a significant matter of contention, but not one to warrant an imaginary split into separate ethnic communities which even they wouldn’t endorse." Why should someone who considers himself a Muslim by nationality be considered a Bosniak. Because you know better? By your logic, because Šokci and Bunjevci associate very closely with Croats, and even share the same minority political parties, then the names "Šokac" and "Bunjevac" are worthless and shouldn't be used. Clearly, if someone declares themselves a Muslim by nationality (post-92), they do not want to be considered a Bosniak.

Putting words into my mouth yet again.

1. "As a direct product of the special circumstances surrounding Serbia and Montenegro, the existence of 30,000 "Muslims" is completely irrelevant when discussing Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the adoption of the Bosniak name and the entire process of nationalization has been accepted and completed." How do you know that? The last census was conducted in 1991, and - if you will allow me to enlighten you - no Bosniaks were recorded on it. To say 100.00% of those who declared themselves Muslims by nationality in 1991 now consider themselves Bosniaks is pure speculation. Even if that were somehow the case, that has no bearing on the fact that neither Selimović's parents, nor the man himself, never considered themselves Bosniaks, not even according to the biased sources you're wont to dig up from third rate universities in provincial cities in the US.

Because, unlike in Montenegro, there is absolutely no issue. There is absolutely no sign of, as you said above, a "significant minority" which would signify a disagreement.

1. "As for Emir Kusturica, the man himself has stated that he and his family always considered themselves Serbs, so what he has to do with Bosniaks or even "Muslims by nationality"." Well, that's not what he stated. He stated that he knew, and his family knew, of his family's Serb heritage. That doesn't change that they were Bosnian Muslims, and hence the example of Kusturica is pertinent, as a Bosnian Muslim who rejected the Bosniak project, which drove him to consider himself a Serb.

No, it still makes him fundementally different from Selimović who became enlightened of his Serbdom in the early 70s.

1. " amount to little more than a bad attempt to deny Bosniaks their historical identity by portraying the emergence and wide-spread acceptance of the Bosniak national name as a "project" and some kind of contemporary political phenomenon." Well isn't it? Since the name only came into widespread use about 15 years ago. Of course, the history of the "Bosniaks" is bound up tightly with Bosnian Muslim history / history of Muslims in Bosnia, but the overlap is not 100%.

No more of a "project" or "political phenomenon" than, say, the acceptance of the Serb ethnic name in Bosnia.

1. "Just as it is perfectly reasonable to describe Husein Gradaščević as a Bosniak." Well, I reject that too, as I do your attempts to sidetrack the argument.

What sidetrack? Your arguements here would logically mean, as said above, that we'd have to rework every article about an individal from an ethnic group that changed its name, so Gradaščević is one of thousands of articles that you should be diligently working on. It is not my fault that the hundreds of articles from Gradaščević to Douglass don't concern you just because they're not related to Serbs.

1. "It is perfectly sensible, through a simple analysis of the cultural, historical, and political factors involved, to say that Meša Selimović was born into a Bosniak family." Simply, no. Your problem, as you admit yourself, is that you're looking at this through a "modern lens". There is about as much evidence that his parents considered themselves Bosniaks, as there is that they considered themselves Serbs or Martians i.e. none whatsoever.
   Your attempts to claim a Bosniak identity existed in history, and backdate a 15 year old development to the 19th century, are simply doomed to failure. No matter how much it annoys you, your arguments don't have a leg to stand on. There is no evidence whatsoever that his parents considered themselves Bosniaks, and as I have shown, they should not be considered as such simply because they spoke Serbo-Croat, lived in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and were Muslims. --estavisti 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is a far better approach that should be employed where reasonable (as is the case here) over the objections of a select group of individauls with special interests. Live Forever 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

estavisti' and bosoni's little debate on the each other's alleged pov

One, he was a Serbian writer by his own admission. Two, he could have lived in Belgrade and not be a Serbian writer. He's a Serbian writer because he was a Serb wrote in Serbian. Not to mention the insinuation that Serbs are somehow foreigners in Bosnia, but we'll let that go. Thirdly, how can his parents be Bosniaks when people have only been declaring themselves as such for the past 15 years? Fourthly, "Serbs tend to mean it was ment in an ethnic way while Bosniaks characterize it as merely a regional designation.". This doesn't even deserve a response, but I'll dignify it with one. He declared that he belonged to the nation which produced Matavulj (a Montenegrin Serb), Kočić (a Bosnian Serb), and Andrić (a Bosnian Catholic Serb/Croat). So he's obviously not referring to that fact that he lived in Serbia. Not to mention that he said that "my deepest kinship with them I don't need to prove". Bosoni, as is clear from his userpage, is a Bosnian Muslim nationalist, and various Bosnian Muslim propaganda has made him believe that Serbs are usurping his cultural heritage. When this patently isn't true, he clutches at straws to construct a selective, skewed and outright falsified version of the facts, which he can succeed in reconciling with his world view. I'd really appreciate it if he could do that somewhere other than on Misplaced Pages's supposedly neutral pages. --estavisti 04:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti I most say I admire your versatile language, you are good. But sadly the content of what you are saying is rubbish. Estavisti please: 1. He was muslim, 2. His parents were Bosniaks, (Last 15 years? and you're not a serb nationalist?) 3. His origins belong in the Bosnian country because he was born their and so was his grandfather 4. His langauge resembled the Bosnian langauge much more than any other, the only problem back then was that serb and croat nationalist forbid the name "Bosnian language" becasue the truth scared them, and obviously still does (not pointing fingers now :O). I feel kinship with african americans for example, but does that make me one?... :O:O...And that quote is anyway purely made up by various serbian users on wikipedia, but I'll let you have your little play. I belong to the french nation - lived here my whole life - but does that make an ethnic french? This discussion is finito for now. Oh yeah, almost forgot, I'm not an adherent of Islam (not a Muslim) estavisti so how can I be a "Bosnian Muslim nationalist". Oh boy, sweet Jesus in heaven, what is your problem? Bosoni

Nice debating technique, countering arguments I didn't even make. 1) Of course he was Islamic, I didn't dispute that he was. So what? (2) Find me any source published more than 16 years ago that his parents were Bosniaks. Find me any statement by them to that effect. How can they have been Bosniaks when the Bosniak national awekening was only 16 years ago? (3) Again something I didn't dispute. However, Bosnia is a country of three equal nations: Serbs, Croats, and Muslims (today Bosniaks). So being from Bosnia doesn't somehow magically exclude him from being a Serb. (4) He wrote in a language which can be called Serbian, Bosnian, Serbo-Croat. The fact is he expressed clearly that he belonged to Serbian literature, that he felt a deep affinity with the greats of Serbian literature etc. The rest of what you have to say is neither here nor there. What is comes down to is your unsubstantied argument about the supposed Bosniakdom (which is itself largely irrelevant), as against the man's own self-expressed identity. --estavisti 17:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti I respect your thoughts, but you are reverting the quote I added! And we all know that the word in the quote is nationality and not ethnicity - becasue the qoute has been there for months and months but suddenly it was changed into ethnicity. And finally Mesa is primarily Bosnian - in the sense - that he belongs to that country. And I ask you kindly, don't revert the Bosniaks' view on Mesa's affiliation. But I agree with you on one thing, "Bosniak national awekening was only 16 years ago" - per definition it was re-born 16 years ago, but had existed prior to the brief (a century or so) Yugoslavian period for centuries. Estavisti I can see you are reasonable man and let's agree on something, I don't have anything against serbs or croats as a nation - I make my oppinions on individual basis. ("Nice debating", I know that was ment in an ironic sense, but so what?, I don't know english as well as you do! Perhaps becasue I don't live in England like you?) ) Thank you Bosoni

