Talk:Ivo Andrić/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Serbo-Croat?

He was born Croatian but felt like a Serb, all of his writings and his actions to things point at that he wanted to be born Serb, you could say that he was ashamed of his Croatian ethnicity, so he wanted to live like a Serb, lived and died in Belgrade... I think he should be put in both Serbian people and Croatian people.

Irony is..... I guess the same can be said for Nikola Tesla who was a very proud Croat when he was alive.. even if he was serb origin/blood.

serbs and croats have same origin/blood

What a stupidity!!!Nikola Tesla was proud on Croatia?Which Croatia?Which one,when Croatia hadn't existed?Maybe on Croatia during WW II which open doors to Hitler and killed 400 000 Serbs in Jasenovac or Croatia of 1991. which crashed monument to Tesla and burnt Serbian orthodox church Milutin Tesla,his dad was a priest?That Croatia.Please,don't write LIES!!! Ivo Andric could declarate as a Croat if he was that!Man was a SERB of catholic religion as he belonged to Serbian families who were uniat during WW II as Serbs of Bosnia were islamized,but Emir Kusturica was born as a Muslim and stood Serb!Recently even baptized as Serb Orthodox Nemanja Kusturica,so to close mouth to liers who would change his nationality like that!Religion is not nationality!Andric WAS NOT Croatian writer!Delete it!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Ivo Andric considered himself a Serbian Catholic! It is Croatian propaganda to classify all Catholics as Croatians. --24.150.77.3 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

^^^^ I can't agree more. Same is Serbian propaganda to classify all Orthodox as Serbians.

Guys, why can't you understand, German is someone born in Germany, French is born in France. Same as Bosnian stands for someone born in Bosnia. It has nothing with religion. It's something given by birth, and you can't change that.

Imagine someone born in France, went to Germany and saying he's Italian, because he's Catholic. IT SOUNDS STUPID! In the same context, person from Bosnia, went (or not) elsewhere, is nothing but Bosnian. He/she can call him/herself Italian, and I can respect that, same as I can call myself Brazilian.

Emirm (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Croat

What's the problem with Ivo Andric declaring himself as a Yugoslav? Yes, it doesn't exist anymore, but it existed THEN, so, yes, I think that we should call Andric Yugoslavian writer. I mean, you are talking crap guys. What, we can't say that Caesar was Roman because Roman Empire doesn't exist anymore? In the end, why do you give a damn? Croat or Serb, it doesn't matter, he was brilliant and unique...that matters. However, am I the only one who dislikes this whole article about Andric? It could have been done much better. I have a feeling that they brought up some really irrelevant things, such as this thing about Croat/Serbian...and missed a lot of important things about his WORK...

Link

The Web link doesn't work

It worked for me. --denny vrandečić 02:42, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Seems weird to read that he was put in a detention camp for pro-Serb activities without being mentioned that he considered himself Serb. Jakob Stevo

If in point of wiew of author of the aticle his best works are short stories, it doesn't mean others think that.

The biography - as presented - does not make sense. It makes more sense to learn the biographies he authorized - as the ones written by Lovett F. Edwards and William H McNeill in the Andric's The Bridge on Drina, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1977

See http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/1961/.

Religion

Roman Catholic - my foot!

from: Ivo Andric The Bridge on the Drina The University of Chicago Press, 1977

Introduction by William H. McNeil, p 3

Ivo Andric was born in Travnik, Bosnia, in 1892, but he spent his first two years in Sarajevo, where his father worked as a silversmith. This was a traditional art, preserving artisan skills dating back to Ottoman times; but taste had changed and the market for the sort of silverwork Ivo's father produced was severely depressed. The family therefore lived poorly; and when the future writer was still an infant, his father died, leaving his peniless young widow to look after an only child. They went to live with her parents in Visegrad on the banks of the Drina, where the young Ivo grew up in an artisan family (his grandfather was a carpenter) playing on the bridge he was later to make so famous, and listening to tales about its origin and history which he used so skillfully to define the character of early Ottoman presence in that remote Bosnian town. The family was orthodox Christian, i.e. Serb; ...

Translator's Foreword by Lovett F. Edwards, p 7

Dr Ivo Andric is himself a Serb and a Bosnian.

P.S.

There is a number of Croatians thinking as if they acquired some rights to proprely align Andric with their idea of ethnicity.

The very great writer, many times in his life, was forced to explicitly express and declare himself as a Serb. At least, his attitude and perception of his ethnic background has to be respected ultimately.

There is nothing strange about him being a Catholic and Serbian at the same time... There are Serbian Muslims (Mesa Selimovic) and Serbian Catholics like Ivo. Bosniak and Croat propaganda tries to suggest otherwise but it is pure lies!--24.150.77.3 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

?

Ungh, I edited the article without validating this. Can anyone here 100% validate this info so that I can either keep it or revert? HolyRomanEmperor 17:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/1961/press.html

As a young Serbian student, he joined the national revolutionary movement, 

suffered persecution, and was imprisoned in 1914 when the war broke out.

Serbian mother?

The bit about Andrić's mother being Serbian seems to be wrong/not supported by data. I did some googling on this (the results can be found in Croatian on hr:Talk:Srbi and hr:Talk:Ivo Andrić) and found no confirmations, and plenty of data about Katarina Pejić being Catholic (i.e. Croat). Her father's name was Antun (uncommon among Orthodox Serbs), her family was originally from Grahovik, a part of Dolac (a predominantly Catholic town near Travnik), she did some work at the Catholic church in the Sarajevo neighbourhood of Bistrik, she managed a household of a Catholic parish priest and, last but not least, her religious affiliation (together with her husband's) is mentioned as being Catholic in the Ivo Andrić's birth and baptism record (she was 22 at the time).

It seems that the only remotely "Serbian" thing about her is a Serbian-sounding surname Pejić, but a quick search of the Bosnian telephone directory reveals numerous Pejićs living in Western Herzegovina–a Croat area–and having Croat (Catholic) names, so the surname Pejić is obviously both Serbian and Croatian. --Elephantus 20:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

The note above is an utter nonsense and proof of nothing. The the data in the biographical notes written by McNeil, Edwards and Oesterling ARE the data coming from the very Ivo i.e. indirectly authorized by him.

A serious man shoud respect the fact that Lovett Edwards, the translator of the "Na Drini cuprija" novel was of the one of closest Ivo's friends which gives a lot credibility to the data he put in the biographical note.

The Oesterling's text is his the Nobel Prize Winner presentatition speech heard by very Ivo.

The Internet is not a reliable source of any data and the search this person did is just a vaste of time and efforts.

So, this "biography" will be and remain a trash proving that it was written according the political agenda that supports nonsenses as those: Marco Polo - Croat, Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovic - Croat

Ehm, the official biography on the Nobel foundation site says nothing at all about ethnicity. A mention of "a young Serbian student" in the presentation speech is probably a mistake because as a student Andrić received a scholarship from the Croatian cultural support society "Napredak" ("Progress") which gave scholarships only to Catholics (ie. Croats). He may have been a Yugoslav nationalist (fashionable among young intellectuals at the time) but that hardly makes him a Serb.

Nonsense again. The named society scholaship is not a proof of Ivo's ethnic background i.e. his mother's background. The practice of Swedish Royal Academy is and was to collect the biographical data form the very prize winner.

The biographical note by McNeill added to the 1977 edition (ie, two years after Andrić's death and 18 years after the first edition of the translation was published) quoted above is also

   Sir, this is the edition where you can find information. Who was, when and how McNeil 
   collected the data - you apparently have no clue. The University of Chicago Press 
   contacted Andric long ago before 1977

problematic because many other sources give a completely different, detailed and convincing story: www.ivoandric.org.yu, the official site of the Ivo Andrić foundation in Serbia: "Faced with penury, Katarina Andrić took her only child to be raised by her husband’s sister Ana and Ana’s husband Ivan Matkovščik in Višegrad."; an excerpt from the book Rani Andrić (Early Andric) by a Serbian expert on Andrić, Miroslav Karaulac: "Without anyone in the world and without money, Andrić's mother went to her husband's sister Ana who lived in Višegrad, married to the Austrian sergeant Ivan Matkovščik and financially secure. We know that Ana Andrić, who was 34 at the time, happily agreed to take in her nephew."

     And at what time is this story published? Authorized by Andric? Sir, if yu like 
     to pass your claim as a truth - the truth must be verifiable.

Also, on this site there is a scanned page from the baptism registry on which it can be seen that he was baptised as a Catholic and that both parents were Catholic. --Elephantus 23:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  That note does not support a conclusion that a woman marrying a catholic is a catholic

In the spring of 1914. Andrić enrolled in the University of Cracow and, according to Milorad Živančević (lecturer of the then-Serbo-Croatian at the same university in the 1960s, [1]), this is what he put in the enrollment form:

Nazwisko i imię ucznia: Ivo Andrić. Jest uczniem zwyczajnym czy nadzwyczajnym: zwyczajny. Oznaczenie Wydziału: filozoficzny. Miejsce urodzenia: Travnik. Wiek: 1892. Religia: kat. Narodowość: Hrvat. Poddaństwo: Bosna. Mieszkanie w Krakowie, ul.: Bonerowska, 1. domu: 12/II. Opiekun [staratelj]: Ivan Matkovcsik, Višegrad, Bosna. Zakład naukowy w którym uczeń słuchał ostatne półrocze: Wiedeń. Na jakiej zasadzie (…): Świadectwo odejścia uniw. Wiedeńskiego. W dniu: 24. 4. 1914.

     So, this document is publicly available where? What is the proof of its existence?
    And this is a proof who his mother was? 
    So, the very Andric says - I am a Serb and then some others claim - no he is a Croat!

I do believe only to the people who were in touch

I rest my case. --Elephantus 01:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is William H. McNeil

     In order to support the credibility of information related to the Andric's ethnicity - 
     here is the answer who was the man who wrote the foreword to the 1977 University of 
     Chicago Press edition of the "The Bridge on Drina" novel

The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community by McNeill, William H.

About this title: "The Rise of the West, winner of the National Book Award for history in 1964, is famous for its ambitious scope and intellectual rigor. In it, McNeill challenges the Spengler-Toynbee view that a number of separate civilizations pursued essentially independent careers, and argues instead that human cultures interacted at every stage of their history. The author suggests that from the Neolithic beginnings of grain agriculture to the present major social changes in all parts of the world were triggered by new or newly important foreign stimuli, and he presents a persuasive narrative of world history to support this claim. In a retrospective essay titled "The Rise of the West after Twenty-five Years," McNeill shows how his book was shaped by the time and place in which it was written (1954-63). He discusses how historiography subsequently developed and suggests how his portrait of the world's past in The Rise of the West should be revised to reflect these changes. "This is not only the most learned and the most intelligent, it is also the most stimulating and fascinating book that has ever set out to recount and explain the whole history of mankind. . . . To read it is a great experience. It leaves echoes to reverberate, and seeds to germinate in the mind."--H. R. Trevor-Roper, "New York Times Book Review

A World History by McNeill, William H

About this title: Global in scope, William McNeill's widely acclaimed one-volume history emphasizes the four Old World civilizations of the Middle East, India, China, and Europe, paying particular attention to their interaction across time as well as their impact on historical scholarship in light of the most recent archaeological discoveries. The engaging and informative narrative touches on all aspects of civilization, including geography, communication, and technological and artistic developments. This new edition includes a thoroughly updated bibliographic essay and a new discussion of the most significant events in world history and civilization since 1976.

McNeill is a historian and the South Slavic literature in general and Ivo Andrić in particular weren't his subject. Chicago University Press published several of his books in the 1970s and it wouldn't have been unusual if he had written the foreword as a favour to his CUP editor – he had some name recognition and his name looked good on the cover.

 Please, stop distorting the truth! McNeil was an Andric's contemporary and only a (world-renown) 
 historian. He contacted - many times, as a historian-  the very Andric to get his, Ivo's opinion
 about the historical facts related to the Turkish and Austro-Hungarian Empires.
 So, that man was in touch with Ivo and a nonsense as "he had written the foreword as a favour 
 to his CUP editor" - as an "explanation" of the McNeil's motive to write the foreword - sounds
 here really miserable.

