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)

Who cares about the reliability of sources anyway, it's the American version of history that matters. [3] - Andrić's own signature vs. NYT? Didn't stand a chance. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. First of all, the rule here is that verifiability beats out truth. Truth is not a defense. Following the criteria for reliable sources, self-published sources such as [4] and [5] are not generally reliable. Now, the first citation does itself cite a book. If someone reviewed that book and used that as a citation, that would be fine. The question is who wrote the "A Croat by birth, he became a Serbian by choice" in the article? It wasn't Lovett or McNeil. It was the website's author. Who was that? Is he someone reliable? That's my point. Look, I hate the idea of using a decades-old Times article but the Times is reliable per the standards and it is on point. I always say the same thing: find an alternative reliable source and we can play with the language. If you want something else, offer it. And please don't offer to just revert the article back to a prior version. Compromise and I think everyone will be happy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the signature part, it would be a LOT better if someone could find a reliable secondary source explaining it. Just putting the image up there and making claims about it feels too much like original research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We are having NYT, Yale and Haverford which are saying that his parents are Croats. I am sure that this is enought for verifiability. There is no question that he has latter declared himself Serb, but his parents are Croats:

"Andric is claimed as a hero by both Croat nationalists (he was born to a Croat family) and Serb nationalists (he later identified himself with Serbs)"Haverford.

"Andrić was born of Croatian parentage on 1892" Yale

"A Bosnian Croat, Andric won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1961" NYT

I am interested to hear what more is needed to solve question about Croatian parentage ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Nationalists"

Let me a make a new section, to split the discussion off. I was wrong in my edit summary. Haverford does use "nationalists" and so my argument was totally invalid. I think the article seems more neutral without the word "nationalists" because the truth is, there is a question overall of where he fits in historically. Neutral observers would want to know as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We are having agreement. I have deleted from Haverford definition word nationalist.

Sad truth is that nobody in ex Yugoslavia like Andrić. If you ask Croatians greatest Croatian writer is Miroslav Krleža. Serbians are having different greatest writer and Bosnians are against Andrić because of reasons in this article.--Rjecina (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Rjecina, but Andrić is nowhere near Krleža. Had he not received Nobel prize, Andrić would be just an average writer that would fall into oblivion after a few centuries, being studied only by high-school kids and college undergratues because they have him on their reading list. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Signature again

Is there anything anyone has beyond an image that is impossible to authenticate (and hence original research) about his signature? If not, I would suggest removing it. Wherever the image came from, there should be someone somewhere who is a reliable source who discusses his significance. In fact, I don't think the image is even necessary to the article, as an adequate textual description would be fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Imprisonment during WWI

Is there any more information than "Because of his political activities" for Andrić's imprisonment? I would think that is something somewhat relevant to his bio. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

andrić's nationality

I think that we must consider that Andrić spent most of his literall life in serbina cultural area, and also he was a member of serbian academy of scientists. He also considered himself as a Serb, and he always writes about serbian culturae and history and things connected with srbia not with Croatia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.194.178 (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Ivo Andric,felt and declared himself as Croat all his life, perhaps most strongly with the unfinished novel, "Omer-Pasha Latas" .. (05.03.2009)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.176.243 (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Da, mora je zato ziveo u Beogradu i pisao cirilicom. Garcon0101 (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pa, i Krleža je svojedobno živio u Beogradu, pisao ekavicom i ćirilicom, pa ga to ne čini bogznakakvom srbendom. Andrić je bio etnički Hrvat i sâm se tako jedan dobar dio života izjašnjavao, a to što je kasnije pisao na književnom srpskom (odnosno bolje reći srpskohrvatskom sa tipično bošnjačko-srpskim leksikom i pravopisom) je potpuno druga stvar. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i mi srbi imamo etnicki nase pisce koji zive u kanadi, pisu na engleskom i smatraju se kanadskim piscima srpskog porekla. Tako je i Andric sprski pisac hrvatskog etnickog porekla. Njegov jezik je, kao jezik Visegrada, srpski, njegov stil je beogradski i time opet srpski i konacno njegove teme su ili bosanskohercegovacke ili sprske, hrvatskih nema.

I strongly recommend that the information on Ivo Andric be modified, as it is completely inaccurate. In the very book, which catapulted him to international prominence, 'The Bridge on the River Drina', the first page states that "Ivo Adric was himself a Serb". I realise you say you put things on Wikipedia that can be proven, so I suggest that you update your information to show that he was NOT in fact Croatian. Also, the picture you have claiming to be evidence of him suggesting he was Croatian and Catholic is NOT true, it does not say that at all. I look forward to seeing this error corrected.