Your English is pretty good, the comment was about your ability to present counter arguments, regardless of your language ability. There still aren't any counter arguments, so back it goes until you make a case for your edits. As for the Bosniak view, it is presented in the article, as is the man's own view, and the reader can draw his own conclusions. --estavisti 19:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

EGO Just draw parallel between Switzerland and Bosnia. There are no SWITZERIANS,there are French,German and Italian linguistic and ethnic groups. I understand that it is dificullt for muslims from Bosnia to admit their Serbian or Croatian background. They are like part of river cut from mainflow. But i advice all the people to read history and not pseudo-history. And it is sad that borders of today are not drawn neither historicaly neither by ethnicity. It is important to have in mind that Bysantian ruler-Konstantin the 7th named Bosnia(land around river of the same name) explicitly state of the Serbs. Name of the state could be taken from ethnical(Croatia,serbia,England) or geographical(Switzerland,Moldavia,Austria,BOSNIA) background. Those are the facts that are well known and not hidden in some pseudo-historical lectures. After all,we are all one people torn apart by religion(which wrote the most of the bloody and sad pages in worlds history. Zanimljivo je sto Hamburski Nijemac uopste nemoze da razumije Nijemca iz Bavarije ali ipak zive u istoj zemlji,imaju stardandizovan jezik i obojica kazu za sebe da su Nijemci.Svakoga ko moze procitat ovo ja smatram svojim bratom a za kraj parafraziracu Andrica:Tko ti iskopa oko?Brat.Zato je rana tako duboka i krvava.

Selimovic as a Serbian writer and not "Bosnian"

In his Testament to SANU (Serbian Academy of Science and Arts) in 1976, Selimovic explicitly negated any connection of his to any national literature aside of Serbian, foreseeing possible outcome of future Yugoslavian crisis:

http://www.srpskidespot.org.yu/Tekstovi/PismoMeseSelimovica.htm

"I come from a Muslim family in Bosnia, and by nationality I am a Serb. I belong to Serbian literature, and consider my works in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to which I also belong, just a home and the center of my literature, and not a separate literature of Serbo-Croatian language on its own. Any attempts of separating the two, for any cause, will be considered as a violation of my fundamental rights, guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, I belong to the nation and literature of Vuk, Matavulj, Stevan Sremac, Borisav Stanković, Petar Kočić and Ivo Andrić. It is not necessary for me to prove my deepest kinship to all of them.

"The addressing of this testament to SANU is not coincidental. It is my explicit demand that it should be considered as essential autobiographic data."

Marechiel 18:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote in question has been in the article since its creation. A kind of compromise was reached after painstaking discussion above, and I'd appreciate if you read it before trying to impose WP:TRUTH. If you have something to contribute on Mesa's life, and works, it would be far more useful than reopening the debate on his ethnicity again, which hasn't brought anything good. Thanks. Duja► 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Define a compromise. Is it a "middle solution" between the truth and non-truth, or a middle solution to please both Serbian and Bosniak nationalistic agenda? I call for the reconsideration of the desicion about the final aricle. Selimovic's Testament cannot and will not be such brutally ignored. If it takes to repeat it over and over what his own words and his own demands were, then it is what it takes. "I belong to Serbian literature, and consider my works in Bosnia and Herzegovina but a home and the center of my literature, and not a separate literature on its own. Any attempts of separating the two, for any c

ause, will be considered as a violation of my fundamental rights, guaranteed by the Constitution. It is my explicit demand that it should be considered as an essential autobiographic data." Selimovic's official, final, and ultimate will, stressed in his Testament to SANU.

Explicit. Demand. Who among petty Internet nationalists can put his own agenda over Selimovic's work, and who is entitled to do so? According to the man whom we are talking about, there is no Bosnian literature, and if there was one, he considered himself not a part of it, nor did he agree that his work should be "separated" into two literatures, exactly foreseeing what would happen, and what did happen.

The arguments used above, like the ones that he lived in Bosnia, and wrote about Bosnia are irrelevant. Those kind of arguments do not make Rudyard Kipling Indian writer, but explicitelly Brittish. Selimovic was a declared Serb, who wrote in what was then called Serbo-Croatian language, and considered himself and his work as part of Serbian literature exclusively. Not a part of Serbian literature as well, but a part of Serbian literature exclusively. The agreement of three Misplaced Pages editors from Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia that happend to be online at one moment in the past is rather irrelevant. This is Misplaced Pages in English, and certain standards ought to be met. It takes more than three ex-Yugos to agree on it. (Reverting back, see Selimovic's Testament). Marechiel 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And you wholesale reverted addition of 5 paragraphs and 4 references because you didn't like wording of the intro? And you got the nerve to call other editors "petty Internet nationalists" when all your "work" on Misplaced Pages consists of fixing the ethno-national background of Nikola Tesla, Enki Bilal and Meša?
Like it or not, Meša is considered part of Bosnian literature as well as of Serbian one by others, even if he perhaps denied it himself. And his testament, even if it is an agreed fact, is not a binding clause for Misplaced Pages. Is there something in the current introduction and text that doesn't fit the facts? If you don't want to contribute to description of his works and his life in an encyclopedic way, then please don't impose your version of The Truth. Duja► 08:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. OK, I'll pay attentnion next time to edit the intro only. 2. Etno-national background is an important issue. 3. You will not call the truth "my version" of it. Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian, especially considering the language, are political categories and late Selimovic made himself clear considering those issues. It IS a "binding clause" for Misplaced Pages, that he was of Serbian ethnic background, wrote in Serbo-Croat and made himself a part of Serbian literature, and not Bosnian. You can, of course, call him "Yugoslavian", or "European", or "modern", but you cannot do two things: a) call him a part of Bosnian litereture he himself denied and b) deny his belonging to Serbian nation and literature. And yes, I DO have the nerve to call petty Internet nationalists what they are. Marechiel 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Which just proves that you didn't even read the article 2) No, I maintain that it's not, at least not so important to be quarelled about in the introduction section; it is recorded in the article though (which you apparently didn't read according to (1) ). 3) ...but I guess that (1) and (2) clarify who is a "petty Internet nationalist" here. No one denies him belonging to Serbian nation and literature. If you don't want to be part of solution, there's no need that you be the part of the problem. Duja► 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not comment the above reply, since its author is obviously intellectually incapable of realizing the point of what was being said and because of the low level of the comment itself (the "which only proves that you are..." and "it clarifies who is the..." ones). And, on the other hand, because of obvious lies; in every "introduction section" of every writer, both the ethno-national background and literature are mentioned. ("Yugoslav" --how tasteless; how come this non-existing reference is never applied to people of Croatian background, for instance Miroslav Krleža or Ivan Goran Kovačić).