I'm not trying to explain his motives, I'm just hypothesizing on the reason for the sloppy research. --Elephantus 21:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  And the criteria are? McNeil did not follow some political agenda? My poor friend, bear in
  mind that Ivo's idea of his lineage and ethnicity is something that shall be respected and 
  not negated by some "researchers" and "interperters" of the same information made public
  with his consent and during his life.
 

The story about Orthodox carpenter grandfather is not only unconfirmed by any other source, it is disproved by this text which is an excerpt (published in the Belgrade daily Večernje Novosti) from the book "Early Andrić" by Miroslav Karaulac, a Serbian Andrić scholar, in which he says: Otac Katarine Pejić, takođe Antun, kada Ivi budu dve godine, obesiće se u gradskoj bolnici. ("The father of Katarina Pejić, also named Antun, hanged himself in the city hospital, when Ivo was two years old.") So there. --Elephantus 14:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 And THAT automatically disqualifies McNeil's knowledge about Andric????

It doesn't disqualify his whole knowledge, only the passage in question. --Elephantus 21:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 Which piece of your wisdom exactly? Maybe, this one: "hanged himself in the city hospital"?
 So Karaulac is a scholar who disqualifies what?

On a related note, Andrić's "Nationality:Croat" entry in the enrollment form of the Cracow University can be found here, it's a paper published by Milorad Živančević in the Zbornik Matice srpske za slavistiku, 1985, br. 28, str. 7-43. ("Collection of Works in Slavistics by Matica srpska") --Elephantus 15:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

So - it is fine with me. But apparently Andric did not give the approval to Zivancevic to put in 
Andric's biography nor interpret any data like those as Zivancevic published:

   Dragi druže Živančeviću,

  Dobro je što ste me pitali za mišljenje. Nikako ne želim da se u moju biografiju unose 
  pojedinosti koje nemaju veze sa književnim radom i duhovnim razvitkom pisca. Kad su u pitanju 
  moje studije i mesta službovanja, dovoljno je kazati da sam studirao u Zagrebu, Beču, Krakovu 
  i Gracu, a službovao u Rimu, Bukureštu, Madridu, Berlinu.

  Biografije koje se nalaze u probnom primerku Matičinog Leksikona — sa podacima o 
  "rigorozumima", sa godinom rođenja pesnikove žene itd. mogu da posluže kao primer kako ne 
  treba pisati. Molim da se, bar u mom slučaju, ne postupi tako.

  Najlepše Vam zahvaljujem na predavanju u Krakovu.

  Srdačno Vas pozdravlja,

  Ivo Andrić

 As you can see, no credibility shall be given to the Zivancevic's writings related to Ivo's
 mathernal side ethnicity

In this letter Andrić expressed only his strong disapproval of the length of the biography prepared for the Lexicon of Yugoslav Writers, and asked that it should include just the minimal amount of information about his studies and diplomatic service.

 The great writer says:

 Nikako ne želim da se u moju biografiju unose 
 pojedinosti koje nemaju veze sa književnim radom i duhovnim razvitkom pisca.

 The sentence was quite clear - I do not want that in my biography goes anything not connected
 to the literary work or to the writer's spiritual growth. He never pointed at any minimum of
 anything. He pointed at the very content - what shal go into the biography and what shal not!

He didn't question the credibility of the data. Andrić was never too happy about the publicity he received after the Nobel Prize and rarely granted interviews, but a certain amount of interest in the details of his life and work was pretty much unavoidable as most people felt th at he deserved more research work and column space in various lexicons and encyclopedias. Andrić left a copious paper trail, though, including the notice of his presence in Cracow :-). --Elephantus 21:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've already said everything to be said about this and don't intend to repeat myself too much. In short: you provided a source, I provided more sources that are mutually independent, corroborate each other, and contradict yours. Until you provide more sources for your story I think there's not much more to talk about. Read more stuff on Andrić, don't limit yourself to a single introduction. :-)

On the merits: mixed marriages in late 19th century Bosnia were extremely uncommon. So uncommon, in fact, that one such marriage among the parents of a Nobel Prize winner would have been mentioned somewhere, anywhere. Yet there is no such mention in any biography of Andrić. Simply, the dog didn't bark. :-) --Elephantus 10:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Brodsky wrote the prologue to the English edition of Kis' Grabe for Boris Davidivich. The prologue includes statements such as "serbo-croatian nationalism" as the main threat to Kis' writtings. This is absolutely nonsense and it is a extremely poor piece of literary critique. Nevertheless, nobody can negate Brodsky's talent. The same could be said about McNeill: a bad introduction -it is extremely poor- does not negate his skills as historician. At the end of the day, nobody is perfect. My two cents, --91.143.221.231 21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Declared himself a Serb"

I've also removed the sentence about Andrić declaring himself a Serb until more sources are provided for this (eg. interviews, form entries, public declarations in other occasions etc.) In the course of the research I've done on this topic I haven't found a single instance of Andrić declaring himself Serb (or any other ethnicity, for that matter) except for the Cracow form where he stated he was Croatian. :-) --Elephantus 10:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1. ...was a Serbian, Croatian and notably Yugoslav novelist. Since there are no such things as Yugoslavian nation or Yugoslavian literature isn't it apsurd to say that he is yugoslavian novelist? What about human rights of the dead? He considered himself a Serb. Isn't it a violation of his rights to call him Croat or any other nationality?
2. How come he was Croatian novelist? As far as I now he didn't have anything to do with State of Croatia, nor Croatian nation!
3. Bridge on the Drina. I think that exact translation is Bridge OVER The Drina (as Die Brucke Uber Die Drina).
   My username is Milant, but not logged in. I apologize --213.149.123.97 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Serb = Croat ?

There is this general misunderstanding that everyone in this region who is a Catholic is automatically a Croat - but this is wrong. Ivo Andric father, Antun, was a Catholic Serb, not a Croat, his mother was also a Serb. There have been many Catholic Serbs throughout history. Under Vatican's unfluence, today it is believed that every Catholic Serb is a Croat, and this is one of the main misunderstandings in this region.

The ethnogenesis among the Balkan Slavs went along religious (and to a certain lesser extent linguistic) lines. By the time of Andrić's birth it had been completed. Both of Andrić parents were Catholic Croats and thought of themselves as such. Andrić was a Catholic Croat too and declared himself as such until his employment in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Serb-dominated Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes when it became highly inopportune to do so. --Elephantus 14:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

---I am a Croat. When there is a Croat who says he is not a roman catholic but an orthodox, he will end up with a bullet in his head. When there is someone in serbia who says he is serb and roman catholic, he will also end up with a bullet in his head. Thats my comment on the bullshit like catholic Serbs. That is impossible. In the moment he is catholic he is croatian,too, no matter if he likes it or not. In fact he will be always welcome in Croatia and hated in Serbia. So Ivo Andric was an Croat and ever will be. The reason why here some people are talking diffrent is because serbs cannot accept that we have an nobel price winner and they don´t. The same shit with Nikola Tesla.

I don't know which remote part of Croatia (?) you come from, but in urbanized areas there ARE Orthodox who identify as Croats, and I wonder if it is a practice in your area to shot such people. National identity is a much more complex thing than you understand. Cukor 11:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbia is full of Catholic churches and Serbs who are Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim... I don't know where you come from my friend, but you are a complete moron. You then bring up Nikola Tesla, who was always Orthodox and his father was an Orthodox priest, which completely negates your previous argument. Horrid... --24.150.77.3 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Reader

As per very Andric- "I do not want that in my biography goes anything not connected to the literary work or to the writer's spiritual growth."

The biographical notes written by Ivo's contemporaries and the men who maintained personal contacts with him:

- by the world-renown historian William H. McNeil,

- by Anders Österling, Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, and

- by his friend and translator of his books, Lovett F. Edwards

are written that way.

All these three men gathered the Ivo's biographical data from the very Ivo and Ivo knew and saw the texts of these notes.

All the above gives a huge credibility to the information inside these notes.

As to a man's ethnic background - it is always a private matter and must remain strictly private. Whenever you are interested in such a type of data, they must be gotten from the very man you are interested in - approved by and accepted as given by that man.

When Krleza attempted to allign Ivo with Croats - Ivo responded this way

 Enes Cengic; "Krleza post mortem",  I-III. Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990. 2. part, pages 171-172

 " Medjutim, s tekstom o Andricu za staru Enciklopediju stvari su tekle ovako:
 Tekst je napisao Milan Bogdanovic i poslao ga meni na imprimatur, kao biva, da li ga primam  ili ne. Kao ni mnoge druge tekstove,
 vjerovali vi sad meni ili ne ... ja tekst o Andricu nisam citao. Mislio sam: Neka pise sto hoce, tako cemo to i objaviti. Ionako 
 je bilo iznad moje moci da tu ista diram i ispravljam. Mjesec ili ne znam koliko nakon sto mi je poslao tekst, primim od Milana 
 pismo u kojem mi kaze da je kopiju teksta dao Ivi Andricu na uvid te da on moli da budem ljubazan i da u tekstu nesto izmijenim, 
 a to je:

 Ivo Andric, rodjen u Travniku 10.10.1892. godine, hrvatskog porijekla, zavrsio skole itd.... Moli me da brisem da je hrvatskog 
 porijekla. Na to odgovaram Bogdanovicu (oprostite sto citiram):
     
 Dragi moj Milane,

 Pozdravi Ivu Andrica u moje ime, veoma srdacno,i poruci mu, ako mozes, da mu ja jebem hrvatsku majku, brisat cu da je hrvatskog 
 porijekla." 

Shortly, Milan Bogdanovic wrote a text of Andric's biography, presented a copy of this text to Andric. Andric asked Bogdanovic to remove the note saying that he (Ivo) was a man of Croatian lineage.

Here, in this "biography", the ethnic background of Andric and his parents is gotten through a "research" conducted by some people long after Ivo's death, contrary to the Ivo's attitude about his own ethnic background, and contrary to the norms of a civilized behaviour. At the end, the ethnic backgrounds were derived in a talibanic way according to the religious affiliations of his parents - and as it was recorded by some priest of a Roman Catholic church in Bosnia!

Also, as written in this "biography"

"great part of his best earlier work was written in the Croatian language (as different from Serbian Ijekavian language writers such as Petar Kočić or Aleksa Šantić)"

has nothing to do with the Ivo's language itself - from a serious linguist prospective. It is a current political agenda product applied to Ivo's work which (agenda) Ivo never supported or practicized.

The comparisons like:

" Croats have never considered him an equal to Miroslav Krleža, while Serbs affirm aesthetic primacy of Miloš Crnjanski"

are really miserable and primitive. Which Serbs, which Croats? Could you imagine the same type of comparisons applied to Hemingway or Steinbeck vs. some American provincial writers?

The only way to deal with these type of politically correct "biographies" is to leave them as they are written.

Their very existence will defeat any serious public interest in them.