I strongly recommend that the information on Ivo Andric be modified, as it is completely inaccurate. In the very book, which catapulted him to international prominence, 'The Bridge on the River Drina', the first page states that "Ivo Adric was himself a Serb". I realise you say you put things on Wikipedia that can be proven, so I suggest that you update your information to show that he was NOT in fact Croatian. Also, the picture you have claiming to be evidence of him suggesting he was Croatian and Catholic is NOT true, it does not say that at all. I look forward to seeing this error corrected.

Re: Inaccurate Information - 18/09/09

I strongly recommend that the information on Ivo Andric be modified, as it is completely inaccurate. In the very book, which catapulted him to international prominence, 'The Bridge on the River Drina', the first page states that "Ivo Adric was himself a Serb". I realise you say you put things on Wikipedia that can be proven, so I suggest that you update your information to show that he was NOT in fact Croatian. Also, the picture you have claiming to be evidence of him suggesting he was Croatian and Catholic is NOT true, it does not say that at all. I look forward to seeing this error corrected.

There is already entire section dedicated to Andrić's classification, can't you see it? The issue is far from being as trivial as you put it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

---

--- Omer-Pasha Latas is key! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends, to understand „the enigma Andric“, the crucial is his novel „Omer-Pasha Latas“ and the question: Why didn't he finish the novel „Omer-Pasha Latas“? What did Andric forsaw, in conection with the ending of the novel, when he told Ljubo Jandric on 12.Juni 1974 in Sarajevo: „Other bards will come and sing a song about what my soul feels, when the evening bell rings“ (Source: "Sa Ivom Andricem", Author: Ljubo Jandric ; Publisher: Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo 1982, page 412 ). By my thinking, with the content, structure and unfinished story of that novel Andric has probably sent the last message about the future of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Particulary in the 90's of 20th century „there were many Latas“ in that country. In some way, the unfinished novel as a paradigm of mentality, continues to live on in the present. And the future? Maybe the Croats make him their greatest writer of all times and raise a monument in his honor in Zagreb.. (19.09.2009)

Ivo Andrić is croato-serbian or serbo-croatian writer from Bosnia and Herzegovina. And that is clear and self-explanatory! I strongly think that after all these years he deserves monument in Zagreb and particulary in his native Travnik.

Matej Škarica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.90.68 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Ivo Andrić is Croatian legend! (10.01.2010)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.26.31 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

Threats like this [6] will get you nowhere. You have introduced problematic sources: [7] is a Wiki clone, [8] unreliable, [9] unreliable Serb source. Hell the only reliable source (Britannica) you have contradicts you and says he that was a "writer of novels and short stories in the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian language" [10]. No where does it say he's "of [[Serbia]]n origin". Furthermore your removal of sourced information on various articles such as these is hypocritical to say the least. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Serbia is legal ancestor of Yugoslavia. And that sources are not unreliable, you just dont like them. You may ask if that sources are RS on the WP:RS/noticeboard, but until then, there are no problems with them. --Tadija (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"legal ancestor of Yugoslavia"? Are you actually being serious? This is your argument for your edit? For the sources review WP:RS. Your nonsensical edit here [11] blatantly calling my edits "vandalism" because you disagree was not addressed here. Again nowhere does your sole reliable source say he is "of [[Serbia]]n origin". ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You may ask for RS check. You have 4 sources there. --Tadija (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, he himself always identified himself as Serb. [12] Also Serbian by this [13] Two more. How i have 6 sources that he was Serbian. --Tadija (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

LoL, congratulations you can use google. Again you bring up unreliable sources, whats your reasoning behind this? it appears on a website therefore it must be true? I urge you to read WP:RS. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that he is Bosnian? Any at all, even unreliable. And it is not unreliable, stop POV. --Tadija (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you disputing he was born where present day BiH stands? or the part claiming that he is claimed by Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian literature? if so, it says it in the sole reliable source that you provided. [14] ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as you said that this is RS, i will copy something from there:

born Oct. 10, 1892, Dolac, near Travnik, Bosnia died March 13, 1975, Belgrade, Yugos. (now Serbia)

Ivo Andrić, 1961. writer of novels and short stories in the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian language, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1961...

He did write in former Serbo-Croatian language, that was known as language of Bosnia/Croatia/andSerbia, so it is quite clear that you should stop you POV editing as all sources confirm that we can be regarded as and that he is also Serbian writer. Please, stop your rewerts in List of Nobel laureates by country‎‎. --Tadija (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits.