It is not the right thing to do to mask and blur actual facts when they do not coincide with nationalistic agenda, in this case (perhaps) Bosniak one. It is not the right thing to do to make one Serbian writer, one of the central writers in modern Serbian literature, who even explicitly declared who he was and to whom he belonged, less Serbian. Judging by the opening paragraph, he was everything but Serbian. That is not right. The opening paragraph is supposed to sumarise the most important points of the article. Instead of that, we have that he was a "Yugoslav writer" whose dialect has shaped "Bosnian standard language", that he dealt with Bosnian Muslims and is considered to be a part of Bosnian and Serbian literature, respectively. The truth is that Selimovic was a Serbian writer from Bosnia and Herzegovina whose work is, nevertheless, claimed by leading Bosniak literates because of his Muslim background, so both objective and his own affiliation are being relativised, obscured, ignored and viciously denied, and those who point out to that accused for "nationalism" and "ignorance" and labeled as "trouble-makers". Marechiel 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits

OK, I tried to expand a bit on Mesa's work and life rather than focusing on the goddam ethnicity. As for the quote from "Sjecanja", an online copy (OCR, copyvio) seems to be here; while the fact-checking about its accuracy is appreciated, I don't have a reason to doubt it was genuine. Still more expansion and details are called for; the conflict that caused him to leave Sarajevo is only hinted about in the sources and his memoirs, but I couldn't find the details. Duja► 10:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationality vs. Ethnicity

Please note that "nationality" in English normally means "citizenship", and Serbo-Croatian "nacionalnost" does not translate well into "nationality"; it's ambigous at best. While the "nationality" and "ethnicity" aren't necessarily exact synonyms, in English they are most often perceived as such; see the considerations under Nationality#alternative usage. However, ethnicity is unambiguous in this context.
As for the wording of the introduction, I maintain (and will continue to) that "Yugoslavian ... belonging to Serbian and Bosnian literature" is

1. Factually correct—he was a citizen of and spent his entire life in Yugoslavia, and belongs to both Serbian and Bosnian literature even by his own admission. While the Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, it certainly did exist during his life.
2. Neutral—it avoids mentioning of the complex issue of his ethnic affiliation, which is discussed in detail in the text below.

A similar solution was applied to Ivo Andrić and seems to work. Duja► 08:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Duja, he distinguished the terms: origin and direction, which can be interpreted as ethnicity and nationality. As you know, he could say: "narodnost" which would be closer to ethnicity than "nacionalnost" the term he used. Emir Arven 09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to distinguish "narodnost" and "nacionalnost" myself, at least not in a consistent way (i.e. in most cases, I could use both). "Narodnost" does mean only "ethnicity", while "nacionalnost" may also mean "citizenship" (however, especially when referring to ex-SFRY nations, in 99% cases it means just "ethnicity"): when you read in press "dva lica srpske nacionalnosti", it normally means "two Serbs", not "two persons from Serbia" . Duja► 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But I agree with the new intro. Emir Arven 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting thing regarding this. After WWII, during Mesa's short-lived stay in Zagreb, he was asked why he denies his Moslem people in favor of the foreign "hostile" Serbian - he answered this with a connotation of the Ustasha genocide against his people, and that he's proud to say he's a Serb because of that which occurred in WWII. --PaxEquilibrium 16:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha...This is really bull shit. Don't be offended by the words, but ha ha ha...man I don't understand you. Tell me honestly, have you ever read any of his books? Emir Arven 13:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding genocide, Serbia is the only country in the world with the certificate by ICJ which says Serbia violated the Genocide Convention. And Serbs or their Army is the only Army which commited genocide, dolus specialis, in the modern world. It is also rude to talk about WWII, because chetnics were fascists who commited terrible crimes in Easter Bosnia against Bosniak population. My cousines were killed in Foča during WWII by chetnics. Emir Arven 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You see - that's near to that what I meant under hate speeches.

I will show you references if you want (there's not necessity for that).

I might be obsessed with history, but you are obsessed with war, killing & destruction. --PaxEquilibrium 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just the truth, which is terrible. My people didn't commit genocide, but Serb Army did. Saying that truth, established by world's highest courte, is not hate speech, but history fact. Emir Arven 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth about that thing has nothing to do with this. Mesa Selimovic has nothing to do with the Serb Army, neither the Chetniks, nor "your people's army". The very fact that you use Serb War Crimes as a link to everything, even beautiful writers like Mesa Selimovic, is what is spreading hate speech. Tell me, what on earth do the Chetniks have to do with Mesa? --PaxEquilibrium 18:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you mentioned Ustasha, which were along with Chetnics fascist collaborators. These terms always go together. Emir Arven 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you read that word but not the sentence in which it's used? --PaxEquilibrium 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir why are you talking about fascist collaboration?? LOL!! Did you forget about SS Handzar? You bring up the ICJ, which specifically cleared Serbia of genocide, as only declaring Serbs as genocidal... are you aware that this court was not established during WWII when Bosniaks and Croats, in the name of Hitler, committed a genocide against the Serbs? By calling Serbs genocidal you are also calling Mesa the same, as he declared his nationality as SERB and as he traced his ethnic roots to a SERB ORTHODOX family. Please show some more respect for this great Serbian writer. --24.150.77.3 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding last edit on the ethnicity

At Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies) for opening paragraph guideline it says: Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Taking many recent edits to this article into account, I can conclude that subject's (Meša Selimović) notability to some extent is relevant to its notability. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such interest in this article - in here I'm considering mine interest, also. So, for now I include Selimović's ethnicity in the introduction. Maybe, the opening sentence should be rephrased to provide more information on the controversy regarding this issue and thus give more unbiased view, but this quest I leave to future editors. As some sort of a guideline to solve this the Yugoslavs ethnicity could serve.

All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 20:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I find the argument that his ethnicity in the opening is relevant because of an edit war on Misplaced Pages fairly unconvincing. I don't see how his ethnicity is relevant to his fame and works whatsoever; at best, it is among many of little petty Balkan quarrels. He wasn't a national activist or a prosecuted person because of his ethnicity where it would really matter. Besides, it has an entire section devoted in the article. Above all, he was a proponent of South Slavic unity and a communist. I'm removing it. Duja► 06:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Argument on editwaring to prove notability of his ethnicity may not be convincing enough, to this you are right, and I confess that I haven't provided other arguments for my previous edits. However, there is a whole section on this subject in the article itself. If the controversy on his ethnicity weren't notable, there wouldn't be so much text about it - my thinking. Existence of the controversy issue in article on him, does add to the Selimović's notability, you can't argue that. What is the cause and what is the consequence - notability or controversy - is another question, though. But removing accurate information from the intro isn't constructive. Editor's impression that someone rephrased his words and put it in the article, is an explanation from your side for your edit, and this I cannot regard as an argument at all.

Also, if Selimović was a proponent of South Slavic unity, he was some sort of a national activist, wasn't he. Even though being a Yugoslavs proponent (which I look mostly positively upon - just for the record), it can be regarded as a national activity, because at the time Yugoslavs were counted as a nation. I see some analogy in the article American (word). There you can find that the explanation for the adjective American is of or relating to the United States of America as the first meaning. This meaning, I comprehend mostly as a nationality - and the article itself states this "nationality" meaning of the word as the first, too.

As per my goal - it is to improve the article. To prove this, I can point that his "emphasizing" on Serbian ethnicity can be considered somewhat contradictory to the sentence that he was ... a proponent of ... cultural and lingustic unity among the peoples of Yugoslavia. This is just my brain-storming contribution which I give for future editors to look upon when trying to improve the article.

All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 11:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. But, be aware of the history of this page: back in 2005, it contained only a couple of sentences on his life and works, the (in)famous SANU speech quote, and the introductory paragraph has been warred over and over between "Serb" and "Bosnian"/"Bosniak". The quotefarm later increased, and the lead has been still subject of an edit war. At one point, I tried to reduce that undue weight and expand (still to an unsatisfactorily amount, but yet) his biography and works, and removed the spurious ethnicity debate from the lead. Note that even the (semi-)biographies at pro-Serbian Rastko website, pro-Bosniak Kitabhana.net and BH Dani and eponymous school in Tuzla do not state his ethnicity. What you see in this article is a consequence of ethno-national obsession of (certain) Misplaced Pages editors; I maintain that its further emphasizing is an undue weight, and just ask that the trend is stopped, and that edit warring is not provoked further. Call me paranoid or accuse of ownership, but I am wary about "innocent passer-bys" whose sole "improvement" to the article is to insert a controversial statement.

