Talk:Enver Čolaković

link is dead

http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/colak.html this external link is dead --Palapa (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Enver Čolaković discussion

User talk page discussion

This discussion was transferred from this revision of User talk:Wüstenfuchs#Enver Čolaković.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Of course a Croatian publication is going to say he spoke the "Croatian language". Reliable sources and linguists state that he, you, and I speak Serbo-Croatian. See the articles and view the references if you are in doubt or, if you truly believe what you are saying, bring the matter of Croatian being a language there. Also this isn't your first attempt at trying to Croatize an individual on Wikipedia. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, your accusations are baseless. The informations are sourced. You are removing the sourced information because of your own original research while at the same time you are also pushing your own point of view. I won't discuss is Croatian language a language, the disucssion isn't about the Croatian language (we have a separate artcile for it), but it's about Enver Čolaković. Until you add a source claiming he wrote in Serbo-Croatian we have nothing to discuss. By following your own logic you can also add that the official language of Croatia is Serbo-Croatian, that majority of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs sepaks Serb-Croaian and at the same time violate censuses and sources. --Wüstenfuchs 10:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you adding Croatian now? The man himself said he writes in the Bosnian language in order to preserve it. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

'Cause he also wrote in Croatian (Legend about Ali-Pasha; 1944, etc.) --Wüstenfuchs 11:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

According to whom? He said from his own mouth that he wrote in Bosnian. He'd know better than anyone. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the source (third party). --Wüstenfuchs 11:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Again the man himself said which language he spoke in. Which source do you think takes precedence? Also why have you swapped Bosnian and Croatian?

• Until 1945 he lived and wrote literature in the cities of Sarajevo and Budapest.
• He wrote a series of essays and reviews, in which he fought for the benefit of Bosniaks.
• He wrote in Bosnian to "preserve the language."
• The books themselves revolve around Bosnia.

Also do not try to pull off sneaky nonsense like this: [1]. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Respond to the above. I won't play your ridiculous charades anymore. There is a source where Enver himself says he wrote in the Bosnian language and that clearly takes precedence. I've already given you a list of why Bosnian should be first in the lead. Yet you continue with this nonsense. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me respond you. After 1945 until his death he lived in Zagreb and was member of both Matica hrvatska and the Society of Croatian Writers. He was also a Croatian student. and was involved in the Croatian diplomacy and he also wrote in Croatian. He only mentioned he wrote the Legenda in Bosnian, he didn't mention other books. However, I may assume that he wanted to preserve the Bosnian dialect rather then language, ie Turkish words and all that, but that's not important anyway. The books that he wrote could revolve around Mars, which doesn't mean he is a Martian writer. --Wüstenfuchs 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave you plenty of time so I certainly already "let you". He only mentioned "Legend" in an interview about the "Legend"? No way! So I should assume the rest were in Croatian? What nonsense. He said "jezik" not "dijalekt" in that comment so please don't play dumb. He wrote about Bosnia because he evidently, as backed by sources, identified with it. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, refrain yourself please. He only mentioned the Legend, and if we would guess that he wrote other books in Bosnian it would be an original research. The source I added is very clear, so please, keep your point of view for yourself and stop removing the sourced information. --Wüstenfuchs 16:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You wish to use a book on "Who is who in the Independent State of Croatia" to establish which language an author wrote in when we have a source were the author answers this himself. It's absurd. I give you a source that says he wrote in another language and then you just keep raising the bar to your own arbitrary rules. The man himself said he wrote in the Bosnian language and yet want to say he wrote in Croatian so that you can claim he's more Croatian. He mentioned Legend specifically because the interview itself was about the Legend. You were the one who just engaged in original research with this "dialect" nonsense when the man specifically said "language". Let me remind you this isn't the first individual that you've attempted to Croatize and after the sneaky edits I linked it's incredibly difficult to assume good faith. Don't expect the matter to just be dropped nor for your stonewalling to be tolerated. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't give me anything. You only gave the source for the Legned, but let me quote your own translation: "I started writing Legend with a specific purpose, to preserve our Bosnian language. Not the language of confessions or nations in Bosnia, but the language of Bosnia. Besides that I wanted to create a historical Bosnian time". Now, I wonder, where does he mention that he wrote all of his books in Bosnian? Probably in other books he didn't wanted to preserve "their Bosnian language", eh? :D --Wüstenfuchs 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't give me anything. Where does Enver himself say that he wrote in Croatian? Plus that's from an interview in 1971, but I suppose you would love to stick to your little theory? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't, the source does. And yes, I know the quote is from the 1971 interview. --Wüstenfuchs 17:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't? So we've established Enver himself never said he wrote in Croatian, but that he did in Bosnian. So why should I assume that him writing in the Bosnian language was limited to "Legend"? Which was his most famous work. "Legend" was, for the third time, specifically mentioned because "Enes Čengić gave an interview with Čolaković about the "Legend"". Which was given in 1971. Again you have no evidence of Enver ever claiming to speak Croatian. What you do have is the irrelevant personal opinion of a random author writing about "Who is who in the Independent State of Croatia" and which cannot be of equal weight. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's your personal oppinion. The book deals with biographies. Now, you can think of that interview what you want and you can also assume what ever you whant, but the fact that he didn't refer to any book except the Legend still remains. So, I have a source claiming he wrote in Croatian and you have a source he wrote a one book in Bosnian. --Wüstenfuchs 18:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Err no. For one even if it was limited to only his most famous work, which evades logic, that is more than he said that he wrote in Croatian, which is none. The bottom line is you have personal opinion of author dealing WWII NDH. I have the personal opinion of the writer himself. They aren't of equal weight. Remember "each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The author is talking about the one book, out of which you made your own conclusion that all of his books were writen in Bosnian. This is original research. On the other side, I have presented the source that states he wrote in Croatian. Nevertheless you have number of sources that state he wrote and translated into Croatian, example Krešimir Nemec's book (Povijest hrvatskog romana: od 1945. do 2000. godine). --Wüstenfuchs 18:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which conclusion you make. It doesn't matter if he was referring to one book or his entire career. You have no source that he himself suggested otherwise. The opinions of what others personally believe he wrote in are just that, their personal opinions, and are entirely irrelevant. They are NOT "the best such source for this context". Simple as that. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