I think that you should have another look at the Croatian wikipedia. Even Mir Harven clearly states that he concidered himself a Serb. :-) HolyRomanEmperor 14:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should have another look at the Croatian wikipedia: [[2]]. Even Mir Harven clearly states that he concidered himself a Serb. :-) HolyRomanEmperor 14:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Mir seems to think that in order to be considered a Croat, you have to somehow "earn it" – proudly wave it around in spite of all the trouble that may bring you. Andrić probably thought of Croats and Serbs as one people – a claim rejected by large majorities of both peoples. Does that opinion of his make him a Serb in the modern sense of the word (ie. not the 1920s - 1950s unitarist sense)? I don't think so. I also don't think you should cherry-pick Andrić's ideology because it basically makes it possible to claim, conversely, that Serbs are in fact Orthodox Croats – and we all know who claimed that one to be true. --Elephantus 15:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't seem to understand your reference ...Serbs are are in fact Orthodox Croats... Anyone on Earth can be a Serb if he wants :) Besides, there were many Catholic Christian Serbs in the past :-) But what wonders me is that you probably misunderstood me. It is clear that he is ethnicly a Croat. But that has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that he declared himself (and concidered) as a Serb. We are not discussing his nationality, but this. HolyRomanEmperor 17:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  You are wasting your time while trying to explain very simple things - to this man whose nickname is Elephantus. This nickname 
is the proper one - he has a stubbornness of an elephant and ability to trample across the facts. Pay attention to three things 
only:
 - Elephantus stated:  "Because of his political activities, Andrić was interned by the Austrian government during World War I ..."
The world renown historian McNeil says – Andric was a member of the Serbian revolutionary organization “Mlada Bosna”. Apparently, 
for Elephantus, this is not something he wants to be seen here - it might harm Elephantus' claim about Andric ethnic background
 - also, this is laughable: “his official website” – how it might be possible? Andric died in the year of 1975. How Ivo became 
aware of this website and how he authorized it??? Apparently Elephantus thinks it is useful to have it named this way ("official")
for it supports Elephantus' claim that Andric was a Croat.
 - at the end: Elephantus still thinks that somebody's ethnic background is not a private matter - rather the matter of some other
people who acquired "rights" to judge about it - their own way. Andric admitted publicly being a Serb - three times (Lovett, 
Österling, McNeil) and opposed to be aligned with Croats (Bogdanovic, Krleza). Elephantus argues: "Does that opinion of his make
him a Serb in the modern sense of the word"??? So if I say - I am an American - someone shall apply some "modern sense" to prove 
that I am not???

Like user:Macedonian once said: Whatever you are (Croatian or Serb), is what you feel, not what someone else made you. Anyway, at the end, we are all just humans... :-) HolyRomanEmperor 17:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And yes, Ivo Andrić should be put into the category together with us who think that Croats and Serbs are one people. He was a proud Yugoslav and a great supporter of King Alexander and his unitary ideology. As well as a great enemy to Croatian seperatists, especially a man whome he blackened almost every moment when he got opportunity - Stjepan Radić. According to many Croats, we can also fold him under Greater Serbian propaganda spreaders. :) HolyRomanEmperor 17:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You are most definetly wrong abour Mir Harven. Rudjer Boskovic didn't do anything for the Croatian people (and even isn't ethnicly a Croat) and Mir Harven claims him Croatian :-) Even if his alleged Croatian ethnicity is correct, you still have nothing that did for the Croatian people :) HolyRomanEmperor 21:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

McNeill – Lovett F. Edwards – Andrić: The story ends :-)

The "quotes" from McNeill and Lovett F. Edwards about Andrić being Serbian or having a Serbian mother always looked kind of suspicious to me, so I went to a bookstore and got a copy of "The Bridge over the Drina" with the Introduction and the Translator's Foreword included. And guess what I found.... :-)))

Introduction by William McNeill, p. 3:

Ivo Andrić was born in Travnik, Bosnia, in 1892, but he spent his first two years in Sarajevo, where his father worked as a caretaker. The family lived poorly; and when the future writer was still an infant, his father died, leaving his penniless young widow to look after an only child. They went to live with her parents in Višegrad on the banks of the Drina, where the young Ivo grew up in an artisan family (his grandfather was a carpenter) playing in the bridge he was later to make so famous, and listening to tales about its origin and history which he used so skillfully to define the character of the early Ottoman presence in that remote Bosnian town. The family was Catholic, i.e., Croat; but in his boyhood and youth Andrić was thrown into intimate contact with the entire spectrum of religious communities that coexisted precariously in the Bosnia of his day; and his family shared the puzzling encounter with a strange new Austrian world that he portrays so sensitively in The Bridge over the Drina.

Translator's Foreword by Lovett F. Edwards, p. 7:

Dr Ivo Andrić is himself a Croat and a Bosnian. These provincial and religious subtleties are still as important in present-day Yugoslavia as they were in earlier times. But in the case of Dr Andrić they have had an effect different from that on other Yugoslav writers and politicians.

And last, but not least, the brief biography placed on the first page, immediately inside the covers:

IVO ANDRIĆ was born in 1892 in Travnik, Bosnia of Croat parents and grew up alongside Orthodox Christians, Moslems and Roman Catholics in Višegrad, the town on the banks of the Drina in which the book is set. Until 1941 he served as a Yugoslav diplomat, then, placed under house arrest in Belgrade by the occupying Germans, Andrić turned to writing. In 1961 he was awarded the Nobel prize for literature. He died in 1975.

So next time, check your sources before quoting them or they may backfire on you in a nasty way... :-) --Elephantus 08:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

!!!WARNING!!! This man, signed as Elephantus below, is distorting the truth intentionally. In his (her?) "quotes" of McNeil's and Edwards' forewords, he simply replaced "Serb" by "Croat". Counting on peoples' naivety to believe him??? !!!WARNING!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.16.251 (talk)

Try to tone down the hysteria. And get a copy of the book and check it for yourself. --Elephantus 22:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not expect that you might blush after reading my comment. The very comment is a type of FYI note - for other people - not for you.

Wow, we all agreed that Ivo Andrić is ethnicly a Croat; but by nationality and selfdetermination a Serb. HolyRomanEmperor 13:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

... could Andric be Bosnian??? Yugoslav??? or simply a writer??? hmmmm ....

... and now that we've completed a discussion on Ivo Andric who, in this enlightened Serbo-Croat discussion, seems to have no connections to Bosnia in which he was born, where he went to school and whose language, spirit and history make up for almost his entire opus, let's start a discussion on our other Nobel Laureate, Vladimir Prelog ... He was also born, bred and educated in Bosnia, however, I'm sure that he doesn't belong there either ...

Bosnia, of course, despite being an anthropologically identifiable cultural presence with its own people, habits, food, history, linguistical practice, etc ... simply can't claim its own ... for the fear of offending all of those Serbs and Croats that claim IT ... And for all of you who think that national identification begins and ends with narrow, nationalistic 'blood-definitions' -- has anyone heard of the IBM's Project Genom??? May science liberate us from a universal Serbo-Croatness! And let Andric rest in peace.

Bosnian is not an ethnicity, Serbs, Croats, and BOSNIAKS from that area can be called Bosnians. What are you trying to pull with your uneducated comments??? --24.150.77.3 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Croat or Serb?

Let me recap this issue: The bit about Andrić's mother being a Serb is obviously false because the source on which it was based was misquoted (More specifically, every instance of the words "Croat" and "Catholic" in the original text was replaced by the words "Serb" and "Orthodox", respectively. The person who quoted this may have done it themselves, but may have also quoted from an already falsified source, in good faith. Anyway, I'll provide a scan/photo of the original text from the book on request).

As for Andrić considering himself and/or publicly declaring himself to be a Serb, I couldn't find any reliable sources on the Internet. If it's really printed somewhere, it shouldn't be that hard to check it and note it here. If, on the other hand, he said it to a friend over a cup of coffee and the guy didn't bother to publish it but simply spread it around as a rumour, it can't be included in the Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Elephantus 13:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ivo Andric was a Croat that was a Serb. Mila Jovovich is an American that is a Serb; Ruđer Bošković was a Serb that was an Italian, French, English, Russian, Ragusian and somewhat Polish also. Anyone that hates democracy and deprives the people to declare themselves freely (nations are fictionous, by the way) must be sent back to World War II to sit with Adolf and Benito... HolyRomanEmperor 18:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Slavoljub Eduard Penkala is famed by all Croats as a Croat. He got assimilated. He was half Pole-half Dutch. Ivo Andrić, Croat by birth, a Serb by life. HolyRomanEmperor 19:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

So, in his curriculum vitae he considered himself a Serb: [3] and even the site of Nobel Leaureates (most important thing in Ivo Andrich's life): [4] call him a Serbian. Want more? HolyRomanEmperor 19:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Serbian author: [5]... HolyRomanEmperor 19:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Message to paranoid Croatian nationalists: No one is trying to "steal" Andrich, he will always be ethnicly a Croat, but a Serb by nationality... HolyRomanEmperor 19:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Croat and Serb are exogenous national identifications in Bosnia, it was the national awakening of the 19th century and the desire for freedom from foreign rule that made it 'sexy' to be a Serb at the time'

So perhaps he was in fact ethnically a BOSNIAN CROAT or, to be more precise, a BOSNIAN CATHOLIC? The fact that at the time of his birth Austria-Hungary officially forbade the use of "Bosnian" as pertaining to nationality probably has a lot to do with the later, typically Balkan arguments over the ownership of prominent people, achievements, 'claims to fame'. The number one criterion of 'national determination' in this instance should be:

1. self-determination & 2. place of birth, language, religion.

Whether and why Croatians, Serbs or Bosnians really need to individually OWN Andric is a question for contemporary social psychology to deal with. Surely, though, he is as much of an exclusively Croatian or Serbian writer as Kundera is French (though he lived in France and wrote in French)??? Further, Mesa Selimovic also claimed he was Serbian, though it's hard to put him in the same basket as Dobrica Cosic, really ... but that doesn't stop everyone from considering Selimovic one of the most important Bosnian writers ... why? :-))) it's the same argument, really - religion-culture continuum.

So, then there is the question of why nobody in this discussion, but I mean NOBODY -- seems to be even considering his Bosnian origin and his entire orientation towards Bosnian culture as a writer?

It was absolutely normal in Andric's lifetime to express affinity towards Serbia, Serbian culture, Serbian language, both as an expression of the South Slavic desire for unification and independence, and as the wider signature of the time he was living in - anyone heard of national-romanticism? It was the time of national self-determination, and that time came after a long, long period of foreign domination in South-Slavic lands.

Being a member of "Mlada Bosna" was definitely to say that one was a freedom-fighter (the organisation aimed for the liberation of Bosnia from Austria-Hungary, and the rest of Serbia, Montenegro, etc from the Turks). It was initially Serb-only, but very soon Muslims joined in.

This was primarily an organisation that wanted freedom from foreign rule and unification of South Slavs led by Serbia. It was not abnormal at that time to declare one-self a 'Serb' since Serbia was the first former Yu country to recover its sovereignty and was looked up to in this context.

One cannot really seriously compare national self-determination at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century with the hysterical natio-fascism of today. The whole point of Andric's "Serbianness" runs counter to those who want to claim him as Serb (or Croat for that matter) today.

---

Ivo Andrić, 1923. quote: Ponekad ne mogu da izdržim, banuću jednom u sav taj haos i baciti se svom težinom kao 1912. (srpski revolucijski pokret) godine. Ujedinjenje valja provesti ponovo, ono prvo je, bar za Zagreb bilo pretjerano, a platit ćemo ga ili mi ili taj Radić i fukara koja je oko njega kao rulja seoskih pasa oko slepca. HolyRomanEmperor 19:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ivo Andric je ipak intelektualac, koji nema moje simpatije jer je radio za najgori rezim u Evropi izmedju dva svetska rata - to i nasi intelektualci priznaju - Milovan Glisic, Crnjanski; cak i da je mislio tako nesto nikad ne bi napisao. Neznam sta je tebi cilj HolyRomanEmperor, da zajebavas Hrvate ili mislis ozbiljno. Ako mislis ozbiljno to je lose, sta ce nam Hrvati kad imamo svoje. Ti kako si poceo jos malo ces i Tudjmana prisvojiti. Koji ce nam oni? Mani se covece lazi i corava posla. Oni imaju mnogo vise elemenata reci da je Tesla njihov, nego mi da je Andric nas, pa ga ne prisvajaju. A logika koju ti iznsis potuno je na njihovoj strani. Jos tu bulaznis o Josipu Boskovicu kao Srbinu. Do juce nismo ni znali da postoji a sad je nas samo zato da ne bi bio Hrvat. Ma bre covece neka im ga, ne diraj tudje. Jos ces reci da je i on izjavio da je Srbin. Stvarno se stidim takvih kao ti jer nisi dosledan i siris mrznju i lazi okolo. Kazes da je Andric Srbin samo zato sto je zivio u Beogradu i morao promeniti dijalekat, pa kako bi ti pricao da si zivio preko 20 godina u Zagrebu i da ti je zena Zgrebcanka, sve se plasim da bi govorio ekavski. Ivo Andric nije Hrvat jer je rodjen kao Hrvat, a Tesla je Srbin samo zato sto je rodjen kao pravoslavni - nije cak ni Srbin. Josip Rudjer Boskovic je samo zato Srbin sto je Josip. Poslusaj mene i mani mlacenja prazne slame. Razboriti Srbin The Croatian separatist movement was tearing apart the Kingdom, all of Yugoslavia was bleeding because of it. Ivo found sanctuary amongst the Serbian populace. Don't forget that Stjepan Radić was one of the greatest Croatian national heros... This is probably the reason why was/is Andrić generallz hated amongst Croats... and why they "exiled" him from Croatdom into Serbdom... HolyRomanEmperor 19:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Encarta encyclopedia: [6] Serb... etc. HolyRomanEmperor 19:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

more: [7] HolyRomanEmperor 19:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

more: [8] and [9] HolyRomanEmperor 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

more: [10] and [11] HolyRomanEmperor 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet, more: [12] and [13] HolyRomanEmperor 19:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Then [14] and [15]... Anyway, this is enough to put an end to Greater Croatdom, I think.