As far as I know, his own "emphasizing" of Serbian ethnicity and movement from Sarajevo to Belgrade mostly came out as result of his conflict with local bureaucrats and pseudo-intelligentsia in Sarajevo; the details I don't know about, nor can I source it. But again, the entire "controversy" (although not a secret) is chiefly on the level of nationalist internet forums (this talk page not excluded) and should be de-emphasized rather than propagated.

Again, I'm removing the sentence per WP:MOSBIO. I find your arguments that he was an "national activist" utterly inconvincing. And the rest of that sentence are my words, taken from this very talk page; He declared as an atheist , his leftist/communist stanza, at least in his youth, was not a secret, and his works on Serbo-Croatian literature and Vuk's heritage tell for its own; but the statement that "he was a proponent of South Slavic unity and a communist" was just a conjecture of mine, which I can do on the talk page but not in the article without sources. Duja► 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see the only "strong" expression taken from this talk page (actually your words) and put to the article is "South Slavic unity". When editing, the object of my interest was more the sentence taken from the article itself which states ..was also a proponent of the Serbo-Croat language, and cultural and lingustic unity among the peoples of Yugoslavia. The final result was ..supported the South Slavic unity among the peoples of Yugoslavia and was a strong proponent of Serbo-Croatian language.. in the newly added paragraph. This might sound too inclined to the idea of his pro-South-Slavic affiliation. Or to the least unsourced - if you take the statement word by word. But I was merely paraphrasing, this you can see yourself. Again, I think that this controversy should be stated in the opening, because it summarizes the whole section. The subsequent subsection "Quotes" also adds to the fact that there is, if not controversy, than some sort of contradiction with his ethnicity. Maybe some rewording of my paragraph can improve this and moreover, prevent future repetition of editwaring, which here surely was of unconstructive nature. Or if not this, then a bigger task - rewriting the section is an alternative. Anyway, my opinion is that if there is an editwar going, something isn't being addressed right in the article and some atention should be given to it. --Biblbroks's talk 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

FUNNY

It's just funny how even someone who SO CLEARLY stated he is a Serb by nationality and who traced his ethnic roots back to a Serb Orthodox family can still be forcefully usurped by bosniak fanatics. Some people have no shame on here. --24.150.77.3 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not easy for them, the only relevant Muslim writer Bosnia had in 20th century, and he so fiercely insisted on being a Serb and part of Serbian literature. Ironically, Selimovic who denied the very existence of Bosniak ethnicity, Bosnian language and separate Bosnian literature is posthumously proclaimed a Bosnian writer of Bosniak ethnicity who wrote in Bosnian language. :) 93.86.33.62 (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic vs. Cyrillic

I see that for some it is offensive to write Mesa's name in Serbian Cyrillic... so they put cyrillic. Yet it is still written in Serbian Cyrillic, not Russian or Ukranian or Kazakh Cyrillic. So why mislead people into the overly general Cyrillic family when it is clearly written in SERBIAN CYRILLIC?? I realize some fanatics see everything as a nationalist issue, but this is an issue of linguistic accuracy. --24.150.77.3 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Serbian Nationalist Propaganda Platform

Why is it that no one from Misplaced Pages is actually able to comprehend the proliferation of Serbian nationalistic propaganda and do something about it? At least, one could draw from historical resources in order to try and limit the extents of the machinery. Don't you have enough editors or are people generally disinterested in this particular topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpy tooth (talk • contribs) 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Because, according to you, Mesha Selimovic himself was a 'Serbian nationalistic propagandist', since he specifically declared his ethnicity Serbian and his literature Serbian, and specifically denied that he should posthumously be affiliated with any other ethnicity, language and/or literature in his written testament. He even denied the very existence of separate Bosnian literature and denied Bosniaks as a nation. 93.86.33.214 (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Serbian writer, Serbian literature

In his written testament Selimovic himself declared himself of being a Serb by ethnicity, Serbian by national affiliation and that his work and language are part of Serbian literature exclusively. I am very sorry to notice that not even did he not consider himself a Bosniak, but also denied the existence of separate Bosniak ethnic group. He also denied the existence of separate Bosnian literature and his posthumous association with any other literature except Serbian, specifically Bosnian. In earlier versions of the page, there was a translation of his written will, those who had a problem with it and removed it cannot and will not make him more of a Bosniak and more of a part of Bosnian literature, the existence of which he strongly denied. Serb, Serbian, Serbian literature, period. 93.86.33.214 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted the link to his letter to the Serbian academy of science and arts. I think Selimović left to Beograd in the late 1970s for perceived misunderstanding by his fellow countrymen. It is not an accident that the so-called Muslim chetnik company used his name during the Bosnian war. --Miacek (t) 12:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make much difference. Ethnicity is something man doesn't change easily. The use of term 'Bosniak' in ethnic sense is not older than 1990's. It first came into use more than a decade after Selimovic's death, and during his life when the idea of a separate Muslim ethnicity in Yugoslavia was first introduced, Selimovic decided to go against it. Bosniaks are a young, modern nation whose core are Slavic Muslims from Bosnia, but one cannot apply modern ethnic keys retroactively, before the nation/ethnicity even came to existence. Especially not in this case, when it was introduced to Selimovic when it was created in 1960's, and he decided against it. As if someone today created a separate Texas independent state and introduced the idea of Texas ethnicity and nationality and local dialect of English to be a 'Texasian language' and forcibly included all loyal Americans from Texas into it, even those who lived long before. 93.86.34.90 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

One can and does apply ethnic terms retroactively. All nations/ethnicities were invented in certain point in time. It's preposterous to claim that Slavic Muslims as a separate nation did not exist before the formal introduction of the term Bosniak. Selimović is today prevalently treated as a writer of Bosniak cultural milieu, and we must follow what categorization on Misplaced Pages. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right to some extent. People can and do apply ethnic terms retroactively. A lot of chauvinists do that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.65.164 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you? An Eskimo chauvinist perhaps? --Biblbroks (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did I what? Eskimos can't be chauvinists. They're so super-cool, anything said in their favor can't be exaggerated. --93.87.239.109 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you apply ethnic terms retroactively? So Eskimos can't be chauvinists, yes? Haven't you just said something in their favour that is perhaps exaggerated? --Biblbroks (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't. Eskimos existed (under that name) before Mesa was even born (so did Canadians). I already said that there can't be any exaggeration concerning Eskimos. But, enough with jokes... I really don't like these "he was blue/no, he was green" kind of quarrel, but some informations in this article simply contradicts what he himself said. There seems to be double standards when it comes to criteria on which nationality of people from former Yugoslavia is determined. It looks like the begining of the article is trying to wangle reader to one POV.--93.87.239.109 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you? Who was then that made this edit - I think it could be considered as an application of some ethnic terms, and that retroactively. Don't you think that stating Meša was an Eskimo is a bit of an exaggeration concerning Eskimos - disregarding if it's in the positive or negative way - IMHO, it is somewhat an exaggeration, and, also IMO, it is concerning the Eskimos. That was for the jokes' part. As for the look of the article's beggining, what exactly do you mean? Which part, what POV? Please, be more specific! This is rather controversial topic, and due to this fact the article suffered quite some deal of biased edits - so, yes, I do believe it could, and should be improved. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you're such an Eskimo-denier, and anti-Eskimo chauvinist. Just stop it! 'Key? :-* Now, let's get on essentially and formally serious part. I meant on introduction. Apart from it being aesthetically "ugly" (does it really needs to mention "Bosnia" that much?), we don't need to pretend why some editors are pushing Bosnia and Bosniaks so much. Furthermore, after reading it one could conclude that he was an ethnologist, not novelist. I mean, imagine article on Sophocles that starts with: Sophocles was a ancient Greek writer from Attica who is considered to have been one of the greatest classical writers. His most notable works deal with Greece and the culture of the Greek inhabitants of the Ancient Greek world. I don't know about the person(s) who wrote that part, but I thought that themes from his novels were somewhat deeper than that. Than again, I might be wrong, because I was forced to read his works long ago, so I might have forgotten something. But I sincerely doubt that's the case.