Ok, what is problem now?

Category:People from Belgrade

As it is written on the category page:
The people listed below were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with the city of Belgrade (capital of Serbia) and its surrounding metropolitan area.
So as Andrić lived here for 30 years, i will revert this category. This is out of question to discus.--Tadija^taking

This category description is nonsense, "People from (city)" categories are reserved to show the persons birth place. Take a look at other city categories. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK)

Sorry? category description is nonsense? All categories work like this. This is not my invention, it was like that even before i joined wikipedia, so please, be serious. --Tadija^taking

Serbian Nobel Laureates and Croatian Nobel Laureates

Please, wikipedia does not follow "Nobel prize official site" as it's main rule. Wikipedia have it's own ones. There are numerous sources, that claim he is Serbian, and Croat author. At the end, on the page you have image where Ivo Andrić declared himself as Croatian. And on his ONLY and OFFICIAL Foundation page you can see that he is regarded as Serbian winner. Also, wikipedia is not what you think, or what i think, it must be neutral. It so many sources claim that he is Serbian, that should be included also!

Now, please, respond, and talk to me. As you know, you have been blocked numerous times because of your blink reverts. Now it is time to talk! --Tadija^taking 22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion on the List of Nobel laureates by country talk page. You've simply created that "template" which no other countries have (besides Croatia), and tryed to bypass the Andric article and declare your views in the template. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

First, i created template today, and Croatian template already was on the page. As you can see, if was created week before today. You didn't say anything. Do you have any argument? List of Nobel laureates have it's own rules, and i will respect that until it is changed. Now, please, stop disusing me, and move to the content. Any argument at all? --Tadija^taking 22:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Look what i found. Template:Israeli Nobel Laureates It looks like there is more templates like this one. Beside Croatia, of chores. --Tadija^taking 23:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you should have removed the template because of its POV not retaliate with more POV. He was granted the award in relation to Yugoslavia [15] not Croatia or Serbia as these templates mislead the reader into thinking. The "List of Nobel laureates" article does not go by what nationality you think a person is. Ffs because we're discussing Nobel laureates stop ignoring what the official Nobel laureates website has to say.

And congratulations you've managed to find a third country template. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But, my friend, official Nobel laureates website say only "Yugoslavia". As all of us know, Yugoslavia don't exist any more. In that case, legal inheritor continue. As you know, Serbia is legal inheritor of Yugoslavia. By sport medals, by international organizations membership... Also, Andrić lived in Belgrade for 30 years. He talked about himself as a Serb. By those arguments, i would return template. What are your arguments for deletion? --Tadija^taking 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary Serbia is not the "legal inheritor" (assuming you mean successor) of Yugoslavia, but one of many [16]. Again we're discussing the Nobel laureates template. In the Nobel laureates related lists the official Nobel website dictates the content, your observations of him having "lived in Belgrade for 30 years" or "talked about himself as a Serb" are irrelevant. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

---

ANTE STARČEVIĆ and IVO ANDRIĆ

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.33.2 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem of Tone

I'm sure many people have gone over all of these issues repeatedly and painfully, but I can't help but mention them. I was checking the wiki for some bio information for a paper on Days of the Consuls and couldn't help noticing how much of the page is veiled arguments about his nationality.

First of all, it is a bizarre idea have a picture of a university application filled out stating his national identity. This is of dubious relevance because how Ivo Andric represented himself as a young man to a foreign university on an application he had no reason to assume anyone would see tells us nothing about how he thought of himself, then or later in life. The one word doesn't explain whether he thought of "Croatian" as his nationality, his race, his geographical location, his language, or just the identity he thought would be the likeliest to get him a spot in the university. Imagine the case of an English speaking Mexican-American from Texas filling out a similar form for a Polish university. By taking a single word out of context we could put that person in any category we want.

Even if the document were 100% and definitive, whats the point of it being one of only four pictures? Is this really one of the most important things about him? The classification of his literature is interesting but way to much of this article is about what ethnicity Ivo Andric was and too little about what he believed.

I think I speak for a lot of people who love the literature of the former Yugoslavia when I say that it is disgusting to see the bones of literary giants being picked over by nationalists who want to claim him for their own. Its pretty clear that by today's standards Andric was a Bosnian Croat who wrote primarily in 'Serbian', that wouldn't have meant anything to him. Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro are losing a lot of their shared literary heritage by trying to force writers into one language or another.