About Elephantus

!!!WARNING!!! This man, signed as Elephantus, is distorting the truth intentionally. In his (her?) "quotes" of McNeil's and Edwards' forewords, he simply replaced the words - "Serb" by "Croat". Counting on peoples' naivety to believe him??? !!!WARNING!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.16.251 (talk)

Read Image:Andric1.png, Image:Andric2.png and also Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment. --Elephantus 19:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are the unspoiled pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMG_1257.JPG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMG_1256.JPG. The pages, Andric1.png and Andric2.png are falsificates. Source of the original: Ivo Andric, The Bridge on Drina, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1977--Oesterling 14:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not approve insulting. user:Elephantus may be a Greater Croatian extreme nationalist, but we must all stay cool and civil on this free Internet encyclopedia. HolyRomanEmperor 20:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Insulting??? Do you know what he did? Offered as "a proof" the photocopied pages of the book "fixed" by a photoshop tool!!! What is civil and free in this case?

Yeah, I spent many sleepless nights on it so it can't be distinguished from the original by known scientific methods. :-) --Elephantus 17:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL, man :))) HolyRomanEmperor 11:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

People, if you can't scroll a little up and read, I suggest that you go and invent a time-machine to go back while we were still discussing the subject!!! Ivo Andrić - Ethnicity: Croat; Religion: Roman Catholic Christian; Nationality: Serb, Yugoslav THE END HolyRomanEmperor 11:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The sources that mention him Croatian also don't put sources strong like that :))) HolyRomanEmperor 16:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Does the list of 100 Most Famous Serbs (containing Andric apply?) HolyRomanEmperor 16:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have found another very interesting source: the SANU (where he is (and himself) regarded as a Serb; although I know what you're going to say "Yugo was Serbian-dominated so he was forced to do so"...) HolyRomanEmperor 17:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrić's national affiliation

As I see, this "controversial" issue continues to be dissected & nanoanalyzed ad nauseam. So, let me racap the obvious, non-contestable facts:

• Ivo Andrić was born to Catholic and Croat parents. In his boyhood and early manhood he had explicitely expressed his Croat national identity (for instance, in his application for tuition submitted to the Croatian benefactory society "Napredak")

• in his 20ies, during pre-WW1 period, he became involved in Yugoslav political movement. This movement abounded in heterogonous & frequently contradictory political-national claims, ideas, interpretations and grievances. Andrić's national affiliation was from, say, 1910. to mid 1920s, both Croat and Yugoslav (Yugoslav being a sort of supra-national umbrella concept). Very much like Miroslav Krleža and Tin Ujević, for that matter.

• during late 1920s and early 1930s, Andrić has succeeded in establishing himself as a prominent political and intellectual figure in Royal Yugoslavia's regime, supporting Yugoslav monarchy and its national policy. Ivo Andrić distanced himself from Croatian national heritage and identity and adopted new, Serbian one. This "change of heart" was a process that had been completed around mid 1930s; his new identity has lasted until the writer's end. He frequently wrote essays on themes dealing with Serbian culture, language and identity-carefully avoiding Croatian national (not nationalist) themes and subjects.

And, more or less, that's all. Ivo Andrić was not an ethnic Serb, nor did he consider himself to be one-up to, say, his 30s. He didn't experience any Serbian national-spiritual "awakening", nor did he "recognize" anything-preposterousness of pan-Serbian claims that Andrić somehow "intuited" or "rediscovered" his supposedly Serbian "roots" is evident for any rational person. He who believes in such a nonsense is good for village idiots company only. Andrić Serbified himself for mundane reasons of worldly success. Just-this does not invalidate sincerity of Serbian national affiliation of Andrić's later years, when the major part of his opus was written. The greater part of his work belongs to the Serbian culture-and not to the Croatian (his novels, later novellas and essays). However, his early work (prose poems and , I think, two collections of short stories & novellas) is a part of Croatian literature. As for Yugoslav and Bosnian-Herzegovinian labels, these are supra-national and regional denominators (not unlike "Latin American" or "Swiss"). More or less, that's it. Mir Harven 20:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

POV notice

Looking over the majority of this article, there seems to be a major slant, especially in regards to the "Classification" section. The following paragraph illustrates the point well:

"[Y]et, with the collapse of Yugoslavia other, until then suppressed, doubts about Andrić's work began to pop up. The commonest charge is as follows: Bosniaks, or Bosnian Muslims are portrayed stereotypically in Andrić's work and in a hostile and condescending manner. Some circles of Bosnian Muslim intelligentsia had raised these accusations to ludicrous extremes, turning Andrić into a Greater Serbian propagandist and pamphleteer. Suffice to say - Andrić was primarily a fiction writer and such generalizations are essentially meaningless. But, they do, to a degree, invalidate Andrić's stature as a writer. Shallow stereotypes of Bosnian Muslims who are depicted as borderline psychotic oversensual "Orientals" abound even in his best fiction, which has proven to be detrimental in the re-assessment of his literary stature at the end of the 20th century."

The words "ludicrous" and "meaningless" do not belong on Wikipedia (in this context). I'd like to put a POV warning on this page until it meets up with standards. I would also like to note that the level of English in much of this article is somewhat poor.

--Yossarian 09:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, then-rephrase the "inappropriate" parts of the article to milder/non-controversial version (no wiki text is untouchable). As for level of English of this text, I don't see that it is somewhat poor. Syntactiacally, lexically, semantically ? Anyway, this is a marginal issue. Mir Harven 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason for NPOV

The worst part of this biography is so-called "Classification"

- this really great writer is compared to some provincial writers - hardly known to the rest of world

- "splitting" his writings, according to the nacionalst agenda, (30% of Ivo's works written in Croatian language), into Serbian and Croatian part is completely meaningless

- observation of Ivo's behavior and work through apparently balcanic, and nacionalistic attitude of the editors (especially one related to a pure political observations of the Serbian and Croatian language separations) - is something really disgusting.

- mentioning names of his parents and claiming their etnic background is inaccurate and unimportant here.

- intentionally not using as valid references biographical notes written by Ivo's friends and contemporaries: Anders Oesterling, a world renown man and a long time the Swedish Academy of Science and Arts secretary, William H. McNeill, a world renown historian and the professor emeritus of the Chhicago Universty, Lovett F. Edwards, the translator of Ivo's books and his close friend.

Notice on sock puppets

NOTICE: 64.18.16.251 and a number of other users have been identified as sock puppets of Purger, see here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Purger. --Zmaj 09:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A funny thing

If you search "IVO ANDRIC SERB" on google the hits are: 18 100 If you search "IVO ANDRIC CROAT" on google the hits are: 12 800

Ivo Srbin

The only funny thing here is that someone is using Google as a reference. --Ante Perkovic 16:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter which etnicity he was, the most important thing is that he was a Bosnian. Cause he was born in Bosnia and have a Bosnian nationality.

what is bosnian nationality?You mean bosnjak-muslim.There is no bosnian only bosnjak and that is you.

A person born in Bosnia is Bosnian! To say there is no Bosnian would mean nobody is born in Bosnia. Bosnjak as you put it, or Bosniak in English denotes and ethnic identity of what used to be called Muslim. There are Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Bosniaks, and other Bosnians born in Bosnia every day. So I guess the debate is what type of Bosnian Ivo Andric is, Bosnian Croat or Bosnian Serb. However why don't we all just agree to call him Yugoslav, which he was, and leave the politics out of what should be a factually based article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edvinm (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

He was Croatian origin...what he called himself Yugo, Serb, Croat, Slav isn't important now. He was Croatian by origin. His parents were ethnic Croat as said in article. As for the google search, Serbs have more websites on him but that doesn't mean he was Serb does it? Jagoda 1 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If his parents are Croatian and he is born in Bosnia, this implies (by American terminology) that he is a Bosnian-Croatian. Therefore he cannot be viewed as anything else, even if he wrote on the side of the Serbs for one or two books. He can never be called a Serb since neither of his parents are Serbian nor was he born in Serbia. I suggest Bosnian Croatian, who do exist by the way. Thank you, Vseferović 04:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

        you realy make me wanna laugh! Croatian people have lived in modern Bosnia since they have lived in modern Croatia, so that any american terminology is irrelevant. European history is different than american (both, north and south). Americans (usa, argentina etc.) have a consensus (that is accepted by every american) that someone born in the USA (for examle) gains american nationality just because of the fact that he was born there. A bosnian nation does not exist!!! If you find it anywhere written in "Ustav Bosne i Hercegovine" i will take back everything i have said.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haw Lantern (talk • contribs) 05:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 

Hey

Could you please stop fighting. Several facts are known: regionally, Ivo Andric was an Ottoman-born Bosnian, born in a Catholic Christian Croat family. He was ethnically a Croat, and thus, nothing else. However, his mother tongue was Serbian as is the language he accepted throughout his life (or better said, the Serbo-Croatian (despite his minor early Croatian-linguistic works). Andric was inspired by Serbs far more than his own nation, and has deserved a rather bad reputation of a (Greater) Serbian nationalist. Aside from that, his preserved Curriculum Vitae in the ol' University of Pristina has "Serbian" written under "nationality". One's personal national life choice can be perfectly witnessed in Ivo's case - a man of obvious origin of one nation became willingly a member of another. This is a lot better than Josif Pancic, whose vague & rather unusual Catholic/Croat/Bunyev origins were quickly replaced by a clearly Serbian patriotic and Serbian national/religious feeling in every imaginable way. --PaxEquilibrium 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

National identity is a thing of self-identification, so he was Serb for most of his life - certainly for the part of his life he's famous for.--estavisti 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Serbo-Croat