Next, when it comes to his nationality, it gets trickier, but only because some editors suddenly insist on "western" concept of that term (citizenship). If you choose that road, he can be considered Yugoslavian. But, in that case one have to ask why aren't other people from that era considered only Yugoslavian too, like this one, or this one. In that case all the Croats from Serbia (for an example) are of serbian nationality, and the concept of national minority doesn't makes sense at all anymore. If you choose to interpret nationality as "nacionalnost" ("ethnicity"?) than things are as clear as they can get. We have his own opinion on that, and on the literature to which he belongs.

I think it's rather vulgar to accent his nationality so much in the article, and he (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't deserve that. Maybe it would be better (not best) to delete whole introduction and the controversial part from teh box, write the new introduction which would contain only dry facts (e.g. place and date of birth/death, occupation, criminal record, etc.), and than, write his own opinion on that matter later in the article (which is mostly already written), than to have constant changes in the article. Regarding Bosnian muslim/Bosniak dilemma... I reaaaaally don't have the time nor will to go thoroughly into that, I'll just say this: you can't say that Stefan Nemanja or Bodin were Montenegrins, even though they were part of the population which included the ancestors of todays Montenegrins. The example is a little drastic, but only to make it easier to understand. I think that ethnic and national names that people use today shouldn't be used when we speak about period which happened before the "complete" formation of that ethnic or national group (i.e. retroactively). I don't want to go (at all) into whether, or which of that processes were over during the life of his parents. Somebody more versed in that area should decide that. But, I think the presented principle should be used.--Supercooleskimo (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of Serbian Cyrillic or Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic

As user No such user pointed out at User talk:Vanjagenije, there are guidelines which allow redirects links to stay, and my recent edit was not in conformity with them. I agree that "Serbo-Croatian phrasing can be perceived more neutral in this particular situation", but question persists about neutrality of the phrasing. Serbian Cyrillic and Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic phrasing, both sound biased (not only in this case), because they incline towards one stance: either that Cyrillic is only Serbian, or that only Serbo-Croatian (BCS) exists and that Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian are same. Why Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic is completely identical to Serbian Cyrillic. I think it would be better perhaps to rename those article's - maybe to Vuk's Cyrillic alphabet, as I already proposed. Although this might also be "sort of rotten compromise in order not to ascribe any (supra-)national label to the alphabet" as No such user said is the case with Gaj's Latin alphabet, I think it is better to make this sort of compromise than to allege that Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian languages are fictitious and BCS is the only reality. The latter may stir much more controversies, although it might be true. All in all, I'm not sure. --Best regards, Biblbroks (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually after thinking over I concluded that the argument to use Serbian Cyrillic phrasing instead of Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic - because of writer's ethnicity - is stronger than the argument to use Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic phrasing because of possible greater neutrality. So it's better to leave it this way. --Biblbroks (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Question and comment

Tamnica and Tvrđava are two separate works, yes? The article refers to both of them as "his second novel" and since "Prison" and "Fortress" (and the Fortress in the "The Fortress" book is actually a prison...) mean a similar thing, it's very confusing.

Also, the "Death and the Dervish" is probably the best well known in the west, but compared to the Fortress it's crap. That's not just me speaking but I believe a pretty unanimous opinion among Slavic readers. Of course when Selimovic writes crap it's still better than 99% of anything that's ever been written, including cheesy soap operas of the likes of Shakespeare or Days of Our Lives. At any rate, the reception needs to be also clarified. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the Serbo-Croatian wikis, and none lists a novel called Tamnica (Prison). It seems when writing, someone was relying on his/her memory and probably wanted to say Tvrđava. The two words after all can be seen as synonyms. MIaceK (woof!) 13:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a title called Tišine was published in 1961, so I fixed this accordingly. MIaceK (woof!) 13:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

He was an Eskimo, goddamnit!!!11!

Biblbroks, my man, why are you reverting my version? It's as reliable, as current one. I find this posthumous changing of his own will quite dusgusting. It's better to remove all nationality data, than to keep it this way.

Screw it... now I feel bad for even going into this "nationality" thing.--178.223.65.164 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, 178.223.65.164, my man, shouldn't I have reverted your version? This qualifier "disgusting posthumous changing of his own will" could be applied to your contribution as well, couldn't it? Well, maybe you do have a point on emphasizing the needlessness of nationality data in this article, but I am not sure that you are presenting it in unobscured fashion. Please, don't feel bad - you are not alone. --Biblbroks (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, first, sorry for changing my name. I am curently downloading some (legal) stuff from rapidshare :) I hope you realised I just tried to make a point. I don't think nationality data is needless, when there is such data on vurtualy every bio-article on wikipedia, I am just sorry that I am participating in such... whats the word... (prizemnoj) discussion. People shouldn't concetrate so much on his nationality, but if that information is common in this kind of articles, it should be present, and correct. I don't plan to edit any articles. Just wanted to express my resentment. Sorry for my vandal ways :)--93.87.239.109 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Np for changing your name - at least on my behalf. I realized that it was tried, but I think making a point wasn't accomplished. If nationality data isn't needless, what do you suggest in this case - disputed? As for the "prizemno, prizemna, prizeman" discussion, it wasn't started by me but it was there, so I thought - what the heck, why not joining it - maybe I contribute in elevating it from its perceived "prizemno, prizemna, prizeman" level. No worries, resentment was duly noted and, I believe, dealt with. I am just still not sure what to do with it - there seems to be no proposal from you on how to solve this issue. And I think it's kind of expected you make one. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of starting this thing (or anything else). Hope that's clear. As for the editing part... what's the point if someone is going to revert it right away... I'll try to make some suggestions/remarks in the "other" talk-section. (BTW, if someone knows how's "prizeman" translated into english, please, write it, I'll buy you an icecream when we meet in Trieste)--Supercooleskimo (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict I know you weren't accusing me specifically, but you were still referring it as such while you somehow contributed to the "prizemnost". Now, I am not innocent either - I followed your steps (which also weren't the first steps), but at least now we have a discussion which might not be accused of "prizemnost", don't we? To answer your question: there isn't much point in editing under the circumstances you described, I admit. However, I believe that circumstances have changed now, and that the reasons for any revert of your contributions will be much more scrutinized in the future. What I am trying to express is: "I think that you don't need to start any new section prior to editing the page. Be bold, edit the article yourself, the process of improving it has already started." If you examine the diagram on the page linked, you might agree that the cycle is at its downmost position. (BTW, Triste as in Trieste?) Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) /edit conflict

