Talk:Ivo Andrić

User:Garcon0101 and bias of Croatian University

User:Garcon0101 says here that Croatian University is biased. Well, the first part of the edit is changing the location of Belgrade. Now, either he was born in the city or he wasn't. The description of where the city was located isn't from anywhere. Second, you changed his heritage but there is a cite to the New York Times (I haven't checked it yet), so your complaint is again inappropriate. Third, you add the Young Bosnia membership, without a source, which seems hypocritical. Fourth, you remove a image, which has nothing to do with Croatian University. I'll review the links to CroatianHistory.net but could you at least explain these? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times describes him as "a Bosnian Coat." The other sources are in no way reliable. I'm going to remove them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, how about some geography lesson? The article states that he > died < in Belgrade, no one changed anything about his birth location, Yugoslavia; and I changed it to Belgrade, Serbia, Yugoslavia, because Yugoslavia consisted of more countries then one, like Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro. So that edit is completely logical.

About the NY Times article, it is an old article about literature on Balkans, and only small part is dedicated to a mention of Ivo, I don't see how that can be deemed as a "reliable source" of anything. It simply untrue.

Third, about the Young Bosnia, it is hard to find reliable references for it, but not even Rjecina edited it out, cause it doesn't have that much of an impact on the article, it's more like a interesting side note.

And about the image I removed that because it's the only thing that Croats try to use in their attempts to prove that Ivo was of Croatian heritage, althoughit has been explained many times why that document doesn't mean anything and that it is from the young days of Ivo, after his studies on Zagreb Univeristy. -- Garcon0101 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the New York Times. That's a reliable source under our policies. Period. Provide an alternative source if you have one or otherwise let it go. The rest of the article is a mess without sources. I frankly want to wipe it out and get something accurate on the guy. Second, the fact that Rjecina didn't care isn't enough for me. Things need sources. The image is an accurate description of how he described himself, correct? That's all it is. If you have a reliable source that counters it, then it's another issue. You can't claim one source isn't reliable so it's worth removing and then say other things either go or belong regardless of the fact that you have no sources. In fact, the entire classification section is without sources and is completely original research in violation of policy. There is no need for any of that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree to removing the description completely? Just "born in 1892 in the village..." and then start off the classification section with "While called at times a Bosnian Croat, he denies the description...."? That way, the intro goes on and the real meat of the argument is where it belongs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. -- Garcon0101 (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Long time ago I have added 5 sources for statements that his parents are Bosnian Croats and this has been disputed only by vandals and banned users puppets.

Latter in life Ivo Andrić will declare himself Serb, but this is not changing fact that his parents are Croats or somebody think that with that he can change his parents nation ?--Rjecina (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources you added were deleted by an admin. The fact that his father was a catholic doesn't make Ivo a Croat. -- Garcon0101 (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Garcon. The sources weren't reliable per the standards. I also removed it down the classification section. The truth is, it is disputed and that's where it belongs. Garcon, so in that book, how does he describe himself? Is he just vague? Serbian? Serbo-Croatian? Is it just a denial of Croatian as a whole? There is some room for context here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Haverford College [1] site or Yale [2]? What more is needed ? Now we are having 3 respectable sources sor I am making banned user revert.--Rjecina (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, ok, those weren't known to me before but honestly your tone is not appreciated. Also, reverting to put it just as "Croatian parentage" while ignoring the fact there is an issue is not helpful. Last, and I mean this, you call someone a "banned user" again without any evidence at all and I will block you. That's it. You have been warned enough. I do not appreciate your tone or attitude at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Haverford has the best description: "Andric is claimed as a hero by both Croat nationalists (he was born to a Croat family) and Serb nationalists (he later identified himself with Serbs)." Would everyone agree that's at least fair? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the current state of the article is the best possible solution, regarding his classification. -- Garcon0101 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but no. I will agree with Haverford description but not with description in article. If we write:

"Andric is claimed as a hero by both Croat nationalists (he was born to a Croat family) and Serb nationalists (he later identified himself with Serbs)" (Haverford description) it is OK, but today definition in wikipedia article is wrong and misleading and I can't accept that.--Rjecina (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you agree on it, its the truth that matters. Leave it as it is. -- Garcon0101 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would advise Ricky81682 to avoid statements like "The other sources are in no way reliable. I'm going to remove them." In the archived discussion are given statements coming from Lovett (Anric's translator) McNeil (University of Chicago professor and historian) and Oesterling - Swedish Academy secretary. All this is the first hand information. The New York Times is just a newspaper and any information about Andric that came 30 years after his death must be taken with a huge grain of salt.--71.252.106.166 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)