That's what stood here a long time ago. I have no idea why Factanista opposes it - it has no ethnic affiliation (whereas this one has). --PaxEquilibrium 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an obsolete and politically incorrect term. This article had no ethnic designation for quite a long time too...why you now suddenly insist on listing his ethnic designation is beyond me though I must say it's nothing but asking for trouble. This article had it's peace why disturb it? --Factanista 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's obsolete only to those who don't like it (modern Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian linguists). ;) But not to the whole wide world - the rest of the encyclopedias still use the word (and then so should we) - and in every possible imaginable sense (even if we're not referring to the Serbo-Croatian language) he was a Serbo-Croat writer. There is no "Yugoslavian language". --PaxEquilibrium 22:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To the whole world this word designates group of languages, a diasystem. "Serbo-Croatian language" never existed nor it will ever exist. Basically it has no meaning and it especially doesn't make sense to say "Serbo-Croatian" writer, it's ridiculous formulation. --Factanista 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, that same opinions (in the very exact wording) Afrika paprika shared... Anyway - that language existed for 150 years (longer than either Serbian or Croatian in the proper sense) and it still exists to those not politically inflated by the Yugoslav wars. The prediction that it "never existed" is yet another thing only Afrika paprika constantly repeated. ;) Throughout his life, Andric wrote in Serbo-Croatian (in which is his prime work written), so you're disrespecting him. Anyway - regardless of anythin' like that - that was supposed to be interpreted as "both Serbian language and Croatian language" writer - but you instead chose to connect it to the Serbo-Croat, which you obviously do not like yourself. :) A group of dialects, yes; a group of languages... only in the political nationalist way of sight perhaps. --PaxEquilibrium 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok will you stop with this Afrika Paprika thing. How would you feel if I go on say you share many opinions with people such as Estavisti and Laughing Man? You need to read the Wiki article on "Serbo-Croatian" and you will see for yourself that: 1. it is not a language 2. it is a diasystem or dialectal continuum. These are blatant facts. As for Andric he wrote in Croatian then later as he moved to Serbia he started writing in Serbian it's that simple....there just isn't anything similar to "Serbo-Croatian" and this doesn't have anthing to with "nationalist way" or "sight". It's a pan-slavic/communist invention that never took place. --Factanista 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless - we have direct sources calling him "Serbo-Croatian" and none calling him "Yugoslav" - which makes it unsourced (original research? :D)... please... why are you so passionate about this? --PaxEquilibrium 23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The man was from Yugoslavia, thats a fact and you call it unsources?!? --Factanista 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes... we need sources. By the way - do you know that there's a Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia? :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

May I just say (having seen this late), two things: Serbo-Croat was and still is to some people (if we are to be democratic) a language name. All languages are diasystems when you consider that a standard language is just a stylised form, designed to unite certain people linguisticly and any language (Italian, German, Swedish, Farsi) all comprise a wide scope of dialects, many of which are completely different languages when comparing two from each end of the extreme, furthermore, if the entire population of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria together was around 32,000,000 (at an estimate) at the time of the break-up (baring in mind that Slovenian, Bulgarian and Macedonian were outside this diasystem), the number of people who call their language Ukranian is nearer 40 million, and the Ukraine covers a larger area than Yugoslavia & Bulgaria at largest, and the linguistic variation within it is greater when comparing farthest east to farthest west than eastern Bulgarian dialects are to outer Slovenian dialects. Nobody would dream of calling Slovene and Bulgarian variations of the same language, yet what they speak by the Slovak border is Ukranian, and by the far eastern Russian border too, the point being that languages have many dialects, it is never clear cut what constitutes either a dialect or a language, and there is always inconsistency. Serbo-Croat did exist as an official language of a country, its name remained so until the end of Serbia and Montenegro and people continue (all be it in small numbers) to use the name and the Serbo-Croat Wikipedia site is going strong too. As for a nationality, it is sourced that many South Slavs who hadn't previously identified as being Serb or Croat prior to the revised nationalism of the 18th and 19th centuries, did infact adopt the term Serbo-Croat (in the 19th) before dividing into distinct groups (mostly with their religeon, and some Muslims have stood testimony to this in that you have both Serb and Croat Muslims today). This is contrary to what far-rightists from both sides will tell you, each would rather claim that all those who call themselves by their particular native name, are descended from people who have always been that whilst the other side has corrupted members of your nation living in certain areas into accepting their nationality. As you can see, I'm neutral with these Croat vs Serb debates, and only care about what people say they are themselves, and for the same reason, if their children want to be the opposite, it is their choice. Evlekis 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reason for editing

The term yugoslav dont exist and never existed. It was only a term set up by the communists who used brainwased propaganda to tell the people they were yugoslav. In former Yugoslavia there were nations such as croats, serbs, bosniaks, albanians, hungarians, slovenes, macedonians and so on...

actually, stick to what you know.. Yugoslavs were slavs who spoke serbo-croatian (serbian, bosnian, croatian) and similar variants of south slavic - ie macedonian and slovenian.. Albanians and Hungarians, not being slavic, were only Yugoslavian citizens, so do not bring up the fact of residency. During Yugoslavia one could not (and still, they cannot) distinguish between a Serb, a Croat, or a Bosniak other than religious belief. So it is safe to say that ethnically, Ivo Andric aimed to further connect these south slavic tribes which his writing clearly shows.. He can be considered a Yugoslav, even more-so because he died in a united Yugoslavia.

And since Ivo Andric was born in Bosnia he is a Bosnian. Please, dont revert this. Alkalada 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OMG. The man never identified himself as Bosnian. And the term "Yugoslav" actually existed before Yugoslavia, so don't say it doesn't exist. He didn't identify with any of the ethnicities of the Balkans because he wanted them all to regard themselves as one people and speak one language (Serbo-Croatian), just as he himself did. —KingIvan 08:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems Ivan, that you have never read Andric's later work. Because if you have, by any chance, read it, you would very soon realise that his novels were written in Serbian language, with a lot of turcisms(very uncommon for Croatian language - Croats use turcisms in relaxed conversation and just occasionally, on the oher hand Serbs have a great influence of Turkish in their language. His parents may had been Croats, but he was a Serb and more Serb than many born Serbs. Even I, as a Croat, can say that. Croatian Serbs speak Croatian, they dont speak Serbian, nor Serbo-Croatian, Bosnian, Herzegovinian or some other ridicolous and artifficial products of the 20th century Balcans. It seems as well Ivan, that you have never been to Bosnia nor Herzegovina. Believe me, you live 15000 km from Croatia and Bosnia, and you are more Croatian than Andric has ever been. His books are good. I have a whole collection - Na Drini ćuprija, Travnička kronika, Prokleta avlija, Deca, Nemirna godina and so on...but the way he describes Croats is like their history is nothing compared to Serbian. That makes no sense because Serbia was conquered by the Ottomans and Bosnia as well. But Croatia wasn't. Bosnia had many Roman Catholics, and they were mostly ethnic Croatian. When you take a look at the countries that the Ottoman Empire had fought, especially at it's end second half of 17th century, and whole 18th and 19th century, the were mostly Roman Catholic countries(Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Poland) and of course that Roman Catholic population on Ottoman territories was always viewed as the fifth colone. Just as that one guy said in this discussion - "it was sexy to be a Serb". Well, I don't get theat literary, but what he ment, at that time it was better to be a Serb than a Croat. It's different today.

Umm, I haven't read any of his work. And yes I agree with you when that he's more Serb than anything else, but what I'm doing is trying to do by supporting the Yugoslavs ethnicity is stop a stupid edit war over the ethnicity of a man. —KingIvan 11:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslav never existed and was only a term by the communists. We have allways been bosniaks, even if the communists forced us to be called muslims. But we bosniaks existed for 1000 years and is even older people than croats. Alkalada 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia never existed and was a term only used by Commuinists. Alkalada, do you read what other people actually write when they resond to you or are the messages not getting through? The term Yugoslavia had existed long before the birth of socialism in the Balkans, and Bosnia too had a League of Communists with practicing Bosniaks. As for the country never having existed. That is as ridiculous as one now saying that Germany doesn't exist. There is no Yugoslavia now, but in some shape, its name did exist from 1929 until 2003. The federation upon which it was based was inaugurated ten years earlier and lasted until 2006, so please be sensible. Evlekis 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I said Yugoslav never existed. Alkalada 12:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes so? That means absolutely nothing, nations are born and nations die. It was people who decided to call themselves Yugoslavs, and there are those who continue to do so today, see the article here. As for being Bosniaks, from whom did you descend? Were you Bosniaks from Time Immemorial? Are you descendants of a seperate race from the rest of the world? Ethnicities are chosen by the people Alkalada, sadly for you, Catholics and Orthodox followers of Bosnia largely choose NOT to be Bosnian by nationality. But what does it matter? There are people from not within Bosnia's borders who declare themselves Bosnian: you get them in Croatia, and they even form majorities in some towns and municipalities between Serbia and Montenegro. Towns such as Novi Pazar and Berane have Bosniak majorities yet the people are locals. Shall we take out their articles and state that those people are not Bosniaks because they are not from Bosnia? Evlekis 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you understand that Bosnian and Bosniak are not the same thing? Yes those towns have Bosniak majorities, but those people are not Bosnian because they are not born in Bosnia. Just like Serbians and Serbs are not necessarily the same thing. The people in Novi Pazar are Serbian Bosniaks or Sandzak Bosniaks, but not Bosnians. (Edvinm 07:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Translator's name

On the references section it appears that The Bridge over the Drina was translated by Lovett F. Edwards, as it is stated on the English edition by Dereta on sale only in Serbia. Nevertheless, the edition published by The Harvill Press worldwide states that the translator's name was Lovette, with -e at the end. Which one is right? --91.143.221.231 21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

--- Omer-Pasha Latas --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends, to understand „the enigma Andric“, the crucial is his novel „Omer-Pasha Latas“ and the question: Why didn't he finish the novel „Omer-Pasha Latas“? What did Andric forsaw, in conection with the ending of the novel, when he told Ljubo Jandric on 12.Juni 1974 in Sarajevo: „Other bards will come and sing a song about what my soul feels, when the evening bell rings“ (Source: "Sa Ivom Andricem", Author: Ljubo Jandric ; Publisher: Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo 1982, page 412 ). By my thinking, with the content, structure and unfinished story of that novel Andric has probably sent the last message about the future of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Particulary in the 90's of 20th century „there were many Latas“ in that country. In some way, the unfinished novel as a paradigm of mentality, continues to live on in the present. And the future? Maybe the Croats make him their greatest writer of all times and raise a monument in his honor in Zagreb.. ( 26. 08. 2007 )

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.176.160 (talk) 17:17, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

OMG

I see this article is PRO Serbian....Ivo Andric was Born in Bosnia by CROAT family.You can only label him as CROAT or maybe even Bosnian Croat but you can't label him as Serb...Which is the thing Serbians want to do.So , he is labeled like YUGOSLAV that seems to me like some kind of compromise and avoidment to the fact that he was CROAT .Even thought Yugoslav existed at his time ,they don't anymore and because of that Yugoslav seems too unfair... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.237.104 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrić switched his ethnic feeling from Croatian to Serbian when he left Bosnia and came to Serbia. Moreover, during the existence of Yugoslavia, he declared himself as Yugoslav. So, who are we to say whether he was Croat or maybe Bosnian Croat? It only matters what Andrić himself have said, and that is certainly not unfair. --George D. Božović 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if he had switched his ethnic feeling to Massai, today we would called him a Massai writer? --Ante Perkovic 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we would have probably waited for you to enlighten the rest of the world pointing out Andrić's possible Croatian roots and the total lack of right of any self-declaration... :( --George D. Božović 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity has little to do with genes, blood, and roots. Many peoples and races have mixed during the history. Many Serbs, for example, have Illyrian, Celtic, and Turkish blood. Yet people declare as Serbs not because they are pure-blooded Aryan Slavs but because they feel so, want so, and they declare themselves so... Same goes with Andrić or, for that matter, even any Massai who becomes a naturalized self-declared Serb. And I must say, sometimes I really have to think of awful racist ideologies when I read your arguments... --George D. Božović 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pure nonsence! So,even he was a Croat,he isn't anymore because he declared himself something else?Bullsh*t! So...if i declare myself Chinesse,my blood wont make any difference from me being Chinesse?That is bullsh*t and you know it.Maybe he didn't love his homeland (read Croatia ) to declare himself as Croat one and for all,but it still doesnt change anythng,and i will keep reverting this until someone fixes it! Now,i want to watch football match between Croatia and Estonia in peace.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.229.86 (talk)

Category:Roman Catholics

For Christ's sake, would you please stop pushing this ridiculous category? It's as relevant as Category:Males, Category:White people, or Category:Persons who have blood groop 0? Andrić has never talked or wrote publicly about his religious affiliation, if he had any. He probably was baptized as a Roman Catholic, so what? So were about half a billion or more of other people. Yes, I did propose the Category:Polish Roman Catholics for deletion at a time, pointing out its utter absurdity: see [16]. I was refuted by a statement that "editors are being quite restrained in using the category". Now, please be restrained: the category has no defining characteristics whatsoever in Andrić's case. Duja► 13:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all "I don't like it" is not an argument. If you don't like this category, you are free to nominate it (and dozens of subcategories) to WP:CFD. I do not care if Andrić was Catholic, Jewish or Mormon. I am not Catholic myself, I just added this category because it is interesting in context of his complex personality, some kind of symbol of Balkan multi-ethnic and cultural millieu. He declared Catholic faith in his application to university in Kraków where he inscribed "kat", being abbreviation of Polish for katolik. - Darwinek 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

________________________________ Your all sick, Do you know that your are figthing about a dead man?. He lived to write and died writing. He didn't care if your were a croat or serb or bosnian or jew or macedonian or slovene or roma or albanian. Why don't just say: Ivo Andric was a writer and a nobelprize winner, who were born in Bosnia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.212.54.243 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IvoAndricPortrait.jpg

Image:IvoAndricPortrait.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lies

I have never read so many lies in my whole life in only one article. Andric's native vernacular was jekawian. Croats in Bosnia and Herzegowina speak ikawian, expext in parts where Serbs or Bosniaks are majority, but it's not Croatian language. The Bosnian-Herzegowinian jekawian vernavulars are one of two bases of standard Serbian language. As far as sentence structere and morphology is considered, it's noted that Andric explicitely refused to give to Croatian publishers a permission to "croatise" his sentance-constructions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzzifer (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw., he never learnd the vernacular from the place he came from, but from Visegrad. His hometown is settled with Croatian ikawian speakers, but Visegrad is jeakwian city, a typical Serbian vernaular, that was his native vernacular as he was raised up in Visegrad by his Serbian relatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzzifer (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Introductory

No need to discuss Andric’s ethnicity in introductory paragraph. The same apply to the fact that he’s born in Bosnia. There is plenty of room to elaborate that in more details in Biography or Classification sections. It’s complex. Born as ethnic Croat in Bosnia, he declared himself as Serb for the most of his life and considers himself as Serbian and/or Yugoslav writer. Similar to Mesa Selimovic, Andric didn’t want to be classified as Bosnian writer or novelist.--N Jordan (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Real problem in this and many other articles are nationalistic POV editors. I have writen on 2 April that he has been Yugoslav novelist in introductory paragraph but this has survived only until 8 May.--Rjecina (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please to not delete sources for statements about his parents. Nationalistic vandals has many time changed nationality of his parents and this has stoped only after addings of NPOV internet sources !--Rjecina (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Biography

The first paragraph of biography section has to be modified to include both Andric’s ethnic background (Croat) and his self-determination (Serb). That is the only way to prevent nationalistic POV editors.--N Jordan (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are not puppet of Velebit (suspected by user R-41) why are you entering discussion where we are having Velebit puppets ?

He is born in Croat family. In latter life has started to declare himself to be Serb. You can add this in right year when he has declared for Serb nation but not in begining or biography when there is text which is speaking about parents. For this declaration you will need NPOV internet links similar to links shown for his parents. Not so many but 1 or 2 NPOV links will be OK :)--Rjecina (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who’s Velebit so I don’t understand your comment. Especially not that part about puppets and discussions. I’ll not be the one who’s going to change biography section, have no time for that. I’m just suggesting it may reduce frequent vandalism of this article. Andic is not in Wikipedia because he’s Serb or Croat – but because he’s a writer. --N Jordan (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of latest changes

I found in the

The Bridge on the Drina by Ivo Andric, Univeristy of Chicago Press 1977

Translator's foreword by Lovett F. Edwards, page 7: Dr Ivo Andric is himself a Serb and a Bosnian

Introduction by William H. McNeil, page 3:They went to live with her parents in Visegrad on the banks of the Drina, where young Ivo grew up in an artisan family (his grandfather was a carpenter) playing on the bridge he was later to make so famous, ..., The family was Orthodox Christian, i.e. Serb;

and in the

The Nobel Prize in Literature 1961 Presentation Speech by Anders Österling, Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy - As a young Serbian student, he joined the national revolutionary movement, suffered persecution, and was imprisoned in 1914 when the war broke out.

which shall have place in his biography for knowing that the book translator Edwards and the world-renown historian McNeil were close Ivo's friends. Both biographical notes were written in the first edition of this Ivo's book in 1959 and the biographical data are coming from the very Ivo.

Anders Österling's Presentation Speech during the official ceremony 1961 in Sweden and in the Andric's presence - gives the undeniable credibility to biographical data heard in this speech. -

As to the Clasification paragraph - it has nothing to do with biography - just a slander and disrespect of this great writer. My proposal - delete it completely.

From the above discussion - is visible that Andric rejected idea to be seen as of Croatian lineage

When Krleza attempted to allign Ivo with Croats - Ivo responded this way

Enes Cengic; "Krleza post mortem",  I-III. Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990. 2. part, pages 171-172

" Medjutim, s tekstom o Andricu za staru Enciklopediju stvari su tekle ovako:
Tekst je napisao Milan Bogdanovic i poslao ga meni na imprimatur, kao biva, da li ga primam  ili ne.
Kao ni mnoge druge tekstove,  vjerovali vi sad meni ili ne ... ja tekst o Andricu nisam citao. 
Mislio sam: Neka pise sto hoce, tako cemo to i objaviti. Ionako  je bilo iznad moje moci da tu ista 
diram i ispravljam. Mjesec ili ne znam koliko nakon sto mi je poslao tekst, primim od Milana pismo 
u kojem mi kaze da je kopiju teksta dao Ivi Andricu na uvid te da on moli da budem ljubazan i da u 
tekstu nesto izmijenim, a to je:

Ivo Andric, rodjen u Travniku 10.10.1892. godine, hrvatskog porijekla, zavrsio skole itd.... Moli 
me da brisem da je hrvatskog porijekla. Na to odgovaram Bogdanovicu (oprostite sto citiram):
    
Dragi moj Milane,

Pozdravi Ivu Andrica u moje ime, veoma srdacno,i poruci mu, ako mozes, da mu ja jebem hrvatsku
majku, brisat cu da je hrvatskog  porijekla." 

Shortly, Milan Bogdanovic wrote a text of Andric's biography, presented a copy of this text to Andric. Andric asked Bogdanovic to remove the note saying that he (Ivo) was a man of Croatian lineage.

--71.252.83.33 (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Ako je zaista tako i bilo onda i znameniti Krleža ima pravo na ljudsku slabost. Andrić nije dopustio da ga se "vrijeđa" enciklopedijskim natuknicama o "hrvatskom porijeklu..".Zašto Krleža nije u natuknici o sebi dopustio napisati da je "hrvatskog porijekla"? Valjda nije mjera hrvatstva udaljenost stana od "banova repa". Na sreću, nitko i nikada nemože zatrti istinu o Andrićevu hrvatskom narodnom porijeklu i veličini njegovog djela.Ono će ostati vječno svjedočanstvo hrvatske duhovne izvrsnosti bez obzira na kojim se jezicima bude čitalo, gledalo i slušalo. Sve ostalo na ovu temu je laž i posthumno vrijeđanje Ive Andrića. Razumijem,mnogima smeta što je Hrvat,no morat ćete to prihvatiti jer je to jedina istina. Hvala na pažnji! (24. 08. 2008)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.176.27 (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Overturned convictions

Why is this article in the "Overturned convictions" category? Although he was imprisoned for political reasons, no conviction is mentioned.Bill (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslav ID

The article explains that "In Yugoslav identity card issued in June 1951, Yugoslav government declared Andrić as Serb" -- all of the official paperwork regarding someone's identity, as well as ethnicity, was done in accord with that person, by filling the application forms by that particular person; stating the quoted, one could mistakenly came to think that Yugoslavia had a body of some kind, with discrete rights to arbitrarily "declare" someone's personal information, ethnicity, origin or beliefs, which wasn't the case in federal Yugoslavia. He was a corresponding member of the (Royal) Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts since 1926 and a full member since 1939 (http://www.sanu.ac.rs/English/Clanstvo/IstClan.aspx?arg=15), long before his international fame and Nobel prize (and there is a flow of not publishing this dates in the article). He was not in captivity, so there's no need to construct a dull tone regarding his free will decisions. Another written document regarding his nationality is Communist party application form, single-handedly written by I. Andrić. There's a marriage certificate and a quite a few other documents kept in his fund, proving the same. http://www.ivoandric.org.rs/html/body_vencani_list.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.139.202 (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Also worth to mention the 1957 Yugoslav Who is Who in which he also declared himself a Serb. --Igor82 (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, so he legally changed his ethnicity from Croat in 1914 to Serbian in 1958? Didn't know that would be valid. Jackiechan321 (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ivo Andric was an ethnic Croat

Where does it say in any credible historical reference that Ivo Andric was born to Serbian parents? Ivo Andric was born to Croatian parents Antun Andric and Katarina Pejic and brought up a Roman Catholic. Not to mention that his father's name Antun is not used by Serbs in the way it is spelt. Rather the Serbs use Antonije and Croats use Antun - equivalent to English Anthony!

see serbian name Antonije http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Антоније

See english http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_%28given_name%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.48.43 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Andric was born ethnic Croat, I haven't heard his parents were Serbs. However he's Serb by choice and nobody denied that. He even didn't allowed his Croatian ethnic background to be mentioned in Yugoslav Encyclopedia. Also, the majority of his literal work belongs to Serbian literature. --N Jordan (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, but during his lifetime, there was no Croatia or Serbia, how can he be Serbian when it was Yugoslavia? You can't change ethnicity. Jackiechan321 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well Andric was born in Travnik, then AH empire, does that make him Austian? When interviewed once, Andric said "One has to be born somewhere". Andric was born in catholic family but he is serbian writer since he wrote on serbian language and praized serbian literature. Since this crazy quoestion of ethnicity became so popular after Andrics death, Mesa Selimovic, next to Andric the best writer of that time in Yugoslavia, out of protest and shame that such a question was raised, publicly stated that he comes from Muslim family but his nationality is Serbian since he belongs to literature of Vuk Karadzic, Simo Matavul, Stevan Sremac, Borisav Stankovic, Petar Kocic, Ivo Andric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Đorđe Batić (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that he chose to be a Serb later in life. However I did see an edit previously in the main article regarding his parents' supposed Serbian ethnicity - hence the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.49.166 (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ethnic Croat? Nope. See my post below.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• No, he was not an ethnic Croat. See

1977 William H. McNeill Canadian-American historian, Chicago University: "The family therefore lived poorly; and when the future writer was still an infant, his father died, leaving his peniless young widow to look after an only child. They went to live with her parents in Visegrad on the banks of the Drina, where the young Ivo grew up in an artisan family (his grandfather was a carpenter) playing on the bridge he was later to make so famous, and listening to tales about its origin and history which he used so skillfully to define the character of early Ottoman presence in that remote Bosnian town. The family was orthodox Christian, i.e. Serb; "

Source: Ivo Andric The Bridge on the Drina The University of Chicago Press, 1977 Introduction by William H. McNeil. pp. 3

1918 Ivo Vojnovic, Croatian writer: „Šaljem ti i djelo Ex ponto koje je probudilo veliku senzaciju. Pisac mladi Katolički Srbin iz Bosne, idealni mladić, Ivo Andrić, 26 god" Translation: "I'm sending the Ex ponto work to you, which (the work) was a great sensation. The writer is a young Catholic Serb, an ideal youth, Ivo Andrić, 26 year old"

Source: Profil profesionalnog čitatelja: čitateljske prakse Ive Vojnovića, Nada Topić, Sveučilište u Zadru, Poslijediplomski studij Društvo znanja i prijenos informacija link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zb11Ot2zS10J:hrcak.srce.hr/file/115521+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us pp. 13