(Yeah, Trieste. Typo.) I'm afraid I'm not such an optimist as you are, regarding edit wars. Sorry, but I think every discussion about somebodies nationality is "prizemna" by default, whether the person participating is a hillbilly or a cool guy. It's like a war - it includes murder whether you are atacking or defending. I'm relly busy right now, but I might find some info and write a decent "dry fact" referenced intro in the future. Altough, I think there are many users here who are more informed on Selimovic's work and could do that easily in a few minutes. And if they are more known here, it's less likely change will be reverted by someone with a tradition of such deeds.--Supercooleskimo (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think of myself as not having a tradition of deeds that you mention. But that't my thinking, I don't know others' thinking. You write above: "I think that ethnic and national names that people use today shouldn't be used when we speak about period which happened before the "complete" formation of that ethnic or national group (i.e. retroactively)" and afterwards "But, I think the presented principle should be used." I am not sure you presented the principle clear enough. Wouldn't it be more useful if you elaborated on that "western" concept of that term (citizenship) you mention in comparison and contrast to nationality as "nacionalnost" ("ethnicity") you also mention. Even better with some contribution in Nationality? Better more in Ethnicity - which is merely a redirect now. I am sincerely keen to read your further contributions. But if you are really that busy... then all the best to you outside Misplaced Pages, hope you come back soon. Now, I hope I don't sound much of a proselyte, while I am doing right that. :-) But not just that. --Biblbroks (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Biblbroks, I was not thinking about you when I mentioned that (the deeds thing; look at the edit history, it will become more clear)(seriously, man, I'm as tame as a pussycat. not hostile towards you). Regarding the "principle", I meant on that sentence (I think that ethnic and national names that people use today shouldn't be used when we speak about period which happened before the "complete" formation of that ethnic or national group (i.e. retroactively)) as a principle. And whether that condition is realised, I leave to others to decide. As for meaning of "nationality" and "ethnicity" I referred to previous discussion, which I can't find right now (alcohol), in which someone said that "nacionalnost" is more accurately translated as ethnicity, and not nationality. Frankly, I'm not sure what needs to be clarified? (Ako sam bio nejasan, mozes li da mi se obratis na stranici za razgovor, da se ne mucim sa prevodjenjem?). I don't think I understood that proselytism thing. Anyway, I have "Prosveta's" encyclopedia, and I'll try to find some Jovan Deretic's book I think I have (Jovan Deretic, literary historian, not mad historian), so I'll look at that and other sources that could be found on internets (not tabloids!), and then I'll try to make some edits in introduction... if somebody doesn't do it before me. I don't wan't to make any edits that could be disputed.--Supercooleskimo (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought you weren't thinking about me, but I was trying to make a point - here is inadvisable to think of others in terms of having some tradition. Inadvisable for your development as an editor i.e. contributor. Because it is on the other hand more advisable to assume good faith. I understand what you where referring to when you used the term principle, but exactly that sentence you cited is somewhat problematic - "complete" in "complete" formation of that ethnic of national group is under quotation marks. I mean think of Palestine, Kosovo or China, or any region/country/state on the List of states with limited recognition for that matter. I believe I have demonstrated what about the principle wasn't presented clear enough. One advice for you, if I may: try not announcing at Misplaced Pages anything what you plan to do, not even in the form you used - just do it. :-) I don't think you will be reverted, but if you are concerned about disputableness - well just do what you plan to do thoroughly. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please... why good faith should be asumed when somebody is pushing his agenda persistently for 2 years, in spite of provided references?

That's the reason why I put the quote marks. Those groups continue to change. But, they had to came into being at some point. Otherwise, the whole notion of different ethnic groups would be absurd, because all ethnic groups are of same origin. I don't understand why are you mentioning Palestine, Kosovo and China? Those are not ethnic or national groups. Comparing formation of states and ethnic groups isn't appropriate. Palestine as a region is known under that name for over 2 thousand years, nobody's denying that. State of Palestine is not officially recognised by some countries, but those countries aren't denying existence of that political entity (i.e. it is already formed). (Actually, it could be used to show my point: you can't say that Moses brought Jews to "State of Palestine" after teh Exodus.) Kosovo is a self-proclaimed state officially recognised by some countries. Nobody is speaking about independent state of Kosovo in the 1970's, although it's the same teritory, same people (minus ethnically cleansed non-albanians), with almost same ruling structures (plus international babysitters). (Funny, this could also be used as an example: today new nation/name "Kosovar" is being forced on some of its inhabitants who refuse it, but 90% of others accept it. Does it mean that will of the minority should be just ignored? If in the future 100% of inhabitants of Kosovo accept that, will it be acceptable to claim that all people that lived in Kosovo in 2001. (or before) were Kosovars?) China, a civilization named after eponymous state, but older than state itself (i.e. was already formed). (A person living in the State of Yan in 400.BC could not be called a Chinese, in modern sense of that term. In fact, the term "ancient Chinese" is used in such situations (to designate somebody who belonged to that civilisation, not his nationality/ethnicity.))--Supercooleskimo (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You tell me, If in the future 100% of inhabitants of Kosovo accept that, will it be acceptable to claim that all people that lived in Kosovo in 2001. (or before) were Kosovars? Let me illustrate my point with a question: at which point of time does a person's ethnicity/nationality data qualify to be included as Taiwanese instead of Chinese, if it does at all? For that matter, in the Bosniaks article it is stated: "In Yugoslavia, unlike the preceding Austro-Hungarian Empire, Bosniaks were not allowed to declare themselves as Bosniaks. As a compromise, the Constitution of Yugoslavia was amended in 1968 to list Muslims by nationality recognizing a nation, but not the Bosniak name." So one can presume that the term Bosniak was known and used before Meša being born, and not just that, he certainly must have seriously thought about this controversial issue, when he stated what he stated about his "nacionalna pripadnost.", if he stated anything at all. Not that I don't agree with your thinking, I just thought I should highlight this issue not being quite simple. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe... I know this is wikipedia, but citing wikipedia... :D That "citation needed" tag is saying alot (altough, it should be inserted earlier in that sentence too). Many interesting things could be found if one is to follow that trace. I said earlier that I won't go down that road. So let's just end this chitchat :) It's slowly moving away from the topic of this article.

Selimovic has wrote something about his ancestors too, so anyone planning to edit this article should at least read that. Over & out--Supercooleskimo (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

When still chitchatting i'd like to as you why are you mentioning things, that could be found if one is to follow that trace, as interesting? As far as the going down or up some or any road is concerned ;-) Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity and understanding of "nacionalnost" in former Yugoslavia

I hoped this is would be a big problem, but still...