However, neither he stated he didn't wrote in Croatian. Simple as that. This discussion doesn't go anywhere. --Wüstenfuchs 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy logical fallacies are fun. He didn't say that he didn't write in Chinese either... You should know the difference between a positive and negative claim. The burden of evidence is on you. You make the claim he wrote in Croatian yet you have no evidence of him saying that he did in ANY capacity while on the other hand it's been established that he said that he wrote in Bosnian (regardless of whether you interpret it to be one book or many). -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither do you have a source he wrote all of his books in Bosnian. Look, this discussion is pointless. The first source says he wrote in Croatian, the other one says he translated Sinko in Croatian, the Hungarain writer. This can't be a logical falacy because there are sources claiming he acctualy wrote in Croatian. The falacy would be if I would claim he wrote in the Sinhala language, but I don't. Both languages must be included. --Wüstenfuchs 22:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't have a source where he says he wrote any of his books in Croatian. It appears it is indeed pointless because half the time you try to squirm your way out and the other half you keep going in circles. First, your reasoning, a logical fallacy actually, was that we are to be believe that he wrote in Croatian because he didn't deny it. This is just as reasonable as believing he wrote in Chinese because he never denied it. Now you bring up the same source which I already told you isn't the best source for the context multiple times. The source from the man himself on the other hand is. You keep bringing it up and up again blindly with the logic that "someone else said something different so both are equally important!!" while presenting it as fact and ignoring whose opinion it is and about what. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, do you have a source of Hitler saying he is responsible for killing Jews? I'm getting tired of this discussion. You know, one might erase the whole article about Čolaković as everything in that article is acctualy fallacy, according to you. He never said he wrote in German and Hungarian, he never said he recieved any awards, he never said he was born in Budapest... --Wüstenfuchs 00:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRN discussion

This discussion was transferred from this revision of WP:DRN.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can the parties elaborate the arguments against using Serbo-Croatian as the name of the language? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Some linguists say it's the same language other say no. But the question is very complex. Croatian literature is a literature written in Croatian language (or Croaitan standard if you wish), it's the reason why Čolaković is part of it. Serbo-Croatian would mean completely different thing. The best solution would be to keep both, Bosnian and Croatian. For example, some well known writers aren't part of the Croatian literature as they wrote in Serbian language, if it was a same language we would now have a one literature insted of three. Some raise this standarditaion to language, other don't. The best solution, as I think, would be to keep both Bosnian and Croatian as stated. --Wüstenfuchs 02:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I had no objections to that. In fact it was my first suggestion. No it really isn't "very complex" and the "languages" are all mutually intelligible. Wüstenfuchs, you still have not produced a source that Čolaković considering himself to be writing in Croatian while we do have one of him explicitly considering himself to be writing in Bosnian. "If it was same language we would now have a one literature insted of three", this whole "separate literature" matter (really just finding people, compiling them in a book, and saying they're "ours") is fueled by nationalism and politics and that reasoning would not stand up in the field of linguistics.