--109.245.101.74 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Claiming he is not a ethnic Croat shows bad faith. You can’t run away from your ethnicity. You can claim to be whatever you want and it can be mentioned in the article. But to be pure neurtal fact, his factual Croatian descent must be acknowledged. Tesla was quoted saying he is a “Croat” and proud of his “Croatian Homeland” but it’s irrelevant. Fact is he is an ethic Serb. Calling Andrić a “Catholic Serb” is inflammatory on multiple levels. It’s pathetic what lengths editors have gone to remove the Croatian ethnicity out of the intro as much as possible. He was an ethnic Croat who identified himself as a Serb. Simple. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You can't run away from your ethnicity. − your views seem to be strongly rooted in the 19th century. Anyway, per MOS:ETHNICITY, it is not normally stressed in the lead section, and should stay out for Andrić as well, whose ethnic background is rather complex to be described in a single sentence, and not a defining aspect of his life and works anyway. No such user (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

How are my views “strongly rooted in the 19th century”? Yeah, citation for your claim definitely needed. Seems a bit accusatory without explanation. Turning this into some Balkan related nationalist conflict is a wasted approach here, chief. One can claim to be whatever they want to be, I’m not saying that is not to be acknowledged. But the reality of their origins is to be acknowledged as well as per NPV. I can claim to be French all I want as my ethnic heritage, but my actual Polish origin is objective fact regardless of my personal self reinventing. My issue was with a person above stating Ivo Andric’s ethnicity is not Croat at all. But I’m the one with a dated mindset. Sure. Acknowledging a person’s heritage is modernly done on many articles. It’s just being objective in a subjects description. Accepting reality is a timeless endeavor. Calling one a “Catholic Serb” definitely seems rooted in the “19th century”. You can objectively acknowledge a person’s background regardless of what they wish to identify as. This is done any oretty much every wiki article about a subject. Mentioning their heritage and also including what the subject identifies or declares themselves as if they did. This is typically done. That is what I meant by “can’t run away from ethnicity”. We can respect Andric’s self views but also the reality of his origins. I’m sure you would agree the same when dealing with Serbs who declare themselves as Croats. That when dealing with historical happenings, secondary sources will acknowledge aspects that the subject may not favor. Such as perhaps gender transitions, name changes etc. It’s not bad to do so. Just because a subject feels a certain way doesn’t make it an overall fact. If a Italian claims to be German, their Italian ethic background is still acknowledged and they are listed in Italians of Germany. Given that Ivo Andric contributed to Croatian literature as well, by your own link to the ethnicity wiki, it is relevant to state. It already is in the intro as a small [a] link. This all just seem to jarr with typical Wikipedia formatting is all I am really saying here. I hope you can empathize. As I’m sure you would agree if the shoe were on the other foot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.190.2 (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@74.101.190.2: The MOS is clear on this topic. If you want the page on Andrić to be an exception, you should probably take the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography. And I would advise you to think more before you type, because you are writing a lot of incoherent nonsensical stuff. I personally do not see why the lead should not mention ethnicity, but you are going to need to up your game if you want to change guidelines. Good luck. Notrium (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Odd, you are telling me to “think before I type” and to “up my game” in communication, yet you belittle my reply as “incoherent nonsense”. A pretty much personal slight with no explanation as to how it is “nonsense”. (This goes against Wikipedia conduct). All the while ignoring the other editor claiming I “have views of that from the 19th century”. And having no issue with other editors pretty much denying any Croatian ethnic status all together. Comes across a bit biased. At least it seems that way at face value. Perhaps if you are struggling that much to understand my point that self determination of ethnicity doesn’t override secondary sourced backed ethnic origins, you could simply ask for clarification. I gave example scenarios that illustrated my point. (Eg. An ethnic Italian who revises their ethnicity as Austrian, for example, would still be, if secondary sources back up, an ethnic Italian individual). Their self determination would also be acknowledged but their actual origin ethnicity would still be noted. As is done in many articles. Not sure why that is an unclear point to grasp. You may disagree but that doesn’t make it nonsense. I understand your point of MOS and that I will have to look into. I am still learning the different template guidelines and such. But given your history of edits, warnings from others, and communication issue with other editors, I wouldn’t throw rocks in glass houses if I were you. Think about that before the next time YOU type and go that angle. Reflect on that a bit. I’m far from perfect, but who is even perfect? I don’t think I am the primary one that needs to “step up their game” as I doubt I would be greeted on the MOS page the way you two have greeted me here. Or have issue getting my point across as they likely don’t have potentially skin in the game (not directly specifically at you but on articles in general). Balkan pages often present that challenge though I see. Have a good one mate. And I mean that I will be mindful of MOS criteria moving on. I tried to be a clear as possible in this reply. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It was not a personal slight and I did not want to discourage you, rather I was just being bluntly honest. I did not explain it because I do not have time for that kind of analysis right now, but here are some quick thoughts: You have been given links to the MOS, but still you ramble on about ethnicity. The problems there are both that the ethnicity theory is off-topic as soon as you read the relevant MOS section, and that you are actually wrong about ethnicity: excerpt from Ethnicity - "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other" - so (as far as we know) for most of his life (after about his 20th year of age) his ethnicity was actually Serb.

Another suggestion: try not to say things like "I’m sure you would agree the same when dealing with Serbs who declare themselves as Croats.". I have been on the receiving end of such implications (people are often defensive about Balkans topics and tend to assume I am either a Croat nationalist or a Serb nationalist or something), and they are always annoying.

When I said "good luck", I meant that honestly; it is not clear to me why ethnicity is banned from lead if nationality is not - that is inconsistent.

Also note that my message here to you was not meant as an attack, I only did it because I reverted your edit on the Andrić article, and did not want to leave you without more explanation. Notrium (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, about that "But given your history of edits, [...]" statement; I doubt you seriously now spent a few hours going through my contribution history; so ... Do you know me from before or what? If you used some tool to find my controversial edits I would appreciate it if you could point me to it. Notrium (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Double Standards

Why is it that for the Nikola Tesla page, he is stated as Serbian not Austro-Hungarian but here Andric is Yugoslavian not Croatian? Going by ethnicity that is. Jackiechan321 (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Tesla's page doesn't say he is "Serbian" or "Austro-Hungarian", but Serbian American (i.e. an American citizen of Serb ancestry) because he was a Serb who spent most of his life in America. "Yugoslav" doesn't pertain to ethnicity, but nationality (I also wouldn't mind seeing Tesla described as simply an American scientist in the intro to his article).

Andrić was a Croat born in Bosnia (who lived very shortly under Austria-Hungary) and spent most of his life in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. In any case, he lived in Yugoslavia for much of his life and in later years refused to identify as a Croat. So as not to satisfy POV-pushers on any side, the article identifies him as a Yugoslav (which he was from 1918 on, including when he won the Nobel Prize). The "Early life" section clearly states his parents were Croats from Travnik. 23 editor (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes he was a Croat, so why not put that he is of Croatian decent? Are are agreeing with me. Jackichan1234 (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Religious makeup of Višegrad

It would be interesting to know the religious makeup, diversity, of Višegrad during Ivo's upbringing.--Zoupan 11:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I'll get to it in a couple days. I'm still in the process of expanding the article. 23 editor (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ivo Andrić/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ɱ (talk · contribs) 14:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Will be starting this review shortly. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 14:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• Infobox:
  • Did you like the expression in File:Andric Ivo.jpg more than in File:S. Kragujevic, Ivo Andric, 1961.jpg? The latter is a much better quality photo.
    • Yes, it show him head-on. Are there any problems with the licensing?
  • Can you interlanguage link his spouse? See below templates.
    • Done
      • The templates are normally used to indicate the change in language and indicate the article being missing from the English version. It really can throw off a reader how it is now. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, she's only notable for being married to him, so I've removed the link.

• In the lead:
  • Link South Slav?
    • Done
  • It states "After the war, he studied South Slavic history... . Between 1920 and 1941, he worked in the diplomatic service of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia." Did he study history while working in the diplomatic service? Before reading the details of the article, one would presume so based on this wording.
    • Fixed
      • Now I'm confused what " From 1920–23 to 1924–41," means. I usually take the hyphens to mean 'to', reading "from 1920 to 1923 to 1924 to 1941,"... ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

As the article states, he was in the Foreign Ministry from '20 to '23, only to be forced to finish his doctoral studies. These lasted until the following year, at which point he resumed his diplomatic career. Any suggestions on how to make this clearer?

How about "From 1920–23 and again from 1924–41"?

• • I believe the English name for Na drini ćuprija should also be italicized.
    • Done
  • "The likes of" usually is used to refer to people similar to those listed, so I believe the idiom is misused. Perhaps use "over authors/people including" or something similar. The phrase is used again later in the body in the same way.
    • Altered
  • "the Belgrade apartment in which he spent much of World War II" sounds really clumsy in the sentence. Is there a better way to phrase this?
    • Rephrased
  • Wikilink, explain briefly, or explain in a note what an "ethno-town" is.
    • Still looking
• Early life:
  • I believe birth names are traditionally given in the lead and first sentence of the body; what prompted the use of Ivo and the explanatory note?
    • Done
  • What happened to former mentions of his birthplace as Dolac?
    • Added
      • You say here now that it's near Travnik, but it seems like it's in Travnik, right? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's near the town of Travnik, but its located inside the municipality.

Then I'd recommend saying "near downtown Travnik" or "in Travnik", but I suppose I'm okay with it like it is too.

• • Mentioning Andric's father's death, you should either link the sentences with a semicolon or add 'at the time' at the end; otherwise they seem a bit disjointed.
    • Done
• Primary education:
  • I presume because he only had a three-year scholarship, he lost it for a time before repeating the sixth grade, even though it's stated after that?
    • I presume so as well, though the source doesn't go into details.
  • Please wikilink the two Croat instructors (looks like for one you need to use a template like {{ill}}, {{ill2}}, or {{ill-WD}})
    • Done
  • Can you link or explain "lyrical reflective prose"?
    • Done

• Student activism:
  • You should probably link or explain what "anti-Habsburg activities" are; you only mention Habsburg once before with barely more information linking it to Austria-Hungary.
    • Clarified
  • I don't think it would hurt to say "University of Zagreb in Croatia" and "University of Vienna in Austria"
    • Most people know where Vienna is, unlike Zagreb. I've linked Croatia-Slavonia and left Vienna as is.

• • Are there dates you can associate with Andric's illness or leaving Vienna?
    • Explained that he transferred to Vienna in 1913. The article already says he transferred to Krakow in early 1914. Hawkesworth doesn't provide any specific dates.
  • "For a time, Andrić had considered transferring to Russia" should be changed to "a school in Russia" or something similar.
    • Done

More to come. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• The World War I section looks fine, although the image subject is disputed and therefore the caption suffers. Perhaps consider uploading this CC BY image of the church of St Mihovil in Ovčarevo. Apparently there's also a bust of Andric there now.

How do we know it's PD? 23 editor (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The host, Panaramio, has a sidebar on the right, "Photo details" that includes the Creative Commons symbol along with "Attribution". Click the symbol and it details it as Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0). ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• • • By dispute, I presume you are referring to the fact it likely doesn't show Princip. This is irrelevant since it's still the most famous photo of the assassination and is meant to illustrate the event/aftermath, as the caption would suggest.
      • There should be no interest in how famous the photo is. It's not an article on the assassination, and that article already has the photo. The fact that the photo could be of the arrest of a bystander, and doesn't even clearly show anything, and cannot have a better explanatory caption than "aftermath pictured" is very weak. The photo I suggest is a very worthwhile alternative of a more obscure subject. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Interwar:
  • "and was back in hospital" in sentence 3 should have a "the" or something similar before "hospital". Perhaps say "back in hospital care"?
    • "back in hospital" sounds fine in my neck of the woods, but I've changed it nevertheless
  • This first paragraph leaves me a lot of questions - what happened to Vojnovic's two appeals, were they even responded to? What happened to his uncle?
    • Hawkesworth offers no explanation as to what happened with Vojnović's appeals, only saying Andrić took matters into his own hands. His uncle's fate is explained under "Advancement"
  • I wouldn't link figs, they're common fruit.
    • Done
• Early diplomatic career:
  • If you're sticking with American English (that's what it looks like), change "meagre" to "meager". And although all the rest of the writing is in American style, the dates aren't in American MDY style?
    • Canadian English actually. Some words we use the British spelling (meagre, colour, etc.) and others we use American (realize, materialize, etc.) Canada also uses DMY for the most part (in government documents, etc.)
• Advancement:
  • "all civil servants, especially those in the Foreign Ministry, had to have a doctoral degree" is confusing. If all civil servants needed degrees, how did Foreign Ministry servants especially need them? Either you need them or you don't, you can't 'especially need them', right?
    • Removed
• World War II:
  • How did Andric help Polish prisoners?
    • Source doesn't go into detail (see below)
  • Andric was forced to leave the friend's apartment and evacuate the city, but that was merely temporary? The apartment he later stayed in during further bombing was the same? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Same apartment, he was under de facto house arrest so his movement was restricted under normal circumstances.
• Later life:
  • The caption should make clear where Andric is in the photo
    • Done
  • The second paragraph has a great many sentences starting with "In [month] [year],". Consider placing some dates at the end of the sentences, and/or saying "in the following year"
    • Done
  • Link the 1950 sentence with the next sentence; you can just replace the period with a semicolon.
    • Done
• Nobel Prize:
  • Here the caption note "right" isn't really needed. Their genders should be easily identifiable from the photograph
    • Removed
  • link AVNOJ
    • Done
• Influences:
  • There should be an "and" before "British writers" in the list in the first paragraph here
    • Done
• Legacy:
  • Is the name of the mentioned committee given? It's given four sentences, but isn't mentioned by name?
    • Done (if I understood correctly)
  • I'll want to review the references later, though I notice here that you cite Google Maps for the existence of those streets. Perhaps Maps can verify that streets are named "Ive Andrica", but there are many other people who share his surname. You really should find a reference that mentions these streets being named after him, or they should be removed.
• That's all except references and images. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive review, Ɱ. I'll get to your comments tomorrow because I have some business to attend to today. 23 editor (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

All of the images look fine except File:1914 Miljacka Sarajevo.png and File:Andric Ivo.jpg. For the first one, in order for it to be Public Domain in the US, it needs to have been published before 1923 (other qualifications can apply). The book the image is taken from was published in 2006, and makes no note of the image's copyright status. It does however mention on page 76 that it was borrowed from the Historical Museum in Sarajevo. Perhaps inquire to them or search around for further copyright information. Alternatively, find a verified free image. As well, you'll need to make sure the image is compliant with Bosnia and Herzegovina's copyright laws (which I'm not familiar with); it would also need a copyright tag for that country. For the second image, please find archive urls or other sources as the urls given aren't functioning. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 23:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You use Citation Style 1 in your Works cited section, though CS1 uses accessdates (read here). I would add those access dates to any urls given.

For Rakić 2000, you list pages 81-91 in the works cited and notes. I would remove one of those instances, but it would also be good to have more specific page numbers to support that "most Bosniak criticism...appeared...immediately before the breakup of Yugoslavia".

The last external link doesn't work. It's odd that different archive dates for the same link work, so perhaps consider either not using the template, or talking to the template author that contrary to what the template says (that the date works with all of the authors), it won't work with Andric and that perhaps the template can be adjusted. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@23 editor: It seems like that's it. When the above is fully addressed (I see you already worked on some), I'll be happy to pass this. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• As noted in the main talk page, this article contains no list of works by the author. It is standard in literary biographies to list works in a section titled "Works" or "Bibliography". Obviously a complete bibliography is beyond the scope, but something at least as complete as seen in Books and Writers (see talk page) for it to be a complete article. -- GreenC 17:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright, prose issues addressed. Some things to clarify:

1. An ethno-town or ethno-village is basically an attraction designed to look like the stereotypical (or idealized) setting where members of a particular religious/national/ethnic group live (or once lived). If you're from the US, imagine a faux-Civil War tourist town in the South with civil war re-enactors in period dress, etc. You get the picture. Unfortunately, since the term "ethno-town/village" is of relatively recent date, none of the major or minor dictionaries carry a definition, so my above explanation would fall under WP:OR if included in the article on its own.
2. Re: U of Vienna. Most people know where Vienna is, unlike Zagreb. I've linked Croatia-Slavonia and left Vienna as is.
3. Explained that he transferred to Vienna in 1913. The article already says he transferred to Krakow in early 1914. Hawkesworth doesn't provide any specific dates.
4. His uncle's fate is explained under "Advancement"
5. Hawkesworth says that Vojnović appealed orally, followed by Andrić's written appeal.
6. Canadian English actually. Some words we use the British spelling (meagre, colour, etc.) and others we use American (realize, materialize, etc.) Canada also uses DMY for the most part (in government documents, etc.)
7. Same apartment. He was de facto under house arrest so that explains a lot.
8. Hawkesworth doesn't say exactly how, re: Polish prisoners. All she says is that he tried but wasn't successful.
9. No one has ever called me out for using Google Maps (FA's use it, such as Oerip Soemohardjo). Also, Ivo Andrić is the only person by that name that is of any significance in the former Yugoslavia. So the idea that this Andrić could be mistaken for another one doesn't hold much water. 23 editor (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all of the prose issues have been addressed. I'd really like if you could indicate what you did within my above bullets (as sub-bullets) so I don't have to pick through all your edits. As for the comments you wrote today, it would also be much easier to respond if they were paired with what they're in response to... Anyway, if "ethno-town" is such a neologism that it doesn't appear to have a citable definition (I looked as well), then I would strongly recommend either explaining it in a note or using a common term in conventional usage that's also more intuitive, such as "living-history museum" (used on the Colonial Williamsburg page) or "Open-air museum".

The FA you mention was passed in 2012 without very many people actually critiquing. I'm skeptical of that, and would not believe it would pass based on current standards. However based on what you say of Andric, I'm not very concerned.

Thanks for your responses, I'll reply further soon. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• As previously noted, the article contains no list of works by the author. -- GreenC 02:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this definitely should be included. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Ɱ: Bullet-point addressed. I'm still looking for the textbook definition of ethno-town. 23 editor (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Ɱ: Defined ethno-town. What do you think? 23 editor (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I replied to four more things inline. The only other outstanding comments were about the two photos and the absence of access dates. Also I saw you removed the two external links recently. Why? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the external links because they either contained a bibliography (which the article now has) or because they are already used as references, hence to avoid over-linking. 23 editor (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to reply; I don't think people mind if there's another biography, it's not overly redundant. And having them already as references - most people don't look at all the references, but external links are the main secondary sources people look to for more information here. I think the links to the Nobel Foundation and to Andric's website are most appropriate and beneficial. Most biographies will have links to their subject's official website (if they have one), and the same goes for many Nobel laureates. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Uploaded the photo. Is there anything I've overlooked, Ɱ? 23 editor (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@23 editor: Okay, thanks. I hope this'll make going to FA easier too. Passing. All the best, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't thinking of taking it to FA, but nonetheless, thanks for the comprehensive and thorough review. Best, 23 editor (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Books and Writers

• Petri Liukkonen. "Ivo Andrić". Books and Writers.

..Contains an extensive bio and bibliography. It keeps getting removed so adding it here for discussion and/or making it available for readers who seek additional sourcing. Notably, this Wikipedia article contains no list of works (bibliography) by the author. To fill in this gap the linked source contains a list of major works, plus a literary history. -- GreenC 17:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

"Croatia's literary establishment has distanced itself from Andrić's oeuvre"

This clause is far too contentious to be included in the intro as a fact. For example, it took me a single google search to find this article in Vijenac #482 (2012) - http://www.matica.hr/vijenac/482/Izazovan%20poziv%20na%20%C4%8Ditanje%20Andri%C4%87a%20/ - that tells a completely different story - saying he was omitted from being listed as part of Croatian literature both during Yugoslavia and after its breakup, based on the same kinds of strict nationalist views, but also that his rehabilitation started with the breakup. This is also what I remember from primary and secondary school education in Croatia. The discussion of this topic should also include more nuanced modern-day analyses such as the one at http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=98052 so it seems to me that these kinds of sweeping generalizations should definitely be removed from the intro as they would mislead readers about what's actually been going on in the last 25 years. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Andrić was undoubtedly a persona non grata during the Tuđman years, as stated in several sources. Examples:

• "Franjo Tuđman ... who promoted "blood and soil" narratives, against Slobodan Šnajder, Ugrešić, Drakulić and Ivo Andrić..." (Cornis-Pope et al. )
• "Primary targets were books written in the Cyrillic alphabet and books written by left-wing authors, Serbs, or pro-Yugoslavs, such as Ivan Cankar, Ivo Andrić..." (Vjekoslav Perica )

There's a few more, which I'll add if requested. However, if there has been a rehabilitation in the past 15 years, then I don't see why this evolution of opinions should not be included in the intro. Best, 23 editor (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Then the core issue is what is really meant by "literary establishment"? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made some adjustments. Feel free to expand on developments regarding Andrić in the past 15 years. The liberal, democratic left in Croatia obviously re-emerged following Tuđman's death (though the right is clearly experiencing something of a renaissance today) and I agree it would be unfair to present something from a decade-and-a-half ago as a modern occurrence. 23 editor (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

::Looks good, Joy, just add a page number if possible. 23 editor (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The journal has a print edition with a page number, but I only read the online version. So long as we don't mix up ISSNs of the two editions, we should be fine? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

False statement

This statement

According to the scholar Guido Snel, Serbs consider Andrić "one of the greatest non-Serb-born Serbs".[72]

is false. There are two sources proving the opposite

1977 William H. McNeill Canadian-American historian, Chicago University: "The family therefore lived poorly; and when the future writer was still an infant, his father died, leaving his peniless young widow to look after an only child. They went to live with her parents in Visegrad on the banks of the Drina, where the young Ivo grew up in an artisan family (his grandfather was a carpenter) playing on the bridge he was later to make so famous, and listening to tales about its origin and history which he used so skillfully to define the character of early Ottoman presence in that remote Bosnian town. The family was orthodox Christian, i.e. Serb; "

Source: Ivo Andric The Bridge on the Drina The University of Chicago Press, 1977 Introduction by William H. McNeil. pp. 3

1918 Ivo Vojnovic, Croatian writer: „Šaljem ti i djelo Ex ponto koje je probudilo veliku senzaciju. Pisac mladi Katolički Srbin iz Bosne, idealni mladić, Ivo Andrić, 26 god" Translation: "I'm sending the Ex ponto work to you, which (the work) was a great sensation. The writer is a young Catholic Serb, an ideal youth, Ivo Andrić, 26 year old"

Source: Profil profesionalnog čitatelja: čitateljske prakse Ive Vojnovića, Nada Topić, Sveučilište u Zadru, Poslijediplomski studij Društvo znanja i prijenos informacija link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zb11Ot2zS10J:hrcak.srce.hr/file/115521+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us pp. 13

--109.245.101.74 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added whole section to Serbian language version of this biography elaborating Andric's personal opinion about his ethnicity and perception of his ethnicity coming from scholars who were his friends or contemporaries.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the original source from Guido Snel saying "...non-Serb-born Serbs" or "...non Serbian-born Serbs"? FkpCascais (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Categorization based on nationality and ethnicity: errors and possible omissions

Nationality

Andrić was never of Croatian nationality, and never of Serbian nationality. In fact, that would have been impossible, as Croatian nationality did not exist until 1991, and Serbian nationality likewise did not exist while he lived in Belgrade. Evidently he should be removed from the following categories: Category:Croatian writers from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Category:Croatian Nobel laureates, Category:Croatian novelists, Category:Croatian writers, Category:Serbian novelists, Category:Serbian writers. Notrium (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity

However, there may be other issues here worth of discussion. As Andrić was both a Croat and a Serb (during different periods of his life: he renounced his Croatdom as a young man), and as the concepts of Croat writers and Serbian writers indeed seem plausibly notable, it may be worth it to add him to Category:Croat writers and Category:Serb writers (the exact category names are to be determined).

Please discuss under the relevant subsection ("Nationality" or "Ethnicity"). Notrium (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)