In our countries we undernsatnd the nacionalnost as large majority of English people understands ethnicity. When a Muslim says "I'm a Serb by nationality", believe me, he doesn't mean he has a Serbian citizenship. Selimović is known for his declaring as Serb, similiar as Andrić. Another problem is that there were no Bosniaks when Selimović was born, it is 99% possibility that his parents where either, Serbs or Croats. It would be an easy explanation if Selimović was someone like Mehmed Spaho who really believed that Bosnian Muslims are a separate group with special intrests, but Selimović wasn't like Spaho. He was a Serb, according to his own words. You are making problem where we shouldn't have one. I hope we resolve this on talk page. --Wüstenfuchs 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing you're saying makes sense -- Bosniaks have been in existence just as long as Serbs and Croats have (over a thousand years; dating back to the 10th century). Paganism turned into Christianity/Catholicism, then into Islam under Ottoman rule. The quote, ""I come from a Muslim family in Bosnia, and I am a Serb by NATIONALITY," is translated. You can change your nationality, but not your ethnicity. He was ethnically a Bosniak. "I come from a MUSLIM family in BOSNIA..." -- one could argue that he was stating that he was a BOSNIAN MUSLIM... am I wrong? --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you notice the problem here? You claim that nationality is citizenship. Now, consider, was he living in Serbia or Yugoslavia at the time? I'll answer you - he lived in Yugoslavia. According to your theory, he can only be Yugoslav by nationality. Therfore, it is clear that he was rather speaking about ethnicity, because he was mistranslated. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, nacionalnost is ethnicity. Even in English language the term "nationality" can be understood as ethnicity as well. Do you get my point? And if you add all those sources where he declares himself a Serb, the situation is clear enough - Selimović was a Serb. Considering the ethnicity, just a question, some guy has Irish father and Latvian mother, he was born in Poland, raised ther and speaks Polish and he declares himslef to be a Pole, and you would still claim he isn't a Pole by his ethnicity? He can live in Russia later as well... --Wüstenfuchs 00:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I provided six sources (there are many more if you'd like for me to add them on here), where is stated in black and white that he was a BOSNIAN MUSLIM. You provided a source -- written by a SERB (nationalist). Serbs have a history of trying to Serb-ify/Croat-ify Bosniaks -- as do you here on Misplaced Pages. Mesa Selimovic was a Bosniak. the end. --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The end sounds like an ultimatum. The problem with your sources - there are no pages. I can't check those. I acctualy did check them and found nothing. That's a problem. Now, I provided sources, not writen by Serbian nationalists, well, one author is a Serb the other is an university professor, as you may have seen. You claim that those are nationalist works? Not at all. Those books clearly say that Selimović himself said to be a Serb... the Hayder's book even mentions the term "ethnicit" not "nationality". You replaced those sources for unknown reason (I mentioned mine for replacing yours above). --Wüstenfuchs 00:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should bring a third party into this discussion. Somebody who isn't form Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia; etc. --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If you insist. I'll make a rfc, though, it is clear enough he was a Serb. --Wüstenfuchs 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

And I disagree with you. He was a Bosniak --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

OMG. None cares about this dispute. He was bosniak, and then became serb. So, we have sources for both of those. Then, i have the best solution. Remove both of those infos, and leave ethnicity empty. If anyone really cares about this person, he/she will read more then infobox. Be careful, disputes like this are sanctionable under WP:ARBMAC. --WhiteWriter 00:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

<3 you whitewriter --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• RfC Response - Ethnicity/race/religion questions like these are notoriously difficult to solve. Fact is, there is no "ultimate authority" which decides which ethnicity someone belongs to. Ethnicity can't be measured with a yard stick either. I generally seek follow the guidelines enunciated in WP:BLPCAT. In cases where ethnicity/race/religion are not clear or are subject to dispute, "self identification" is key. If there is an RS in which Selimović says he is Bosniak, then he is Bosniak. If he says he is Serb, then he is Serb. If Selimović can't be shown to have unambiguously identified with one of these groups, then WP shouldn't be trying to decide which one he belongs in. Can either of the two camps here point to a source where Selimović unambiguously claims to be a member of one of the aforementioned groups? NickCT (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My point also. --Wüstenfuchs 23:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, based on RfC, we should try different approach. Demir, do you have some good reliable source that he is bosnian? --WhiteWriter 18:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I gave six I think, reliable sources -- but they were reverted. Wustenfuchs has been edit warring with multiple users. --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What you provided aren't reliable sources. --Wüstenfuchs 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me how the two links you provided are --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

They show no page, it was impossible to check them. One can't tell did you abused those sources. If you are citing a book, you need to live a page number, ISBN and stuff... --Wüstenfuchs 01:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

YOURS are the ones that show no page; mine were six google-book references --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Gott im Himmel. Are you mocking me, or making jokes? --Wüstenfuchs 02:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What does "Gott im Himmel" mean --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs and Demir Bajraktarevic stop edit warring. Wustenfuchs, you were given a "final warning" already, but it appears it's had no effect on your behavior so a report on the both of you may be necessary. You've tried to play this ethnic claim game many times before and have caused completely unnecessary disruption. To address the pages: the Google book links are to specific pages so I don't see where the issue is. To address the matter: to represent this individual as simply one or the other ethnicity is POV and if we really want to open this can of worms then we would also have to revisit the Ivo Andric article. It's best to leave this infobox entry empty. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

He didn't linked the pages, only the title... If you understand me.. I would see the page if he linked me one, but he didn't. I'm not a moron. --Wüstenfuchs 19:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what else to tell you other than that they are indeed there. The man's "classification" is controversial (the fact that this talkpage is so long and primarily revolves around this man's ethnicity is a testament to that) and it differs by birth and by choice, akin to Andric. To push one over the other as the most definitive would be to push a particular POV. If we would go down this road then feel free to remove Andric from the Croats and Bosnian Croats infobox and add "Serb" to his infobox. I ask to you to kindly return the article to it's previous consensus version without any sort of ethnic entry. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We leave the infobox as it was (before my latest edit). That is what I agree. --Wüstenfuchs 20:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

@reDemirBajraktarevic - "I gave six I think, reliable sources" - Could you do me a favor and just list those sources. Let me take a look at them. If they show that "Selimović unambiguously claims to be a member" of either group here, I'll weigh in in your favor. NickCT (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

They are all in this revision in the infobox next to "Bosniak": http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Me%C5%A1a_Selimovi%C4%87&oldid=522901777 --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, most of those mention him being Serbian also... --WhiteWriter 18:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Which one? --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Those with pages, and I need to make an apology to Demir, I haven't noticed that some refs contained pages, though they do show him as a Serb. --Wüstenfuchs 20:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Source review

Review of Sources Provided

Support Bosnian Identification

Yugoslavia: A History of Its Demise: A History of Its Demise - "The greatest modern novelist of the Bosnian Muslims, Meša Selimović,"

The Columbia Guide to the Literatures of Eastern Europe Since 1945: Albania - "Selimović, Meša (1910-1982) Bosnian Muslim novelist."

Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation: Literature and Cultural Politics in - "by the Bosnian Moslem author Meša Selimović"

Neutral

The Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina: Their Historic Development from.... - Source doesn't unambiguously refer to :Selimović as Bosnian

Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World - "For Selimović, to be Bosnian was to be Muslim" - Infers but doesn't unambiguously state that Selimović is Bosnian

Honouring Mesa Selimovic - "Although Bosniak by origin, Selimovic later embraced a Serbian identity", also a quote from Mesa himself "I come from a Muslim family in Bosnia, and I am a Serb by nationality....I equally respect my origin and my choice, because I am attached to everything that determined my personality and my work." - Calls Selmovic Bosnian, but points out that he identifies as Serbian

Additional sources

Support Bosnian Identification

German and Bosnian Voices in a Time of Crisis: Bosnian Refugees in ... - Page 177 - "Bosnian author Meša Selimović"

Bosnia-Herzegovina: The End of a Legacy - Page 3 - "literature by Bosnian authors, such as Ivo Andric and Mesa Selimovic"

White Stones and Fir Trees: An Anthology of Contemporary Slavic ... - Page 68 - "And a Bosnian, Mesa Selimovic, has just written a beautiful,"

Into the Heart of European Poetry - Page x - " the classic Bosnian writer Meša Selimović"

Neutral

Serbia, 3rd ed - "Meša Selimović (1910-82), a Bosnian Muslim by birth who explicitly claimed to be Serb by ethnicity" - Repeat claim found in "Honouring Mesa Selimovic" that while Bosnian, he identified as Serb

Notes from the underground: the cinema of Emir Kusturica - Page 11 "A distinguished writer from Bosnia, Mesa Selimovic, announced that he was a Serb of a Muslim faith" - Again, Mesa identifies as Serb

Blueprints for a house divided: the constitutional logic of the ... - Page 136 - "MeSa Selimovic, who identified himself as a Serbian writer even though he was of Muslim heritage" - Again, Mesa identifies as Serb

Results

1) A number of RSs refer to Selimović as Bosnian.