In response to the opening comments. It isn't my judgement. One only needs to read the lede of the Serbo-Croatian article to get the gist what's going on. I removed the "sourced information" only after you did not respond to my comment despite being active so I assumed consensus per WP:SILENCE. Also simply adding "sourced information" is not a bulletproof reason for it stay especially when the source supporting the info is not "carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context". The same goes for the other source, a school book, where you're citing the opinion of the book writer for something where Čolaković's opinion is already available. I did not start "a discussion about logical fallacy" I merely pointed out the flaw in thinking that because he didn't deny writing Croatian that that somehow supports the notion that he wrote in it. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, could the parties comment on the following statement: Within the period of author's activity the naming conventions for languages in Yugoslavia were unstable, and they are still not universally accepted now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The official language in SR Croatia was Croatian and his books were published by Matica hrvatska, he was member of the Croatian Society of Writers, we have two soruces stating he wrote in Croatian, the other saying he translated Sinko (a Hungarian writer) into Croatian. For your quote of Čolaković, PRODUCER, he only stated that he wrote the Legend in order to preserve the Bosnian language, but what about other books? He didn't wanted to preserve the Bosnian language? Let me also note that Bosnian didn't existed at the time, which led me to conclusion that writer was talking about specific dialect beign spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina's region of Bosnia. Croatian language (or standard) has its rulles (ijekavian dialect, infinitive endings etc) so it's a big difference. Linguists agree that grammatical difference between Croatian and for example Serbian is 35%, so it's either, Croatian od Serbian or Bosnian literature. What PRODUCER is doing is the original research. He assumed that Čolaković wrote all of his books in Bosnian even though he published, worked and lived in Croatia's Zagreb and was member of Matica hrvatska and Croatian Society of Writers. I don't see a problem with Bosnian and Croatian standing together, however, PRODUCER saw this as my "croatization" of certaion persons. --Wüstenfuchs 14:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that the official language of Croatia was Croatian before 1974? To my knowledge it was right the opposite, and as Enver Čolaković died in 1976, we can safely state that official language in the time he was writing was Serbo-Croatian.

But it is not of much relevance anyway, as the arguments you draw can't be used per WP:SYNTH. The only source on the question — a book you cited in user talk page discussion — is subject to reasonable concerns over WP:NPOV, so I see no sources in favor of Bosnian, Croatian or both.

That said, the majority viewpoint seems to be that Serbo-Croatian includes both Bosnian and Croatian (either as languages within macrolanguage or as variants within language), so this choice seems to be less controversial.

This conclusion is particularly obvious to me as a person who moved to former Yugoslavia after its dissolution, but at the same time my opinion may be biased, so I retire from this case and leave it to someone with no affiliation with former Yugoslavia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We should also consider that he was an active writer during the Independent State of Croatia. But nevertheless, there was also Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language signed also by the Society of Croatian Writers in 1967, of which Čolaković was a member. There is no reason to exclude Croatian or Bosnian, both language should remain as languages in which Čolaković wrote his books. --Wüstenfuchs 15:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Czarkoff, please see Serbo-Croatian's history (specifically between 1940s-1970s) for an explanation to your above statement.

"we have two soruces stating he wrote in Croatian" Still completely ignoring if the sources are "reliable for the statement being made" and if they are the "best such source for that context".

"his books were published by Matica hrvatska" Yes, his book "Legend" was also published by Matica hrvatska and we know what he said regarding that book. Please stop relying on your own personal conclusions and trying to connect dots to your liking. The fact they are published there does not mean they are in Croatian.

"Linguists agree that grammatical difference between Croatian and for example Serbian is 35%" All linguists agree that it's "35%"? All of them? Really? Also why not 39% or 46% while figures are being pulled out of thin air?

"Bosnian didn't existed at the time, which led me to conclusion that writer was talking about specific dialect" Officiality in government does not determine whether a language exists or does not. Simply because these standards have the status of "official language" in government does not mean they are any more in existence or more authentic than they were in the past. And again the man specifically said "jezik" (language) and not "dijalekt" (dialect).

"He assumed that Čolaković wrote all of his books in Bosnian" I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself: "you claim he wrote in Croatian yet you have no evidence of him saying that he did in ANY capacity while on the other hand it's been established that he said that he wrote in Bosnian (regardless of whether you interpret it to be one book or many)". For someone trying to be portrayed as loving to write in Croatian it's a bit odd he never said he actually wrote in it, but did say he wrote in Bosnian.

As for the Croatization bit, it's hard not believe that your pushing it when these diffs exist: [2][3]. This also isn't the first individual. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither he said he wrote all his books in Bosnian. For example, do we need a writer stating he wrote in specific languages? If so, then we should remove German and Hungarian, and we should remove the iformation that Hermann Hesse wrote in German, he acctualy never stated he did, as I recall. Where is the problem for leaving both languages in the infobox? Btw, the fact about the "35%" was published by Croat linguists, you might find it on Google search if you wish. Nevertheless, with so much dispute and disagreement about the language, we shouldn't add SC, but I think the best solution would be to leave the page as it is. --Wüstenfuchs 16:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So, the parties agree to "Bosnian, Croatian, German and Hungarian"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about PRODUCER, but I do. --Wüstenfuchs 17:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let me also note that the same page from where you took Čolaković's quote also states he wrote in Croatian: http://www.envercolakovic.com/madarskalirika.htm ("Trojezičan od djetinjstva (mađarski, njemački i hrvatski), Enver Čolaković radi, uz svoj bogati književni opus, dvije antologije mađarske i austrijske poezije"). Besides, various sources say he wrote and translated in Croatian. I won't object including Bosnian but still, to many sources that support the information he wrote in Croatian can't be simply ignored. Also his novel the Legend about Ali Pasha was awarded as "the best Croatian novel" in 1943. I hope this might help also - [4]. His book published by the Islamic Community in Zagreb (who are Bosniaks) states he wrote in Croatian (last page, bio). --Wüstenfuchs 21:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What Čolaković said himself in the actual 1971 interview with Enes Čengić for World magazine is the source. Wustenfuchs you are either unwilling or simply unable to differentiate whose opinion it is that's being cited and for what or the fact that Čolaković's opinion and the opinion of what others think years after his death are two different things. Yes, "Legend", the novel which he specifically stated he wrote in Bosnian was awarded the "best Croatian novel", your point being? As for the Islamic Community in Zagreb source (the fact that you're assuming they are Bosniaks simply because they are Muslims is entirely irrelevant), like your other sources, is again not "reliable for the statement being made" nor the "best such source for that context". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Čolaković wasn't speaking about all of his novels, only the Legend. And the Legend being awarded "the best Croatian novel" speaks for it self. Think that a novel, writen in Chinese becomes the best German novel. All sources cited are relibale sources, it's your own oppinion they aren't. And Čolaković's membership in the Society of Croatian Translators and Society of Croatian Writers also speaks for itself. Do you claim that he translated Sinko in Bosnian while he was member of the Society of Croatian Translators? --Wüstenfuchs 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually if my Russian-language works will be awarded as "the best Croatian articles", they won't become written or even translated to Croatian. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But they wouldn't be awared "the best Croatian articles", Russian yes, but not Croatian. --Wüstenfuchs 12:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody knows that for sure. Specifically for the works written in Serbo-Croatian or Bosnian "languages" that is 35% different from Croatian for Croatian linguists and is indistinguishable for most part of the remaining world. Furthermore, as the language affairs are motivated politically by far more then linguistically, "the best Croatian book" award says something only about those giving it, not about those receiving it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'l give you a point to think about until any more objective volunteer joins this discussion: Čolaković lived at the time when (1) the official language was Serbo-Croatian and (2) the status of Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian languages was a topic of numerous political discussions and events, but unlike most of contemporary writers he didn't explicitly state his position. Does that indicate anything to you? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He also wrote when the official language was Croatian during the Independent State of Croatia when he wrote his best novel... My point is that Croatian language shouldn't be moved as it was one of the languages used by Čolaković. PRODUCER states it's fallacy when I say he wrote in Croatian but Čolaković himself never said he did, but if so we should remove every language and we should remove languages of vast majority of writers, as many of them never said they wrote in certain languages. But nevertheless, modern literature always speaks of him as Croatian writer who wrote in Croatian, not Serbo-Croatian but Croatian. Any book, you may search everywhere. For example here, his book was published in 1970 in Croatian. --Wüstenfuchs 12:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Which he said he wrote in Bosnian and I already told you that officiality of language in government means nothing. He's "reliable for the statement being made" and the "best such source for this context". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Croatian should remain. As you may see, rest of the books were writen in Croaitan also. --Wüstenfuchs 12:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, they were described as being written in Croatian, which may demonstrate that they indeed are written in Croatian, or that the publisher is saying they are written in Croatian in order to enforce his political position the way he can. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not the case because Čolaković's book published in Sarajevo by Sarajevo Publishing in 1997 ([5]) was also writen in Croatian. --Wüstenfuchs 18:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Has it really stooped to a library catalog as being represented as some authorative source? [6] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, scroll down. Nevertheless, the libary catalogue that I provided is of the Yale University. --Wüstenfuchs 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This link actually shows that he wrote in a language that is considered Croatian, Bosnian or Serbian depending on archive where it was categorized. That is not exactly an argument in favor of any particular language. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We should also consider that Čolaković wrote for number of newspapers in Croatian language. You may see those in the article. As I said, I agree we leave both Bos and Cro. --Wüstenfuchs 18:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I am Amadscientist and I have volunteered to review this DR/N. Give me a moment and I will begin.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have taken a look and I would like to thank Dmitrij D. Czarkoff for assistance in moving the discussion forward. At this time I think there is a very good discussion going, however one of the criteria for filing at DR/N is to have an active talk page discussion ongoing before filing here. My opinion is that this should be kicked back to the talk page as not meeting basic criteria to file at DR/N, No talk page discussion. DRN is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. Moving forward, parties should post each claim being disputed and how it differs from sources. I would also ask that any source being used or quoted for use meet RS criteria so we can begin eliminating what does not work for our standards. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability. I am transferring this discussion intact and in full to be continued on Talk:Enver Čolaković.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Claim: Čolaković wrote in Bosnian
• Opinion cited: Čolaković
• Source: 1971 interview with Svijet (World) magazine published by Oslobođenje
• Quote: "I started writing Legend with a specific purpose, to preserve our Bosnian language. Not the language of confessions or nations in Bosnia, but the language of Bosnia. Besides that I wanted to create a historical Bosnian time."

• Claim: Čolaković wrote in Croatian
• Opinion cited: Dizdar
• Source: Tko je tko u NDH (Who's who in the Independent State of Croatia) published by Minerva

• Claim: Čolaković wrote in Croatian
• Opinion cited: Nemec
• Source: Povijest hrvatskog romana: od 1945. do 2000. godine published by "School Books" (not making this up)

Again, per Wiki guidelines, sources should be "carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for the context". Clearly in the case that's Čolaković as he is the most reliable source for the statement being made and for the context. The dispute after all pertains to the man's own language preference and he himself answered this. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 05:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

But then again you make a conclusion that he wrote all of his books in Bosnian. I also stated that his writings for number of Croatian newspapers should be considered. And I agree he wrote in two languages. And the latter book wasn't published by "School Books" but Školska knjiga, the largest publishing house in Croatia which published number of schoolar books, including authors like Dušan Bilandžić. --Wüstenfuchs 06:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm so sick of repeating myself. It's been established he said he wrote in Bosnian in some capacity (it doesn't matter how you decide to interpret it) while he never said he wrote Croatian in any capacity. Your "Croatian newspaper" argument is really just another one of your personal conclusions. One from a long line I might add. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 07:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, does one writer needs to say he writes in certain languages? Shakespeare, Goethe, Hesse... Then again, you have problem with German and Hungarian. --Wüstenfuchs 07:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of which sources are reliable for the statements being made and the best for the context. In this case it's been established it's the man himself given the 1971 interview. You want to represent him as having written in Croatian? Then find an comparable source in reliability and context (him saying so). German and Hungarian both go by one name and don't have four different little names each with their own different connotations and you know this. Once more: the "most reliable source for the statement being made" and "the best such source for the context" is in this case the man himself and as such until you find a comparable source (meaning him) for your claims, they won't stick. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

But he was only talking about one book. In this interview he didn't mentioned his other books neither he did mention his activity in Croat-language newspapers, which isn't my personal conclusion. Also, it's not you who will say how many names has one language or is it a number of languages. It's a disputed question afterall. Also to note, it's your personal oppinion that those sources I provided aren't reliable. --Wüstenfuchs 09:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's ridiculous it's the same stuff over and over with you. I've had enough of this "I don't hear that" nonsense. It doesn't matter if it's one, two, three, or all his books. It establishes he said he wrote in Bosnian in some capacity. Again STOP drawing personal conclusions that he wrote in the Croatian due to some newspapers, publishers, awards or whatever. You were warned of this by Czarkoff. It's for the linguists to say and they are clear on this. If you dispute them then you know where to head. Read my previous comment, multiple times if necessary. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The second book states he translated into Croatian, that's first. Second, you say he wrote "in Bosnian in some capacity", as well as he did in Croatian. The claim is supported by reliable sources. You are now denying that he translated Sinko in Croatian, when source clearly says he did. And you don't accepting those sources doesn't mean the "community" doesn't accept them. Stop using the "l'état, c'est moi" parole. --Wüstenfuchs 10:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello editors! I see that the dispute is still ongoing and little headway is being made. Since this still remains a dispute between two editors, it is the advice of the DR/N volunteer (pinged to this discussion) that editors should seek a third opinion as the next logical step in the dispute resolution process. Should this fail to satisfy both parties involved I would then ask that an RFC be made, to bring outside editors into the discussion to form a consensus. Should this as well lead to no clear resolution, it is advised that editors then use the alternative noticeboards to seek specific and individualised help. Should this as well fail, you should advance to the projects (listed on the talkpage) for help by subject or seek an individual uninvolved editor to make further suggestions. Should all these steps fail you have a much stronger and more detailed discussion/with advice to bring to DR/N. Let me be clear however, DR/N may be filed at any time should a dispute arise. Whether enough effort is being made in good faith to resolve the dispute however, will be a determining factor for any such filing. I strongly advise editors to stay on the open talkpages related to the subject, take all measures to seek assistance and to collaborate together on a compromise best suited for this subject. Thanks and Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment

What language(s) of former Yugoslavia should the article's infobox mention? Several Croatian sources claim that he wrote in Croatian (though the language of his books is named differently across the archives of former Yugoslavia). Author himself only commented once on topic, noting that he wrote one of his books specifically to preserve Bosnian language. The official language at the time of author's activity was Serbo-Croatian (and though its status is disputed, the majority of linguists describe "Serbo-Croatian" either as a macrolanguage including Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian languages or as a language including those as variants/dialects). Some background and more detailed explanation of the relation between these languages can be found at Serbo-Croatian § History and § Present situation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian are generally considered different standards of what is essentially the same language, i.e. their standardized forms are slightly different from each other even though their grammar and phonological systems are virtually identical. Although there are some differences in vocabulary and accents, they are also almost entirely mutually intelligible. This makes them similar to other pluricentric languages such as English or German, i.e. the difference among them is akin to the difference between say British English and Australian English. And since the issue of whether something is a language or a dialect cannot be settled by purely linguistic criteria, sociolinguistic criteria kick in. These were all regarded as differing forms of a single language, which was widely referred to as "Serbo-Croatian" in the period from 1945 to 1990, both in the region and abroad. Due to political events of the early 1990s the notion of Serbo-Croatian was rejected by local linguists and different standards were developed, as having one's own language was seen as crucial to each new nation's claim to independence. In my view we should stick with the designation that was a) widely used at the time the author created his works, or b) widely used and undisputed since the concept of Serbo-Croatian fell out of use in the 1990s. In Čolaković's case the language he used in his works was described as Serbo-Croatian in his lifetime, or more precisely, its Bosnian dialect - which would by today's standards mean he wrote in Bosnian. Croatian sources' claim is quite a stretch and is based solely on political grounds. Timbouctou (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I said for many times now he wrote for number of Croatian newspapers and translated into Croatian, as he was member of the Croatian Translators' Society. --Wüstenfuchs 10:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

And you were replied many times now that this says nothing on his language, as the difference between the standards of Serbo-Croatian is too subtle to reliably attribute the text to Croatian. (Compare: "he wrote for Chinese newspapers"; notice the difference?) FWIW Bosnian standard is the least strict and largely combines Serbian and Croatian standards together with own additions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you be in support of "Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian standard)", Timbouctou?. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with something like that, as long as it is carefully worded. I propose the following lede:

"Enver Čolaković (27 May 1913 – 18 August 1976) was a Bosnian novelist, poet and translator, best known for his 1944 novel The Legend of Ali-Pasha, written in the Bosnian variant of Serbo-Croatian. During the later stages of World War II he served as a cultural attache to the Independent State of Croatia embassy in Budapest. After the war he spent the rest of his life in Zagreb, where he published a number of literary translations from Hungarian and German." Timbouctou (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good lede proposal. I agree with it and I see nothing wrong with this. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm not a party of this dispute and my participation is mainly reminiscent (I volunteered in WP:DRN case), FWIW I endorse this draft and concur with rationale behind it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion between involved editors, which is running in circles. As RfC is needed for soliciting others' input, and this chat became rather long, collapsing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You do understand that there is no proof he acctualy wrote all of his books in "Bosnian variant", it's only Timbouctou's personal oppinion. --Wüstenfuchs 08:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC) As well as no proof he wrote his books in Croatian. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC) How come? The second book states that he translated into Croatian (at the time when he lived in Zagreb) and he was also member of the Croatian Translators' Society. --Wüstenfuchs 10:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC) @Wustenfuchs: The article has a direct quote from Čolaković in which he says he wrote in the "language of Bosnia". So it's not really my "personal opinion", is it? It seems to have been Čolaković's personal opinion as well. Timbouctou (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC) No, it is your personal oppinion. He wrote only one book, according to the interview, in Bosnian. Nevertheless, he activly translated into Croatian, many Hungarian writers were translated into Croatian, for example you can see here, from the library of the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Zagreb that he translated Gyula Illyés into Croatian in 1971, that is, while he was still alive. And as the second source of mine states, he also translated Ervin Sinko's works into Croatian. --Wüstenfuchs 10:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Well if that single book is what he is most notable for (as the article says in the very lede) - than it doesn't really matter. Plenty of authors are best know for a single work. As for his translations - the variants of Serbo-Croatian in Yugoslavia varied according to publishing houses, i.e. if he did translations for Sarajevo-based publishers the translations printed were in what we would call today Bosnian, whereas translations for Croatian publishing houses were printed in the Croatian variant. Timbouctou (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Well, as a matter of fact, Legenda o Ali paši was acctualy published in Croatian in Sarajevo after the war. Nevertheless, it was 1971, he translated and published in Zagreb as a member of the Croatian Translators' Society, and moreover there is a book saying he translated Šinko into Croatian, a reliable source (Povijest hrv. romana). --Wüstenfuchs 11:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC) We've already been over this a thousand times. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC) We did, and we still are because it isn't solved. --Wüstenfuchs 11:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC) You are referring to the publisher's commentary? Well, I believe the word "independent" is mentioned in WP:V for a good reason: given the epic war about language naming pattern all sources in ex-Yugoslavia are not independent, as any particular statement belongs to the particular POV of the person who made it. And again, his membership in whatever association says nothing even about his POV in the naming war, not to mention the language itself. Also note, membership in associations in socialistic states provides access to professional instruments (publishers in this case), as well as to social security items (hotels, etc). Eg. in the Soviet Russia nearly all members of pro-communist professional associations later stated their opposition to communist government explicitly. In Yugoslavia this was not as common, but still quite massive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I believe then this source is strong enough - "Kao dvojezični pisac objavljuje od 1931 do 1939. na hrvatskom i mađarskom pjesme, pripovjetke,eseje,prijevode." ([7], p. 3; as stated this was writen by his son Zlatan) --Wüstenfuchs 14:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC) This source is yet worse: it is neither primary about the author, nor anyhow independent. And still suffers from the gonzo problem. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC) It is about the author and it's reliable, it is official site of the Hadžići municipality. Čolaković himself originates from Hadžići. Btw, what "gonzo" means? --Wüstenfuchs 14:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Impeccable logic. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC) The information is sourced also, so it's not made up by the person that wrote it. --Wüstenfuchs 14:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Wiktionary:gonzo. This source comes from the area that is largely opinionated regarding the Yugoslav languages controversy – the area of Yugoslavia. All such references are unreliable for this particular matter. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Well, it doesn't have a gonzo problem then. Also, about the ex-Yugoslavia sources - what other sources am I able to use? There are no any other sources, it is either Bosniak, Croat, Serb... nobody wrote about Čolaković in English language, if did it's only a short definition of him. I think that it is reliable enough as it was writen by his son and edited by a person who is a Bosnian Muslim and it's from a site where Bosniaks are absolute majority (some 90% +). This gives certain neutrality as it is not comming from Croatia or Croat, so it can't be called political or biased. --Wüstenfuchs 15:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Info which was written by the publisher after his death. Hell your source even says "imao je „dva maternja jezika“ tako da je i pisanje počelo na mađarskom i bosanskom jeziku." You're very mistaken on how the reliability of sources is determined. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I'm saying from the start, he wrote in both Bosnian and Croatian. --Wüstenfuchs 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC) @Wüstenfuchs, the lack of reliable sources doesn't make these sources reliable, as much as lack of neutral sources doesn't make these sources neutral. They just can't serve the verification purpose. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I haven't said that the latter source is unreliable, it's reliable. But you claim that it's neutrality is disputed because it's comming from the ex-Yu state, a claim to which I oppose because it's not like that. --Wüstenfuchs 17:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC) This source, though reliable for verification of many possible statements, is unreliable for the subject of dispute. You might want to read WP:NOTRELIABLE for details. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Why do you think it's unreliable for the statement... the autor mentioned from which to which year he wrote in Croatian. He was very specific. --Wüstenfuchs 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. — WP:NOTRELIABLE Pick any, all apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC) You haven't said that to PRODUCER, even though both sites have the same author and the same text - Zlatan Čolaković. [8] And is clear enough he wrote in Croatian, for example Lokljani novel. He uses pure Croatian words (like tko). --Wüstenfuchs 19:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Zlatan isn't the source. Enver's interview with Svijet magazine is. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Fair enough, but I'm talking about rest of his books and translations. --Wüstenfuchs 19:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, and base your judgment on unreliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC) End also the envercolakovic.com. You can see writings from the manuscrpit. He wrote in Croatian. Though, both sources have the same author. --Wüstenfuchs 20:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure envercolakovic.com is a viable source: it is self-published, lacks editorial overview and can only be used to excavate subject's quotes. Otherwise it is still another Yugoslavian source written by someone having his own POV regarding languages. FWIW I looked over the "manuscripts" and I see nothing to support "Croatian" hypothesis over "Bosnian", "Montenegrin" or whatever else one would love to call Ijekavian accent of Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Well, you should look better. And just because it's from former Yugoslavia doesn't mean is automatically bad. Also, every other source support the claim that he wrote in Croatian. Look all over the internet if you wish. My point was that he also wrote in Croatian and there are no enough sources claimig he didn't. --Wüstenfuchs 11:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "Iz toga je rata poslije demobilizacije donio kući poderanu uniformu i nekakvu polupismenost..."; "Listopadska hladnoća potjerala ga sa njegova konačišta na livadi više ciglana u prljav han kod...". If it was Bosnian or Serbian it would be "poslije demobilisanja" or "Oktobarska hladnoća", thouh "listopad" is purely Croatian name for the October, even though you are free to use "oktobar" as well, and he wouldn't use the word "tko" at all, but "ko". Also read the whole text if you wish. --Wüstenfuchs 11:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Right... seeing as Wustenfuchs has taken the discussion back to square one. engaged in original research, and simply refuses to get the point, should we wrap this up? I doubt we will the see more comments given the nature of this RFC. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC) It's not original research (it's from the Lokljani manuscript; see "ko" and "tko" at the wiktionary, also see the Croatian months article). Also, I named two sources in the article and some more. It's simple - it's impossible to say he didn't wrote in Croatian with so many sources claiming he did. --Wüstenfuchs 13:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "Listopad" is a strong point BTW, as these rudimentary months' names indeed only survived in Croatian variant of language. Still, his own statement about Bosnian still stands, and particularly the point of Serbo-Croatian as the language of Yugoslavia back then. I would note, that I indeed think that all sources from Yugoslavia or in Serbo-Croatian are unreliable in context of language, as they indeed come from people from the IRL dispute, which flies in face of WP:V and WP:NPOV. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I don't think we have the WP:NPOV problem since I presented, well we can say "both sides", Bosniak and Croat one. And we shouldn't forget that it's the manuscript I used not oppinion of the author. And about his statement about Bosnian, I said earlier that I agree we include both languages. But speaking about Serbo-Croatian it was stated earlier that it's disputed, especially in ex-Yugoslav countries. So I think that we won't do anything wrong by including both Bosnian and Croatian, as some linguists view those two as a "standard" and others as a "language". That is, both sides can be satisfied. --Wüstenfuchs 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Except we aren't portraying "both sides" of a story rather we are portraying what reliable sources say. You're still drawing conclusions from a primary source. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not portraying "both sides", I'm saying that we don't have the WP:NPOV problem. Second, primary source is good enough and it's also supported by secondary sources I presented earlier. --Wüstenfuchs 10:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC) We have WP:NPOV problem, as the POVs should be given due weight. Mentioning two variants alongside doesn't help in this regard. It is yet less helpful as officially there were no Croatian or Bosnian languages at that time. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Well, officiality is not important... if we would speak about the official languages then Legend about Ali Pasha was writen in Croatian, no matter what Čolaković says... but we don't claim so. Nevertheless, today his writings are writen in Croatian, one example is Lokljani. Also, I used his manuscript as an example which is supported by number of secondary sources that I provided. Another thing, every source acctualy states that he wrote in Croatian, not Serbo-Croatian or any other language (I'm not talking about the Legend). So, Croatian should remain as no source says he didn't wrote in Croatian also the sources (Povijest hrvatskog romana and Tko je tko u NDH) are reliable, especially the first one. Just to add that for example, Marko Marulić... official language was Latin, but he wrote in Croatian, so one more time, officiality doesn't mean anything. --Wüstenfuchs 12:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC) What??? Could you please provide a quote, saying that Croatian was official language in any single officially recognized state in 1944? The fact that it became official in 1974 isn't anyhow helpful here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Well, officiality is not important that was my point. Like Marulić, wrote in Croatian even though Croatian wasn't official language... --Wüstenfuchs 17:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but this discussion is not about Marulić, whatever is in his article now (though if the case is similar, it should be changed). In the lack of reliable independent sources out of the IRL dispute official language is all that matters. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Official language in the Independent State of Croatia was Croatian, if the official language is "all that matters" then we have a problem. But, also, if official languages designates in which language certain writers are writing then even Lorković wrote in SC, but that's not the case. Official language has nothing to do with personal work of the writer. Čolaković himself was the NDH's official, which doesn't mean anything at all if we are speaking about his writing. --Wüstenfuchs 17:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC) We don't have a problem, as Independent State of Croatia wasn't recognized. More specifically, it is universally regarded as a puppet state, so it doesn't matter. The country there was Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which was at that time in process of becoming Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. Thus the official language was Yugoslav language, which is the alternative name of Serbo-Croatian. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC) It was recognised by Čolaković hismelf he worked for its Government, nevertheless, all of his books were published when Croatian was official language (1944; 1978). Other books were published after the war. It's not known when did he wrote his books. So if you speak about official naguage, then in 1978 Croatian was acctualy official lang of Croatia. Also in 1971 Society of Croatian Writers distanced it self from the Novi Sad agreement, and Čolaković was member of that Society. --Wüstenfuchs 17:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Again, it is an improper synthesis: you assume that the fact that he worked for ISC means that he agrees with ISC. If we continue to make these vague conclusions, the fact that he survived the end of war after being ISC's official unambiguously means that he disclaimed support for anything related to ISC. And once again, unrecognized puppet state could proclaim whatever it wants, which has no effect for encyclopedic coverage. Hope we forget about it now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Doesn't mean he agrees with Yugoslav policy either, but this is becoming a political disucssion. --Wüstenfuchs 18:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Wustenfuchs do not canvas users as you have done here --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I'm removing this page from my watchlist. Please notify me if RfC will be closed out of schedule. Thanks in advance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs seems to have turned to edit-warring against the version for which three out of four editors involved in the talk page discussion have reached consensus, simply repeating that "there's no consensus" ad nauseam. Should this be reported somewhere? Timbouctou (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted my self... however, there was no consensus. --Wüstenfuchs 21:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You reverted my edits once, then you reverted twice. Only then did you revert your own revert, but then proceeded to tweak the lede to fit your ideas ([9], [10], [11]). As for the "discussion is ongoing" part - did you not notice that three other editors have expressed dismay at the repetitive nature of your arguments? Does the green box some 5 cm above this sentence not offer a clue as to whether this discussion is "ongoing"? Timbouctou (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not enough sources he didn't wrote in Croatian, as I presented, he clearly did. The official language doesn't play a role here. Also as member of various soicieties in Croatia and due to his activity in Zagreb he is also a Croatian writer. But I did remove the "Bosnian version of SC" as nobody except you and PRODUCER agreed to that. Also, it is not common practice to write in which language his best work was writen... --Wüstenfuchs 21:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reported him. We've been more than patient with you Wüstenfuchs. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@Wustenfuchs: By "nobody" you obviously mean me, PRODUCER and Czarkoff, i.e. everybody except you. And yes, mentioning the language in which the best known work was written is actually quite common, especially when the writer in question wrote in more than one language, for example see Joseph Conrad. Timbouctou (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Czerkoff acctualy never said anything about the lede, but only you and PRODUCER. --Wüstenfuchs 21:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Which part of "I endorse this draft and concur with rationale behind it." do you not comprehend? Timbouctou (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me... haven't noticed that... I'll revert the lede. --Wüstenfuchs 22:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I just want to be clear on the language section of the infobox as it's the only thing that hasn't been implemented yet. Timbouctou, seeing as you provided the solution to the lede, what's your opinion on this aspect? If I understood you correctly, you earlier agreed "Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian standard)" was good. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)