Talk:Ivan Gundulić

Serbianization

Jealousy and plagiarism are one of the biggest compliments. So lets take Serbian attempts to "serbianize" Gundulic not too seriously. Serbia lost Montenegro and Kosovo. There s not much left of the Greater Serbian dream except Belgrade. Vatroslav Utjesenovic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.2.243.20 (talk) 13:33, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Based on the 11th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ivan_Gundulich Is this Serbian propaganda?

What is your problem? This is an aricle about Ivan Gundulic and not about Serbia. Btw. ,,Nothing is lost that cannot be found if sought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.11.68 (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

actually, yes, it is serb propaganda since you use a single (encyclopedic) historical source based on a public claim by serbian circle with an already established statehood. britannica didnt rely back then on a comprehensive research of the subject; everything was compiled just by word of mouth and the obscurity of the person (to the people who took part in writing) led only to accepting the version from a politicaly indipendent entity.

here's the current version http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/249421/Ivan-Gundulic

BTW you're kinda late. The upper comment is three years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.52.174 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Igor's edits

I am restoring the title Ivan which was moved by copy&paste to Dzivo (Dživo) because this name is far more often used. Even on Google, 426 hits for "Ivan Gundulić", 308 hits for "Ivan Gundulic", 10 hits for "Dzivo Gundulic", 9 hits for "Dživo Gundulić". --Shallot 19:57, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to note that Igor has littered the version he improperly moved to Dzivo Gundulic with vague yet seemingly fervent accusations of nationalism and misappropriation by the Croats. I'll restrain myself to stating merely that this is not suitable for encyclopedia. --Shallot 20:06, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After fixing the bad move, the diff of Igor's changes is here. It would be interesting to see an elaboration of this. --Joy [shallot] 12:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

removed sentence

Removed from the article (regarding Serbian extreme nationalists):

"This is another attempt to achieve their goal after they failed in most recent war of aggression on Croatia."

I don't think that would be relevant to this article, even if it were written from an NPOV. Wmahan. 01:20, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

Would you incline that Ivan Gundulić is of Serbian origin? (catholic Serb) HolyRomanEmperor 15:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Britannica fell under heavy Greater Croatian influence. It shows Rudjer Boskovic as a Croat, as well... I see no point not to concider Ivan Gundulic Serbian as he dedicated a large part of OSMAN to the Serbs and their love for freedom and figts against the Ottomans. HolyRomanEmperor 18:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

He might've been than a Serbophil Croat; but mention of Serbian as an adjective is a necessity. HolyRomanEmperor 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, he's a Croatian poet according to:

• Britannica
• Encarta
• Great Soviet Encyclopedia

No Serbian connection is even mentioned by any of the three. --Elephantus 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The older version of Britannica here: [1] mentions him as a Serb and here: [2] Besides that, his perfect genealogy is explained in here: [3] where one can see his entire family lineage. HolyRomanEmperor 19:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The latest version of Britannica has shown many errors, and has sucumbed to the nationalist tensions of Greater Croatdom in this case; only because Dubrovnik is now a part of Croatia does it say that he was Croatian (it didn't before Dubrovnik's integration into Croatia) HolyRomanEmperor 20:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

An interesting note should be also read in here: [4] a book that perfectly describes everything about the Serbs of Dubrovnik in those ages. HolyRomanEmperor 20:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The new version of Britannica was already proven inacurrate ages ago (see talk page of Rudjer Boskovic), when it called the father of Rudjer Bošković (who was a Serb) a Croat. So deos the Great Soviet Encyclopedia too. HolyRomanEmperor 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The new version of Britannica was already proven inacurrate ages ago (see talk page of Rudjer Boskovic), when it called the father of Rudjer Bošković (who was a Serb) a Croat. So deos the Great Soviet Encyclopedia too. HolyRomanEmperor 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Encarta also mentiones the Bosnian Croat Ivo Andrić (who was a Serb only by self-determination) as a Bosnian Serb. So it is wrong as well... HolyRomanEmperor 20:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides, if anyone remembered to read Osman, he would notice that around 1,100 lyrics are dedicated to Serbs magnifying their suberp defeating of the infidel Emperor on Kosovo (see: Battle of Kossovo) and the glorious Kings of Rascia, the Nemanjić. Very little dedicated to anything Croatian indeed... HolyRomanEmperor 20:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides, Ivan overrexagerates with his metaphoric parts of his poems when he mentions that Alexander the Great of Macedon was a Serb :))) HolyRomanEmperor 20:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

And, Dubrovnik was at the time in the Serbian sphere of influence (it was from the VII to the late XIX century that way); the majority of the population being Catholic Serbs. The Slavic dialect spoken in there was shtokavian dialect, present only in the Serbian language until the reforms of Ljudevit Gaj which engulphed Serbdom. HolyRomanEmperor 20:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As for 1911 Britannica, it's questionable at best because it lumps all Dalmatian and Dubrovnik writers under "Servian", including Marko Marulić. The other source you cite, Columbia Encyclopedia, confirms him as a Croatian poet :-). The "genealogy" is basically just a Serb propaganda piece which takes an inocuous topic of Dubrovnik nobility and sprinkles "Serbian" adjectives every couple of sentences. Really, no serious non-nationalistic sources confirm this "Gundulić - a Serbian poet" thing. Sorry. --Elephantus 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. It is an article written by professor of the Faculty of Philosophy in Kosovska Mitrovica Marko Atlagić for their magazine "Komunikacija". The article has 98 references. I'll be returning "Serbian" with the article as the reference. Nikola 09:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It is understandable that those pages are somewhat NPOV - Dubrovnik has been heavily Croatianized; and they are far more detailed about his life than the sources that you mention. His life's litterarry orientation is firstly Polish, then Serbian... and Croatian somewhere to the bottom. So, we can only agree that he is both Serbian and Croatian. Sorry. HolyRomanEmperor 20:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As for that second link - my bad; I meant: [5] I think that we would make the article most NPOV and democratic if we state both afiltrations! And read the genealogy before making early conclusions :))) HolyRomanEmperor 21:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As for that second link - my bad; I meant: [6] I think that we would make the article most NPOV and democratic if we state both afiltrations! And read the genealogy before making early conclusions :))) HolyRomanEmperor 21:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The genealogy text doesn't gain anything in value by repeated readings; its claim of "Serbianness" of the Gundulić family is supported by a reference to this book, a sad piece of propaganda published in Belgrade in 1992, apparently in an attempt to justify the Serbian attack on Dubrovnik at the time as a simple "retaking of what is already ours". --Elephantus 15:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, could you actually find mistakes on those sources rather than acuse them of being nationalistic (which I accepted that they are) HolyRomanEmperor 15:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You're claiming that the article is nationalist because it uses as a reference a book for which your claim that it is nationalist! Sorry, but that doesn't mean anything. Nikola 18:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a piece of war propaganda designed to convince people that everyone and everything in Dubrovnik is Serbian, and because of that it's worthless as a source of information in this article (unless it can be corroborated by other, more serious sources). It would be useful when talking about, say, history of Serbian expansionism, attacks on Dubrovnik in 1991/92 and justifications offered for that. Even so, its claim is very weak: it seems to consider Gundulić a Serbian poet only because he wrote about, among other things, Serbian resistance to Turkish onslaught, despite the fact that the name "Serbs" was used, even back then, exclusively for adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy. --Elephantus 19:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

So say you. Actually, Ivan is mentioned in the book 130 times. It considers Gundulic a Serbian poet, among other reasons, because several notable people close to his time have said that he was Serbian poet, and several other that he is approproated by Croats. Nikola 20:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Extremely small or vastly limited minority

Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder, says:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

(quoted from Wikipedia:No original research)--Zmaj 08:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales also said: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents HolyRomanEmperor 15:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, that logic could apply to this: Penkala was half-Dutch, half-Pole, yet everyone concerns him as a Croat. Should then his original ethnicity details be deleted? HolyRomanEmperor 15:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The same thing should apply to Ivo Andrić - a Croat (majorily considered as a Serb) HolyRomanEmperor 15:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

user:Elephantus claimed that the name Serbs was used exclusivly for adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy. This is highly incorrect. The Lower Dalmatians were generally considered as Serbs until the first half of the XX century. HolyRomanEmperor 20:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that most Serbs believe that Ivan was Serb. Ten million people is hardly extremely small or vastly limited. Nikola 14:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Protection?

How would you people feel about protecting this page from changes for a while, so that you can work out your differences on the Talk page? I would like to see someone put this up on RfC too. At present, it just seems to be constantly reverted, and it has been going on for a while. — David Remahl 09:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Serbian

Here are the sources stating that he was a Serb:

• Marko Atlagic: Grbovi nekih srpskih plemickih porodica u Dubrovniku
• Srpstvo Dubrovnika
• Serbian noble families of Dubrovnik
• Momcilo Ivanic, O Ivanu Gundulicu kao srpskom pjesniku, Nastavnik, knj. 4, str. 5, Belgrade, 1893.
• Marko Car, Ivan Gundulic, Letopis Matice srpske, knj. 350, Novi Sad, 1938, str. 45.
• Jeremija Mitovic, Sukob Srba i Hrvata prilikom otkrivanja spomenika Gundulicu 1893. u Dubrovniku, Zbornik O Srbima u Hrvatskoj, 1991, sv. 2, str. 195
• Ivan Gundulich in Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911
• Ivan Gundulich in the Online Edition Encyclopedia Britannia
• Serbs in Croatia
• [7]
• 100 most famous Serbs, Belgrade, 2002.

As can be seen on [www.rastko.org.yu the Serbian Cultural Centre] and several other sources, he wrote about the Serbian culture and history a lot (mentioning in his poems that Alexander the Great was a Serb, and magnifying the fall of the "Infidel Emperor" in the Battle of Kossovo, as well as calling the Polish king to liberate those holy lands from the Ottomans); although this has no connection to his ethnicity; it should be included. HolyRomanEmperor 11:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Vote here if you agree with adding Serbian by stating Support/Oppose following a short comment explaining why you voted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyRomanEmperor (talk • contribs) 11:57, 3 December 2005

Supporting

1. Support. I stated all the sources and info. HolyRomanEmperor 11:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (vote like this)
2. Support I agree with the upper-mentioned --Jovanvb 12:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support I agree -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 13:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
4. In principle, voting should not be used to determine content of articles (it should be used mostly for organisational problems and the like). Having said that, I support that we use references we used in the article, as I find them credible, and from there this logically follows. Nikola 21:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments regarding the voting

Here you can open the discussion regarding your votes and/or verifying various sources. HolyRomanEmperor 11:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Serb or Croat

I think that Ivan Gundulić was not either Serb or Croat, but Dubrovinian (Dubrovčanin). In that time, people of Dubrovnik were separate independent nation, thus not Serbs or Croats. Since Dubrovnik is now part of Croatia, it would be more correct to say that he was Croatian than Serbian poet, but as I said, both claims would be essentially wrong, since Dubrovinians were separate nation in the past (Today they are part of Croats, of course). PANONIAN (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Why not yugoslav? User:Bonaparte, 17:44, 3 December 2005

In the US at least, Yugoslav means a political affiliation (relating to the 20th century state of Yugoslavia), as opposed to an ethnic group (like Slovenian, Serbian, or Croatian). A similar example would be "Czechoslovak" meaning something from the state of Czechoslovakia, not someone of a Czechoslovak ethnicity (in comparison to Czech, Moravian, or Slovak). Regardless, using the term Yugoslav to refer to Gundulić is anachronistic. During the time he lived, would he rather have been referred to simply as a Ragusan? Olessi 18:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes, that is what I said: Dubrovinian or Ragusan (two names with same meaning). PANONIAN (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Actually, even Serbian sources prior to 1990 and the resurgence of Greater Serbian nationalism which happened at that time _don't_ really consider him a Serbian author: such is the case with the two general histories of Serbian literature available on-line at Project Rastko and created before 1990, both written by Serbs (Jovan Deretić and Milorad Pavić). He is considered a Croatian author (and his works included in Croatian literature) by reference works such as the latest editon of Encyclopedia Britannica, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Microsoft Encarta. Should Wikipedia be used as a vehicle for spreading this kind of thing? IMHO, no. --Elephantus 01:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Elephantus here; claims on his Serb ethnicity (based on his ethnic origin?) look very weak to me -- sort of eugenics theories. Panonian has a point though, that Ragusans probably did not associate themselves with Croats at the time as well (when nations in today's sense barely existed), but they posthumously got associated with Croatian corpus with unification and later "by extension". It's questionnable what they would have told about it, but there's no way to ask them. Nevertheless, the article in its current state is fairly OK on the issue IMO. Duja 10:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, unlike with Bošković, no actual claims of Serb ethnicity or ancestry are made about Gundulić. --Elephantus 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Except that there are eleven on this very talk page. Nikola 07:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but claims about his Croatian ancestry are even weaker. So we can put either both Croatian and Serbian or just Ragusian. HolyRomanEmperor 11:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"100 most famous Serbs"?

The mention of the book '100 most famous Serbs' should probably be removed from this article. Here's a link to a review of the book by Gojko Nikoliš, a doctor and a high-ranked communist politician who was apparently one of the few Serbian public figures to stand up to growing nationalism of the early 1990's: here. He clearly states that both Gundulić and Ruđer Bošković shouldn't have been included in the book because they weren't Serbs. Despite taking the dubious story of the conversion of Bošković's father for granted, Nikoliš points out that it wasn't reason enough to include him in the book. Here are the most important parts:

A careful reader of the book will notice that the editorial board and the authors of the biographies did not always manage to avoid traps. For example, important figures who are not Serbs have been included in the book (Rudjer Boskovic and Ivan Dzivo Gundulic).

...

[after the discussion of the Bošković claim]...It is even less clear why Ivan Dzivo Gundulic has been included in the book. It is true that he was a poet with very deep feelings for the Slav and Yugoslav idea, but this is not enough to consider him a Serb.

...

Once we have allowed ourselves to be led by such reasons, there are no limits to the greedy appropriation of a cultural heritage which does not belong to the Serbs and Serbia, and never did. An ideological analogy with Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic's "liberating" strategy in Bosnia-Herzegovina comes to mind.

--Elephantus 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"High-ranked communist politician" - you said it all. I agree however that the book is not too important. Nikola 09:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation?

I've been silently watching the revert war over this article, Rudjer Boscovich and List of Serbs for few months. I know you people just sit over there and revert the article when it appears in your watchlists, but that's not the way to do it. May I remind you to WP:Consensus? Duja 13:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the compromise apparently cannot be reached by means of article talk (abandoned long time ago), I suggest to present the case to the mediation commitee. On one side would be Zmaj and Elephantus, and Nikola and Pannonian or HolyRomanEmperor. Is that OK? Duja 13:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I found the article House of Gondola that mostly talks about Ivan Gundulić and his nationalty. It seems to take a side in the dispute whether he was Serbian or Croatian; I know nothing about that, but wanted to bring the article to the attention of editors here. Kusma (討論) 16:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Serbian misappropriations

Well, let's see what the entire mess is about.

1. a few (not all!) Serbian users seem to be obsessed with everything Croatian, from medieval history, art and literature to the language, recent wars & political figures-even Croatian tourism. This obsesion is not, as far as I can see, reciprocated. Croatian users generally don't care about Serbian history, culture or geography. They simply don't know much about it (ca. 70 ys of common life in ex-Yugoslavia hadn't left much knowledge about our neighbors) and, what is more important- do not even presume to interfere in the matters of a neighboring nation.

2. so, why this constant Serbian Croatomania ? Why this perpetual obsession ? It would take too much time to delve into the abovementioned disputed subjects, from one to another. So, let's address the Gundulić issue:

3. Ivan Gundulić's (as well as other Ragusan Renaissance, Baroque and Classicist writers's and philologists's heritage) is central to the codification of modern standard Croatian language. Gundulić's fame has waned from the peak in 1840s and 1850s during Illyrian movement near-deification of the poet, but he remains one of the most important Croatian pre-Illyrian writers, along with Marko Marulić and Marin Držić. And, this is a fatal blow to the mythology of Serbianization of Croatian cultural heritage that had begun with the muddles & distortions of early Slavic studies (Jan Dobrovsky, Pavel Šafařik, Franc Miklošič,..) and reached the peak with the ideology of national-dialectal pan-Serbism of Vuk Karadžić. Those knowledgeable with Croatian, may see an analysis and presentation of this stuff on Croatian wiki articles http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srpskohrvatski_jezik_%28povijest%29 & http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rekli_su_o_hrvatskom_jeziku. Essentially, since Serbian langauge does not have a recorded history of literary and philological works in the vernacular-unlike Croatian- Serbian ideologues still try, as much as they can, to assert "Serbdom" of Croatian linguistic heritage in the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s, written in the Shtokavian vernacular. There are no arguments in favor of this claim-just a muddle of hearsay, hints and array of distortions. For instance, Serbian linguists carefully avoid the mention of two most important early štokavian philologists, Bartol Kašić (author of the first, štokavian-čakavian grammar, dating back to 1604. and a 1599. manuscript dictionary-available for search at http://crodip.ffzg.hr/default_e.aspx, as well as Mikalja's 25.000 entries dictionary from 1651.-http://www.ihjj.hr/Projekti.aspx (English in the right upper corner, Mikalja's dictionary). They know that these works, actually more important for the description and prescription of Croatian and, partially, Serbian language are unknown to their general reading public-unlike Gundulić. So, the myth about Serbian affiliation of Štokavian vernacular production from 1500s on is easily refutable and refuted on philological and historically-cultural ground. Gundulić, who is just one writer in the corpus of Dalmatian and Dubrovnik literary and philological heritage from 1500s to 1800s, is thus artificially torn out of the entire cultural matrix he belonged to. There was just one instance of Gundulić's entry into Serbian cultural circle before the mid-19th century wave of misappropriations: it was a translation of Gundulić's epic "Osman" into Serbian-Slavic, made by one Jevta Popović, and published in Budim in 1826. as "Collected works of Jevta Popović" ! Gundulić has no place in Serbian culture, is not listed in corpora of the Serbian literature (for instance, even flawed Serbian corpus avoids Croatian Rennaisance and Baroque writing: http://www.serbian-corpus.edu.yu/ns/sample/esample.html) and it is, among respectable sources, only on English wikipedia that 150 or so ys old expansionist political ideology of Greater Serbia in linguistic and cultural disguise finds a place under the sun. Mir Harven 20:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

...and Croatian ones, if I may add

As far as I can see User Mir Harven just used a lot of presumptions to bring us back to the "either-or" logic. Mir Harven is obviously a Croat nationalist that uses quite a lot of bad and nationalistic retorics.

I'll try to waste some spare time here. Mir Harven 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me openly state my point of view. All the inhabitants of Dubrovnik until the end of their republic in 1808 were nationaly Ragusians/Dubrovcani.Their local proliferation was the only thing important in an aristocratic republic that predated national revolutions. On the other hand there is the question of language. The natives of Dubrovnik stated their language as Serbian many times but today the same language is also used by Croats.

Not true. No Ragusan writer, before 19th century brief pan-Serbian indoctrination, has ever used Serbian denotation for their language. They used Slovin or Illyrian, as well as Croatian name.[8]Mir Harven 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The agreements made by Serb and Croat philologists during the 19th and 20th centuries reached a compromise of calling it (1) Serbo-Croatian or (2) Serbian or Croatian (or the other way round). Therefore Ivan Gundulic belongs as much to Croat as to Serb literature. If it must be stated that he is "someone's" writer than it would be best marking him as a Ragusian/Dubrovnik writer with an addition that he wrote in Serbo-Croatian.

Again-what this has to do with the language of Gundulić, which was named "Slovin" or "Illyrian", which in the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th centuries meant only Croatian (there were no Serbian vernacular texts then) ? Political-linguistic agreements in the 1850s do not have any repercussion for the state of affairs two centuries before (apart from the fact that Serbian language was partially shaped by Vuk Karadžić's appropriation of Croatian linguistic and lexicographic heritage (Mikalja, Belostenec, Stulli, Katančić,..).

Mir Harven 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for a lot of nonsense of Mir Harven here are some answers to him and to those who read them:

1. Serbs are probably more interested in Croatia than the other way round for a simple reason: a good deal of their history takes place in what is today Croatia.

Virtually no Serbian history took place within boundaries of contemporary Croatia. You're a captive of myths promulgated by SANU and other delusionists. Who, what, when,...pertinent to Serbian history or culture happened in Croatia ? And we're talking about "older" history, 10-18. centuries. So-what was Serbian here, anytime, anywhere ? Mir Harven 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Also a lot of Serbs lived (25,5% in Croatia-Slavonia in 1910) and still live in Croatia. Also around 200,000 Serbs from Croatia now live in Serbia. These, and not some "obsesivness" are the reasons for the interest (and to some part also of downright and uneducated nationalism which is to be dreaded and condemned) of Serbs in Croatia as it is ALSO their land and NOT in the "matters of a neighboring nation"!

Aha, here we are: Croatia is, "also", a "SERBIAN LAND"-at least, according to this user & his ideological patrons. Well-this is a program of Greater Serbia. Pure & simple. Hmmm....I thought I could answer the rest of this little missive, but, on second thought- I don't think it deserves any more bytes. Mir Harven 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

2. As much as Gundulic and other Ragusian writers are important for the codification of modern standard Croatian language they are as important for the codification of Serbian language. It is, in the end, the same language and any Serb can easily read Gundulic as any Croat can. If we reffer to the dialects of this language let us not forget that about 1/3 of ethnic Serbs still speak ijekavian dialect and that this dialect is official in Crna Gora and in Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and is also studdied in Serbia itself.

On the next of Mir Harvens points I'm not sure what he is trying to say:
"Gundulić's fame has waned from the peak in 1840s and 1850s during Illyrian movement near-deification of the poet, but he remains one of the most important Croatian pre-Illyrian writers, along with Marko Marulić and Marin Držić. And, this is a fatal blow to the mythology of Serbianization of Croatian cultural heritage that had begun with the muddles & distortions of early Slavic studies (Jan Dobrovsky, Pavel Šafařik, Franc Miklošič,..) and reached the peak with the ideology of national-dialectal pan-Serbism of Vuk Karadžić."
If anyone knows what this should mean, I am very much interested in learning about it...
For a long time I haven't heard such nonsense about Serbian not having a "a recorded history of literary and philological works in the vernacular"!!! More so, coming criticaly from the point "unlike Croatian"! Serbian has a very well documented and unbroken history of vernacular and it was on this history and its legacy that modern Serbo-Croatian was built. In medieval Serbian state all of the comunication, laws, decrees, grants, trading contracts were written in vernacular, a good part of it being saved in Dubrovnik, the main trading partner, where there existed only two kinds of scribes - "latin" and "serbian"! When the state perished the Serb-Orthodox church took its part but people who weren't learned wrote in vernacular. The Serbs who were not under Turkish rule also used vernacular, one of the official languages in Ottoman diplomacy was Serbian vernacular and so on. This is so obsoletely absurd that I will restrain myself from further coments.
The problem with Croatian linguistic heritage of the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s is that most of the writers claim themselves to be writing in Serbian!
As for jesuit Bartol Kasic I don't know that he ever mentioned that he wrote in Croatian - he only mentioned "lingua illyrica" or "slovinski jezik" (Slavonic language). And to this I add a note of franciscan from Slavonia Matija Petar Katancic who says "Our Illyrians call themselves everywhere Serbs" ("Nasi se Iliri svuda Srbljima zovu"). If we see that Illyrian and "slovinski" are synonyms we get a clear answer on the subject from "Croatian" authors themselves. By the way both Kasic and Katancic were members of missionary orders and would be much more interested in presenting "propaganda fidei" and books on the catholic rite to orthodox population than to the catholic one (for that reason Kacic spent some time in Belgrade and in Bulgaria).
The same point is with Gundulic - let the writer speak for himself. Does he say he is a Serb? No. Does he say he is Croat? No. But writers who do not write autobiographies do not neceserraly talk about their ethnic afilliations. I allready mentioned that if Gundulic was to do this he would clearly say that he is Ragusian/Dubrovcanin. However let's examine his work and the cultural matrix he bellonged to. Quoting Mir Harven: "Gundulić, who is just one writer in the corpus of Dalmatian and Dubrovnik literary and philological heritage from 1500s to 1800s, is thus artificially torn out of the entire cultural matrix he belonged to." If he belonged more to Croatian CULTURAL MATRIX than it would be fair to resume that he would talk about some Croatian lands, towns, historical personages or Croatian people. On the contrary! Gundulic dedicates entire VIII chapter of his greatest work "Osman" on the actions taking place in Smederevo (central Serbia) where the main character Ljubdrag is the heir of Serbian despotes Djuradj Brankovic. Furthermore, Gundulic mentions the personages from Serbian history and epic songs such as members of Nemanjic dynasty, emperor Dusan, prince Lazar, herzeg Stjepan, Saint Sava, Milos Obilic, Marko Kraljevic and many more. In the end he also mentioned "Lesandar Srbljanin", (i.e.Alexander the Serb as Alexander the Great was called in Balkans back then). On Croatian history and personages there is almost no refference. Sapienti sat! So nuch about the cultural context. So we can see that the only "Serbomaniac" here is Gundulic himslef. The same thing ("extreme Serbianizing") was the reason that when "Osman" was first published in Zagreb in 1844 some of the leaders of Croat inteligentsia such as Ljudevit Vukovinovic and Stanko Vraz didn't like it at all!
On the entrance of Gundulic into Serbian cultural circle the data is utterly incorrect (although I can't seem what does it prove). The same goes for Gundulic beeing "not listed in corpora of Serbian literature" - what an utter nonsense - for one thing he has been and still is an obligatory part of school literature. There are some Serbian authors which for their antologies of Serbian literature chose criteria of cultural development closer to religious affiliation, but this king of notion has been rejected in both scientific and more popular circles.
Anyway, I said too much. Just wanted to make a point that Gundulic is still not dumb and that if he needs it he can say all we need to know about him through his works. He can also say what he needs about "expansionist political ideology of Greater Serbia". Just read him, enjoy him and his literature and don't get mad about what he thought. Or just quit this this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.175.52 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 April 2006

Good final comment and well based on facts, very unlike the senseless cro-nationalist crap. Or, as the World's Famuous tennisman Novak Djokovic said: 'Serb or Croat-it's ALL SAME'. These are the words that reflect an intelligent, healthy and normal person, being also accepted by the waste normal majority of the world. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Major rewritings

...are underway (by me). Mostly regarding his life's work (staying away from the who-belongs-to-who-and-where hotzone...) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Political motives and some 19th century sources

For those who have doubts about Croathood of Gundulić because of certain reasons.
...there was shtokavian dialect, present only in the Serbian language until the reforms of Ljudevit Gaj which engulphed Serbdom...? Mildly told, this is idiotism. Blatant usurpation of Croatian culture and major part of Croats. There was Croatian linguistic and grammar solutions much before Ljudevit Gaj and Vuk Karadžić. Šime Starčević, Bartol Kašić...
If someone has doubts because of texts from Britannica, here's the explanation. That's because of works of linguist Milan Rešetar, at the time very influential linguist in Croatia and in Slavistics area. Milan Rešetar misinterpreted the national belonging of local Dubrovnikan dialect, because Milan Rešetar had political interests there.
As first, see this link [9]. It's the article of from the magazine of Matica hrvatska, titled "Dubrovnik i hrvatska tradicija" (Dubrovnik and Croat tradition). Author is the Croatian dialectologist Josip Lisac.
See these lines "Uz to, a to je osobito bitno, Rešetar je sasvim krivo riješio pitanje dubrovačke štokavštine i ijekavštine, pri čemu će i politički motivi biti izraziti, a oni su jako nazočni u tom pitanju. Kako se zna, slavistika je u drugoj polovici 19. stoljeća rado identificirala štokavštinu i srpski jezik, čakavštinu i hrvatski jezik, a u Dubrovniku je tada organiziran jaki pokret tzv. Srba katolika; njima je pripadao i Milan Rešetar".
For those who don't understand Croatian, text is: "...Besides that, and that's especially important, Rešetar has made completely wrong solution about the Shtokavian-ijekavian speech of Dubrovnik. In his "solution", Rešetar's political motives were strong; and those motives are very present in that topic, besides that. As is has been known, Slavistics has, in 2nd part of 19th century, gladly identified Shtokavian dialect and Serbian language, Chakavian dialect and Croatian language; and at that time, in Dubrovnik was organized strong (influential, translator's note) movement of so-called "Serb Catholics" - to them belonged Milan Rešetar.". Kubura 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Croatian?

I now that today he is considerd Croatian, but it seams a litle weard to put that he is Croat when he wrote those Croats people far away. Croats to him were a people far away, much more than the Serbs and so he didn't dedicate him to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-Note (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's really scientific explanation given by you, you know what he was thinking? Those Croats people far away could mean Croats that lived far away from Dubrovnik and nothing else. Can you use your imagination for something else please? Zenanarh (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hrvati...narod daleki.

Napoleon wrote about a "far away people...the Serbs". I suppose your imagination thinks Napoleon was a Serb? Anti-Note (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Gundulic the Croat and an example of a brainwashed fellow

I cannot believe what these imperialist croatians are implicating. Has anybody read Gundulic's works. Gundulic talks about the greatness of the Serbian peoples and their history and calls himself explicitly a Serb. The whole of Dalmatia and especially Dubrovnik was considered Serbian of Catholic faith which was unequivocally presented in literary works and everyday life. In the last 100 years the political agendas have forcefully croaticised them but that's another story. Besides this whole debate about what he is and by extension what croatians are is pointless and has no purpose. They (croatians) can propagate whatever they feel like but a collective belief in a lie doesn't make that lie a truth. Serbs know what the truth is and they certainly don't need croatians to acknowledge it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.248.186 (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL... and the whole of Africa and especially Kongo was considered Serbian of black skin which was unequivocally presented in literary works and everyday life. All Europe is Serbia LOL What kind of drugs are you using? Zenanarh (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Medically prescribed but obviously yours aren't working to the same calming and rational cerebral effect. Your debilical blabber doesn't deminish the truth but it does (even further if that's humanly possible) YOUR PATHETIC MINDSET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.248.186 (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Death to the Croatian imperialist fascistoid catholic Ustaše mafia!! Defend the Serbian coastline!! Dubrovnik, Split, Zadar, Rijeka, Trst, Venecija, Ankona and Bari!! :P xD --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Srbija do Tokija!!! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, neither Gundulić nor any other Old Dubrovnik writer ever called himself Serb, or his language Serbian AFAIK. Serbian nation was fabricated in the 19th century, as most of the other nations were. Before that, most instances of "Serb(ian)" are not in ethnical sense at all (it referred to e.g. Cyrillic script, Orthodox faith, or, as Constantine defined it, "Servians < servants"). There is no such thing as "Catholic Serbs" today, and neither they were before the 19th century when they were invented. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The strategy of the Chetnik Cabal here in Wikipedia is the following: if any Serbo-Croatian-speaker intellectual or scientist from the Balkans is famous and well-regarded, he or she is certainly an ethnic Serb somehow; he or she is only regarded as a Croat or as a Bosniak if he or she can be negativelly related somehow to Ustasha or to Islamist ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.101.178 (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mate, but it's just the way it is. ;-) --Darko Maksimović (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Дарко Максимовић (talk • contribs)

About what are you talking? Ther are no proofs that Gundulić was a Serb. That's only saying of shepaerd (čoban) Vuk S. Karadžić. That čoban is very femous for making up "old" serbian songs and steeling works from Germany (piši kako govoriš, old german idea was "scrieb wie du sprichst"). Anyone who says that old Dubrovnik was Serbian catholic is moron. Why Serbs say that? Becouse they have no culture, so they need to steel ours. Well, that won't work.--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Matija Ban and Ivo Stojanovic on Ivan Gundulic

As a small contribution to the Serbo-Croatian debate, I'm adding statements of Dubrovčanin Matija Ban, "O Ivanu Gundulicu" (1888):

"Najznačajnija pak usluga koju je Dubrovnik Srpstvu učinio sastoji se u tome, što je prvi upotrebio u knjigama naš narodni jezik, ovaj podigao na umjetničku visinu, i stvrivši mu čitavu književnost još onda kada se Evropa, sem jedne Italije, narodnom književnošću nije mjogla ponosio, izneo pred svijet Srpstvo kao jednu od najstarijih činjenica u preporođenju opšte kulture." (page 3)

"Spoljni je oblik ponajviše klasičan, unutrašnji duh nije; a kako je vremnom oblik nadjačavao, duh se u jednakoj mjeri gubio. Čini mi se da ova osobina srpsko-dubrovačke knjige nije dovoljno prijećena ni ispitana" (page 5)

"Kada je lijepa književnost opadala, a naučna se dizala, u Drubovniku, pored naučne, koja se vodila na latinskom jeziku, rascvjetala se srpsak poezija, srpski se jezik očistio i ugladio toliko, da je šesnajesti vijek sa polovinom sedamnajestoga proglašen kao zlatno doba stare srpsko-durbovačke književnosti. U to doba spada i Ivan Gundulić.." (p 7)

"Gundulić je skroz prozet srpskim čuvstvima: Srbinom zove čak i makednskog cara Aleksandra velikoga; njemu, po narodnom predanju Srbija počinje od Marice rijeke i od Egejskog mora; kaže sa zadovoljstvom da se među Srbima slavi svaki vitez koga koplje obdari krunom, kao: Uroš, Stjepan Dužan, i ostali vladaoci Nemanjićeve loze, tako isto slavi se i Miloš, koji handžarom smrtno udario cara na Kosovu, i junak Svilojević, i Kraljević Marko i drugi. U trogaljivoj epizodi lijepe Sunčanice potomkinje Despota Đurđa Smederevca, koju ote od slijela oca Kislar-aga za Osmanov harem, pjesnik izlaže sve tragične slučajeve iz istorije despotove porodice. On ne zaboravlja ni Bugari ni Hrvate; u njegovim širokim grudima ima mjesta svoj toj braći" (p. 26-27).

"Književnost i srpska i latinska trajala je u Dubrovniku koliko i njegova sloboda." "Njen (srpski) prvi ministar prosvjete Dositej Obradovic pokazivao je prstom Dubrovnik, gde je srpska knjiga nikla, i svojim spisima polgao prvi osnov novoj srpskoj čisto narodnoj književnosti." (p. 31)

"Da, kao što je u srednjem vijeku srpska državna misao došla sa Jadranksoga mora, iz Zete u Rašku, tako se u vijeku našem srpska književna misao preselila opet sa Jadranskog mora na Dunav i Savu, iz Dubrovnika najprije u beograd, pa u Zagreb. Preko dubrovačke knjige književnim se jezikom spojiše Hrvati sa Srbima." "... slava Gundulicu i svim srpskim sinovima, koji pošavš njegovim plemenitim tragom, uzbudu na korist i ponos svom narodu" (p. 32) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArturR (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Same edit warring.

Once again, it is back to a ridiculous edit war because one user apparently insists on calling Ivan Gundulić a Serbian. When finally pressured to find a source, anonymous gives the single, very outdated source which has numerous errors and historical inaccuracies. Back then, encyclopedias did not have the comprehensive research and sources available to recheck some claims. Serbia already established statehood then and with that influence were erroneously added.

Here is an excerpt from an argument above:

" Ivan Gundulić's (as well as other Ragusan Renaissance, Baroque and Classicist writers's and philologists's heritage) is central to the codification of modern standard Croatian language. Gundulić's fame has waned from the peak in 1840s and 1850s during Illyrian movement near-deification of the poet, but he remains one of the most important Croatian pre-Illyrian writers, along with Marko Marulić and Marin Držić............Those knowledgeable with Croatian, may see an analysis and presentation of this stuff on Croatian wiki articles http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srpskohrvatski_jezik_%28povijest%29 & http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rekli_su_o_hrvatskom_jeziku. Essentially, since Serbian langauge does not have a recorded history of literary and philological works in the vernacular-unlike Croatian- Serbian ideologues still try, as much as they can, to assert "Serbdom" of Croatian linguistic heritage in the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s, written in the Shtokavian vernacular. There are no arguments in favor of this claim-just a muddle of hearsay, hints and array of distortions. For instance, Serbian linguists carefully avoid the mention of two most important early štokavian philologists, Bartol Kašić (author of the first, štokavian-čakavian grammar, dating back to 1604. and a 1599. manuscript dictionary-available for search at http://crodip.ffzg.hr/default_e.aspx, as well as Mikalja's 25.000 entries dictionary from 1651.-http://www.ihjj.hr/Projekti.aspx (English in the right upper corner, Mikalja's dictionary). They know that these works, actually more important for the description and prescription of Croatian and, partially, Serbian language are unknown to their general reading public-unlike Gundulić. So, the myth about Serbian affiliation of Štokavian vernacular production from 1500s on is easily refutable and refuted on philological and historically-cultural ground. Gundulić, who is just one writer in the corpus of Dalmatian and Dubrovnik literary and philological heritage from 1500s to 1800s, is thus artificially torn out of the entire cultural matrix he belonged to. There was just one instance of Gundulić's entry into Serbian cultural circle before the mid-19th century wave of misappropriations: it was a translation of Gundulić's epic "Osman" into Serbian-Slavic, made by one Jevta Popović, and published in Budim in 1826. as "Collected works of Jevta Popović" ! Gundulić has no place in Serbian culture, is not listed in corpora of the Serbian literature (for instance, even flawed Serbian corpus avoids Croatian Rennaisance and Baroque writing: http://www.serbian-corpus.edu.yu/ns/sample/esample.html) and it is, among respectable sources, only on English wikipedia that 150 or so ys old expansionist political ideology of Greater Serbia in linguistic and cultural disguise finds a place under the sun. Mir Harven 20:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC) "

Please stop edit warring. You cannot win. We have already been through this discussion before. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationality of Dubrovnik by Gundulic contemporary historian

Dubrovnik's famous historian Mavro Orbin, sixteenth century, a priest of that city, in his famous history presents as the only known scientific national history of Dubrovnik, history of Nemanjić house, and other Serbian medieval dynasties (Mrnjavčević, Vojnovic - Altomanovic, Hrebljanovic and Balšić. Describing the long and broad history of the Serbs, Orbini dedicated to history of Croats only three pages! And saying that once they offered assistance to Dubrovnik against Prince of Herzegovina Vojnovic, Orbin says that the people of Dubrovnik answer this: "But you are from a country far away ..." Voi siete dal paese molto lontana ... (Orbin, Il Regno de gli Celebrate, Pesaro 1601, 395). That's what Gundulić and his fellow citizens knew about their national history, and what about the Croats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.176.81 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you shall give us pdf. version of that book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.170.59 (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Curiosities

All great Serbs: Bošković, Držić, Palmotić, Gundulić..., not one was born in Serbia (neither today's, neither historical), not one ever call'd himself a Serb, not one has even been in Serbia, or knew what Serbia is, or who Serbs are... Something very interesting, wouldn't you agree? Slavić (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Where was born Gundulic? When the region became part of Croatia? Was it ever part of Croatia prior to that? -- Bojan  Talk  13:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

Ivan Gundulić is listed inside 100 најзнаменитијих Срба, Београд, 1993. ("Hundred of the most prominent Serbs, Belgrade, 1993), and is also treated as a part of the Serbian literature, e.g. in the Deset vekova srpske književnosti series ("Ten centuries of Serbian literature", published by Matica srpska). Currently the article is written with Croatian-centric POV in mind and needs to be NPOV-ized. I've tagged with {{NPOV}} for now. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahem... the vast majority of sources describe him as a Croatian author. Maybe we can go with "Serbo-Croatian author".. Still, that would open the "Dubrovnikans are Catholic Serbs" can of worms. I don't think a 1993(!) Serbian publication should be taken seriously at all. -- Director (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Croatian author according to linguistic criteria I presume. Croatian nation didn't exist then, and to my knowledge Gundulić never declared him self Croat, and neither did the majority the Old Dubrovnikan writers. There are 10x more attestations for them calling themselves and their language Slavic, Illyrian and similar ethnically neutral or regional terms. I would support using Serbo-Croatian as the term for the language of Gundulić's writings throughout the article, and adding the section explaining the position of modern Serbian and Croatian scholarship on the affiliation of his works. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And round and round we go....we really didn't have enough of these "discussions" over the years so let's go there once again... Shokatz (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@You're right on all points as usual, Ivan, but you're forgetting that to draw conclusions from said points would be OR. For what I have seen, the idea that he is a "Serbian" author is easily fringe in English-language sources. Naturally its only his Catholicism that has caused him to be referred to as a "Croat", but uh, the sources are what they are. -- Director (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't discriminate sources by language. It doesn't matter how many English and/or Croatian language sources treat Gundulić as a Croatian writer. The position of SANU and Matica srpska is quite clear and consistent on this for the last 20 years and cannot be ignored. It's a POV just as valid as any other. It's not fringe because it's supported by a major and important institution, so it must be taken into consideration. NPOV treatment is by definition a kind of "original research" - if all of the sources on the topic are biased (which is usually the case when we're dealing with an obscure topic from the Balkans), then it's up to wiki editors to determine what constitutes neutral wording. 1911 Britannica treats Gundulić as Serbian which is indicative that at least during/up to the early 20th century in English-speaking world Gundulić was in fact treated as Serbian. Later came the Yugoslav and Serbo-Croatian era - and all of the exclusively-Croatian sources are 1990s+. Implying in the article that Gundulić is exclusively Croatian (by language and/or nationality), while ignoring the position of Serbian sources and pre-1990s English sources would to be seem a major POV violation. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with us noting the position of SANU, as long as we have a good source for it and don't disregard the fact that the vast majority of the sources do indeed refer to him as Croatian. Including encyclopedias. The lead has to be written in accordance with that; it will take a lot more than Serbian-nationalist ramblings alone for me to agree that we need to introduce any ambiguity with regard to "Croatian writer". I don't hold SANU nonsense in any higher regard than HAZU. -- Director (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. I don't have anything against presenting this in a separate section of the article but in a proper context. And while HAZU (or YAZU as it was known) may be bad sometimes they cannot even be compared to some of the SANU publications which go so far by even proclaiming entire nations as: "Catholic Serbs", "Muslim Serbs", "Southern Serbs", etc. Shokatz (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Direktor on this one.Stambuk said that Gundulic never expressed Croatian nationality.And again his obsession with "SerboCroatian" part.Also my dear friend Ivan Stambuk says "that it doesn't matter how many English and/or Croatian language sources treat Gundulić as a Croatian writer but in the next sentence he is saying that position of SANU and Matica Srpska is clear and that it can't be ignored".So we should ignore English and Croatian sources but put Serbian.He is mentioning 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.Really?I mean really?Do we live in 1911 or 2014?What does todays Britannica say about Gundulic?.Gundulic never did express Serbian nationality either.He only wrote in some of his chapters about Serbian warriors and Polish warriors.And by that he is Serbian according to SANU.Gundulic was born in Dubrovnik which is today in Croatia so by that he is a Croatian writer.No matter his ethnicity.His books and works are part of Croatian culture today.It's the same as Ruder Boskovic.Some Serbian writer at the start of the 20th century or so said his father was Serbian from Trebinje without any proof to support that thesis and for them he is Serbian now.But whenever there is some congress or meeting about Ruder or Gundulic in some foreign country only Croatian scientists and officials are invited not Serbian.So Ivan Stambuk calm down a little.Somebody has to say no to you. Scrosby85 (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So I am not the only one who noticed this. I've seen him present this view several times. Apparently overwhelming number of Croatian and even neutral English-language (and other) sources seem to be discarded simply because the mentioned user sees them as "Croatian-centric POV" and then he cites Serbian propaganda machine that is SANU as a "source which cannot be ignored". Yet that same SANU published a memorandum and several propaganda publications over the past two-three decades which basically claims the Shtokavian dialect is exclusively "Serbian" and that any speaker or writer is thus also "Serbian". Never mind the fact that during the time of Gundulic Serbs used the so-called "Slavo-Serbian" language which had no connection at all with what was to become modern-Serbian standard or the Shtokavian dialect in general. That is ignored. Gundulic and all other writers from Dubrovnik wrote in that specific regional dialect, both that town and speakers of that dialect opted to be included in Croatia and Croatian nation, both are today part of modern-day Croatia and Croatian nation. To claim Gundulic is "Serbian" is either a paradox - since he cannot be just removed like that from the entire Dubrovnik literature or a wider literary circle that is Dalmatia (considered part of Croatian literature); or it is a offensive propaganda in disguise - since what it basically says citizens of Dubrovnik (and Dalmatia) are basically some sort of brainwashed Serbs who forgot they are Serbs. The entire premise of Gundulic as a "Serbian writer" lies thus in two major falsifications: 1. Shtokavian dialect is exclusively Serbian and 2. Gundulic wrote about some Serbian rulers and battles and thus "he must have been Serbian". Shokatz (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what else SANU published, or what their agenda is. National and ethnic affiliations don't really "exist" except as a part of culture, which is entirely imaginary and subject change and reinterpretation. If the highest official Serbian cultural institutions SANU and Matica srpska treat Gundulić as a Serbian writer, it's not in any way different from the highest Croatian cultural institution HAZU and Matica hrvatska treating Gundulić as a Croatian writer. You're Croatian so it's understandable that you have personal personal preference for Croatian institutions, and their particular interpretation of ancient history. But English Wikipedia is driven by NPOV principles which take precedence over either of these particular interpretations. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what are you talking about but we have a large and overwhelming majority of non-Croatian and non-Serbian third party (English or otherwise) sources treating him as a Croatian writer. So it's not really a conflict between HAZU and SANU as you are trying to present it here. It's basically a fringe theory based on a propaganda nationalist machine which not only claims Gundulic but entire nations and their history. WP:FRINGE is not WP:NPOV. Shokatz (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

SANU, Matica srpska and pre-1990s English sources are not "fringe". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually they are. We have overwhelming number of third party English and other language sources clearly identifying him as a "Croatian writer" as opposed to those two Serbian institution and Britannica 1911 edition which quoted those institutions directly while Croatia was still subordinated to Austria-Hungary. Fringe theories should be mentioned but should not be given undue weight. Shokatz (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theory means non-mainstream theory, pseudoscience that is nothing considered worthy of consideration by mainstream scholarship. This is hardly the case with the notion of Ivan Gundulić being a Serbian Writer. Britannica was the most eminent encyclopedia in the world at the time, and theories listed in it are anything but fringe. Position by SANU and Matica srpska are anything but fringe, if anything due to the visibility and high profile of those major institutions. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The claim about Gundulic as a "Serbian writer" is exactly that - a non-mainstream, pseudo-scientific nationalist quackery. Funny you should say Britannica "was" the most eminent encyclopedia, but it seems now it isn't anymore...why? Because it corrected itself and listed Gundulic properly as a Croatian writer? Or is there some other reason? SANU high profile? Yes, maybe in their nationalist ramblings perhaps...give me a break... Shokatz (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with nationalists such as yourself is that they believe that their own particular interpretation of history is the "truth", and the rest is pseudoscience, nationalist quackery etc. But believe it or not many others think the same - of you. If you think that the position of SANU and Matica srpska is pseudoscience, you should try finding reliable sources that say so, because it would be very interesting addition to their respective articles. Which of course you can't. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And there it is...in lack of arguments he adheres to ad hominem and blatantly labels me as a "nationalist, and in a most slanderous fashion I must add. I would suggest you calm down Amigo. This is pseudo-science because it has no basis in any serious scientific research and represents a huge minority view either discarded or ignored by all third party sources. I suggest you go around various different Wikipedia language versions, you will see that on all of them Gundulic is considered a Croatian writer as does the Britannica, Columbia, and numerous other sources, literary historians, encyclopedias, etc. Shokatz (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that these source that discard them are all Croatian, as are you. You keep insisting that only Croatian source are "true", while at the same time belittling anything coming from Serbian scholars. If that is no nationalism what is it? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So to you these sources are Croatian? [10] [11] [12] I was unaware Columbia University, Yale University and Encyclopedia Britannica are Croatian institutions.... Shokatz (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias are not considered reliable sources, and if you look more closely you're notice that authors of those articles are Croatian. As for Britannica - for more than a century it listed Gundulić as a Serbian poet - this proves if anything that 1) such views are not fringe 2) that shift Serbian->Croatian is something relatively recent. Far from fringe, minority view and so on. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Who says other encyclopedia's are not reliable source? You? Also you just previously said that only Croatian sources discard and yet here you confirm the fact Britannica discarded that view. Hilarious... Shokatz (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Tertiary sources are not reliable. Especially sources written by ethnic Croatians on topics that deal with contentious issues that involve Croatiandom. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are reading it wrong agian. WP:RS specifically refers to other Wikipedia articles as unreliable, the only thing it says about other encyclopedias is that they shouldn't be used in place for secondary sources in detailed discussion i.e. in elaboration of complex issues. More specifically it is stated on WP:TERTIARY: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Now unless I am mistaken Encyclopedia Britannica is definitely a reliable tertiary source. BTW "Croatiandom" is not a proper word in English language. ;) Shokatz (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources alway take precedence over tertiary sources. Tertiary sources are unreliable (except for uncontroversial topics) and should always be replaced by secondary sources, and never for controversial issues, especially in place of compilations of scholarly opinions. It's more of a guidance, how the encyclopedic article article should look like.

I deliberately coined Croatiandom in lieu of Croatdom - this "ethnic" morpheme Croat bugs me (as opposed to non-ethnic Croatian). It's a superb coinage you must admit. English language lends itself nicely to inquisitive minds. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not always, tertiary source (if reliable) are perfectly valid when provided for summary information as they are summaries themselves. All I saw on WP:RS and WP:TERTIARY is that Wikipedia articles itself are considered unreliable as sources. And I am so glad you think so highly of you. :) Shokatz (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No, they can be used as a model for a summary birds-eye treatment of the topic, but should not be used as sources themselves. For specific contentious issues such as the nationality or ethnicity of a person, their blanket statements are useless. Using 1911 Britannica as a reference that G is a Serbian author is just as useless as using 2014 B to claim that he is a Croatian author. [Such divergence of opinions only confirms that all of the theories on G's ethnicity are BS, but that's just my HO]. Such topics need to be covered in a more detailed manner using secondary sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But Croatia didn't exist as a country back then. Gundulić couldn't have been Croat or Croatian when neither existed, and couldn't have written in Croatian language when it didn't existed back then. And - to my knowledge - there are no records of him either claiming to be Croatian, or writing in a language called Croatian. Furthermore, his works are today treated as a part of Serbian literature, and according to some historians there is evidence that was in fact ethnic Serb - beside the abovementioned book that Direktor dismisses for unclear reasons - simple Google Books search yields even more evidence. So Ivan Gundulić should be treated the same way as Roger Joseph Boscovich - he was a writer from Dubrovnik etc. with a section similar to Competing claims for Bošković's nationality as the article on Boscovich has. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he dissmissed that book because it is written by a Serbian author who makes a unverifiable and unsourced claim of the supposed Gundulic's (and Boskovic's) "Serbian origin"? Just a thought...

Also referring to the section at Boskovic article, you will notice that the it is highly dominated and supplanted with the references for the Croatian and Italian claims, but the the part about his "Serbian origin" is still to this day unsourced and will remain as such because it is completely nonsensical and baseless. Also saying Croatia didn't existed during Gundulic's life is fallacious and misleading, Croatia didn't exist as a sovereign nation, it was part of Habsburg Monarchy, fighting a long war with the Turks which reduced it to, as it is referred in Croatian history, "remains of the remains". Dubrovnik Republic itself was a Ottoman vassal. And your stance on the existence or non-existence of Croatian language is already known. Gundulic as part of Serbian literature is nothing but a ridiculous joke, not only his dialect was virtually unknown in what was to become Serbia nor did he write of subjects relevant or known to Serbian historiography. He belongs in the Dubrovnik and in a wider sense into a Dalmatian and Croatian literary circle. Shokatz (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to Croatian authors who all without a shred of evidence ascribe ethnic and linguistic affiliation of Old Ragusan authors as "Croatian"? Just a thought..

I've cited Boscovich's ethnic Serbian origin claim per link above.

I'm aware of the Croatia-part-of-another-country-theory and the related (mostly imagined) historical narrative. But that in no way invalidates the claim that Croatian nation as such didn't exist. Ancient writers declared themselves and their language as Slavic, Dalmatian, Illyrian and similar regional terms. Every kid in primary school in Croatia knows that the period of buđenje nacionalne svijesti ("awakening of national consciousness") only started in late 19th century. (Bonus points for you if you answer: Why did all those Croats and Serbs needed to be "awakened" if they were Croatians and Serbians in the first place?).

Look, if you guys think of Matica srpska and SANU as a "joke" - that's your opinion. They are the highest cultural institutions in Serbia. We cannot give prominence only to Croatian sources, and everyone must be treated equally. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already addressed all these issues. First Boscovich claim is unverifiable and dubious, based on oral tradition and questionable "sources". The existence of the claim is not questioned at all, but on what it is based. Second, those writers you talk about often referred to those same qualifications of their language synonymous with Croatian...Dubrovnik writers included. Explain to me how can Gundulic be "Serbian" according to those people but say other Dubrovnik writers are not, or say writers like Kacic Miosic and Relkovic who also wrote in the same dialect? You cannot take one writer from a certain literary circle and claim he is part of some other imaginary literary tradition. And let me ask you a counter-question on the "awakening" issue, you claim there was no Croatian language before 19th century (or even going so far to claim that the literary contribution made on the very same area of modern-day Croatia has nothing to do with the term "Croatian")...what language did the Croats speak, or by your logic, the people who will "become" Croats?

I do think that "claims" made by those Serbian institutions are a joke as they have no basis in anything and are nothing but laughable propaganda. You obviously don't understand what is WP:FRINGE. Minority views should be presented in a proper manner and should not be given undue weight. Especially when they are of questionable verifiability. Shokatz (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very simple really - Gundulić is neither Serbian nor Croatian. He wrote in Shtokavian dialect which is spoken by four modern nations (Serbians, Croatians, Bosniaks and Montenegrins) so his simultaneously part of all of their "national" literatures. At that time Croatian national identity didn't exist as such, and was only developed a few centuries later. So everyone has a right to call Old Ragusan writers as theirs (as well as every other Shtokavian-writer).

Modern-day Croats speak several languages which are not mutually intelligible - various dialects of Shtokavian, Kajkavian and Chakavian dialect clusters (narječja). Modern standard Croatian is based on Neoštokavian Ijekavian subdialect, which is also used for modern standard Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin. That particular subdialect of Shtokavian dialect clusters is multiethnic in origin, even though Serbian and Croatian nationalist often emphasize some kind of exclusivity to their own ethnicity. But even cursory look to historical sources proves otherwise. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but that just isn't and cannot be true. Gundulic can be only part of two literary traditions: 1. Croatian literary tradition (as part of his own regional Dubrovnik literary circle) and 2. due to that as part of the wider "Serbo-Croatian" literature. He in no case can be considered as part of national Serbian, Montenegrin or Bosnian literature since he had absolutely nothing in common with those respective countries and their literary traditions. As for your "answer" ... Shtokavian dialect itself is divided into several sub-division, each specific for certain area of it's dialectal continuum. Now if you are going to preach me some unitary Shtokavian BS you will fall on "deaf ears"...even during the Yugoslavia there were two clear distinctive variant: western (Croatian) and eastern (Serbian). Shokatz (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I doesn't matter what you personally think on which literary tradition Gundulić belongs to. All of your arguments are basically retroactive-geographic-historical - which is fine, but just as valid as Shtokavian-linguistic/ethnic argument by SANU, Matica srpska and Serbian scholars. Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires us to treat Ivan Gundulić in a neutral fashion, i.e. representing both of those POV as equally valid. Which means as either both Croatian and Serbian writer, or neither. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And I already said that I don't care what you personally think about what my arguments "are". Serbian claim is an extremely minority view (read: unsupported in scientific circles), giving it undue weight and equalizing it with the dominant view would be considered fringe theory. It is dubious at best. Shokatz (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what fringe theory is. Opinoins of SANU and Matica srpska are by definition not fringe theories - they're high-visibility institutions, and their works reflect a consensual of opinions of many (hundreds) of scholars. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

They represent a minority view. I suggest you actually read up on WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. Shokatz (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Minority view according to whom? Do you have a reliable source that specifically says that? We have hundreds or books and papers published for centuries that treat Gundulić and other Ragusan writers as Serbian. From 19th century, early 20th century to today. It's anything but "fringe". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a minority view according to modern historiography and the overwhelming number of scholarly sources present. If that was the case as you say we wouldn't have the prime institutions, such as the ones I mentioned in the other reply, treating him as a Croatian writer, mentioning nothing about his supposed "Serbdom". Shokatz (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Shokatz, you and your minority views... :) You need to learn you can't just proclaim those things without explicit support. As I said, include the opinion of SANU, but don't change "Croatian writer" without much stronger support than Serbian "you're all Serbs!" wwartime propaganda... -- Director (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This guy is worse than you 10x. :) I agree with you nevertheless, I have no problems it being included in the article, it's something completely different to claim Gundulic is now all of a sudden "Serbian writer". Next they'll claim Marko Marulic...in fact I think I read such a claim some time ago... ;) Shokatz (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If that is that case then I'm sure that you can find some sources for that statement, because it would be an interesting addition to this article as well as others. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll provide you with the sources just when you provide me the sources stating there is ambiguity by modern historiography on this issue. Shokatz (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is up to you not me. Your argument is analogous when religious people say "Give me the evidence that god does not exist!". We have reliable sources from Serbian side, if you have evidence which discredit them give them - otherwise goodbye. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the burden of proof is on you since it is you who challenges the long standing "status quo" version and is trying to introduce something new in the article. WP:BURDEN - read it. Shokatz (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the status quo? Where is it written and by whom? Sources please. No sources = no argument. WP:BURDEN doesn't matter - I always explain my position when I edit/remove controversial content. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Status quo is the state of the article before you removed content on dubious claims. It doesn't matter who wrote it and when, only thing that matters is when someone is introducing new content or advocating to do so (as you do) the burden of proof is on that person. This is also the second time you stated Wikipedia policies don't apply or don't matter to you. Also what you did here is considered WP:CANVASSING...not that the person in question can help you anyway since he is topic banned from all Balkan-related article [13]. Obviously you have a desire to join him. ;) Shokatz (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said - if I remove or rewrite disputed content I always give my reasons (the "proof") in summaries or talkpages. That they run contrary to your beliefs is not my problem. I didn't canvass that editor - I merely asked him for an advice on a completely unrelated issue, because I'm becoming annoyed at all of the time wasted discussing trivial issues with nationalists, and unschooling the government propaganda... Hxseek is one of the rare NPOV editors here. Surely you must sympathize with my noble efforts. It's like with those discussions you have with pro-Serbian editors - but with you on the other side of the argument! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)