2) Few if any sources refer to Selimović as Serbian.

3) A number of sources note that Selimović self-identifies as Serbian.

Conclusion

This is a neat case cause it seems to pit "self-identification" against what a large majority of RSs say. Selimović says he's Serbian, most everyone else call him Bosnian.

Suggested outcomes in order of preference

1) Don't include "ethnicity" in the info box.

2) Is calling him a "Bosniak Serb" out of the question? Forgive me if this is a silly suggestion. I'm not super familiar with this region of the world.

3) Use Serbian in the infobox. Based on the logic that "self-identification" trumps pretty much everything else in ethnicity/race/gender/relgious identity issues, there appears to be a reasonable basis to call Selimović "Serbian", as that seems to be what he himself would have wanted to be called.

4) Put "Bosniak" in the infobox, with a note saying that most sources refer to him as a Bosnian & put "Serb", with a note saying that Selimović self-identified as such.

5) Continue bickering and edit warring

@Wüstenfuchs & WhiteWriter - I would look over these potential outcomes and see if there are any on which you can agree.

As a quick disclaimer, I'm completely ignorant of the subject at hand (i.e. MeSa Selimovic) and, as previously mentioned, fairly ignorant of the history of the region. Hope you guys can reach a conclusion! NickCT (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bosnian is demonym. Bosniak is ethnicity. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've changed my suggested outcomes accordingly. NickCT (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You were wrong when changing your suggested outcomes. The sources say Bosnian not Bosniak. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This might be somewhat off-topic, but I believe it will help to settle the matter. If you consider the previously disputed article on Ivo Andric (the Croat author who self-declared as Serb), I noticed the involved editors agreed on the fact that Andric's "native" ethnicity (as Croat), despite his subsequent self-identification, must have remained unchanged. And for this reason he is currently part of the Croats infobox (and even removed from the Serb one). If we should draw a parallel, Selimovic's "native" ethnicity must be Bosnian Muslim as synonymous with the Bosniak nation (basically only a name change, thus we are speaking of the same nation). A solution could therefore be to stress his Bosniak origin but alike describe the evidence of latter self-identification as Serb. Trying to obscure Selimovic's Bosniak roots altogether by simply referring to him as Bosnian constitutes POV in my opinion, since his (as well as Andric's) roots are not subject to personal opinion but fact.Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no "native" and "non-native" ethnicity. Everybody has right to decide about their own ethnicity and when such declaration exists it is wrong to ignore it or deny it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. What were the two before their declarations then? Cherry picking either identification as the most definitive is simply POV. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is article about Meša Selimović not about his parents. Two of them also had the same right to decide about their own ethnicity.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't avoid the question. What were Selimovic and Andric before their declarations? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No need for bad faith accusations. I thought you refered to Selimović's parents. I don't know about Andric who is irrelevant for this discussion. This is article about Selimovic.

The best possible way to determine what was someone's ethnicity is self-identification. If there are sources that in some period of his life, before or after identifying himself as Serb, Selimovic identified himself as Bosniak or some other ethnicity, then such information should be also added to the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Andric is very related as the circumstances are identical and yet the suggested edit implementations are different. In response to your prior reply, culture and ethnicity are inherited and learned. They can indeed be changed, but to suggest that something wasn't already present is absurd. Sources point out Andric was born to Croat parents, baptized a Roman Catholic, grew up in Bosnia, worked in Yugoslavia and later claimed to be Serb. Similarly Selimovic was raised a Bosnian Muslim, worked in Yugoslavia and also later claimed to be Serb. So again to simply put "Serb", "Bosniak", or "Croat" as the definitive answer would be done in complete ignorance of all the other factors at hand and flies in the face of neutrality. We don't get to personally decide and push our own POV as to what's the most definitive. Let the readers make up their own mind. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The readers can not decide someones ethnicity. Only a person himself can decide about his own ethnicity.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, as complicated as the issue is it must be approached with delicacy. In all fairness, one rarely encounters this kind of "ethnic confusion" among intellectuals in the West, nor the kind of heated discussion among editors on Misplaced Pages. Needless to say, we are dealing with a notorious "Balkan issue". I find it quite absurd to ignore the relevance of Selimovic's Bosniak origins, and the absorption of culture and social imprinting it implies, in favor of a self-declaration which in all honesty cannot omit his upbringing. After all, many of Selimovic's books dealt with various aspects of Bosniak life, written in a way I doubt any "real" Serb author could. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

People form an opinion based on the evidence at hand as they do with everything else. Portraying him as simply one or the other in ignorance of what is else at hand is as POV as one can get. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with 3, if he considered himself a Serb, then he is a Serb, simple as that. --Wüstenfuchs 08:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

NickCT, Voting is not a substitute for discussing. Also Wustenfuchs I'd love to hear you affirm this with Andric. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@PRODUCER - I was merely pointing to solutions which seemed reasonable in my opinion. Not suggesting that we vote on them.

re Nonsense. What were the two before their declarations then? - Ethnicity is just a subjective interpretation of what group someone belongs with. The group a person identifies with can change. Perhaps Meša was Bosniak until he declared himself Serb.

re Cherry picking either identification ... is simply POV - Yeah. Agreed. Perhaps the Adric editors got it wrong. Or perhaps there was just more RS available pinning Adric to the Croat ethnicity. NickCT (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@Praxis Icosahedron - re "A solution could .... self-identification as Serb." - Can I take that to mean you'd support the inclusion of both "Bosniak" and "Serb" with notes explaining the identifications (i.e. solution 4 described above)? NickCT (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator " - re "Everybody has right to decide about their own ethnicity" - Hear hear! Self-identification is key. NickCT (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is everyone talking about Andrić, it's not about him. PRODUCER, please, see my talk with Praxis. --Wüstenfuchs 18:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@NickCt & @Antidiskriminator. What I ment to say is simply that Selimovic was inarguably born into a Bosniak family and the article ought to be perfectly clear on that. I wasn't trying to claim either classification as more relevant or not, but both are equally much a fact. The man was born into a Bosniak family (fact#1) and latter self-declared as Serb in his letter (fact#2). As on how to classify Selimovic, I would preferably go with "Yugoslav" as per the article on Ivo Andric (which undoubtedly bears striking parallels). Staright off claiming Selimovic as either Serb or Bosniak has to be considered inflammatory in every case and should be avoided. It is also likely to bring stability to the article by precluding infuriated IP edits. In conclusion, I would lend my support primarily to solution no. 1, and secondly, to solution no. 4. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Self-identification is the path to follow here on wiki. Emir Kusturica is regarded only as Serb here on wiki, per its own comment. Pov pushing and nationalistic claims of some sides here pushed personal attitudes in side, but we should rely on self-identification. Also, in article, we should mention everything, but here, only infobox is in question. Option 3 for me. --WhiteWriter 20:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually the way you do it is by getting like-minded buddies (who are now topic banned for their disruptive editing) to drag out the discussion as long as possible at the talkpage , waiting until opposing editors and admins give up, and then sneaking in later and removing what you personally dislike in complete ignorance of the talkpage discussions and prior established consensus. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense and bad faith construction. You are not the one who should talk about buddies here on Misplaced Pages. And putting here year and a half old meaningless edits is not good way to gain constructive agreement. Address the subject, and not personal opinions and thesis. --WhiteWriter 23:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I already addressed the subject. You want to make silly claims? Others reserve the right to refute them. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, then we are both on zero point now. Lets continue with constructive edits. --WhiteWriter 23:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Yugoslavia articles
• Unknown-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
• C-Class Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
• Mid-importance Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
• All WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina pages
• C-Class Serbia articles
• Mid-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles