Talk:Ivan Gundulić/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Serbianization

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

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

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

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

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

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

Igor's edits

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

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

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

removed sentence

Removed from the article (regarding Serbian extreme nationalists):

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, he's a Croatian poet according to:
  • Britannica
  • Encarta
  • Great Soviet Encyclopedia
No Serbian connection is even mentioned by any of the three. --Elephantus 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for 1911 Britannica, it's questionable at best because it lumps all Dalmatian and Dubrovnik writers under "Servian", including Marko Marulić. The other source you cite, Columbia Encyclopedia, confirms him as a Croatian poet :-). The "genealogy" is basically just a Serb propaganda piece which takes an inocuous topic of Dubrovnik nobility and sprinkles "Serbian" adjectives every couple of sentences. Really, no serious non-nationalistic sources confirm this "Gundulić - a Serbian poet" thing. Sorry. --Elephantus 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
That is not true. It is an article written by professor of the Faculty of Philosophy in Kosovska Mitrovica Marko Atlagić for their magazine "Komunikacija". The article has 98 references. I'll be returning "Serbian" with the article as the reference. Nikola 09:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extremely small or vastly limited minority

Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder, says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection?

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

Serbian

Here are the sources stating that he was a Serb:

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

Voting

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

Supporting

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

Opposing

Comments regarding the voting

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

Serb or Croat

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

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

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

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

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

I'm with Elephantus here; claims on his Serb ethnicity (based on his ethnic origin?) look very weak to me -- sort of eugenics theories. Panonian has a point though, that Ragusans probably did not associate themselves with Croats at the time as well (when nations in today's sense barely existed), but they posthumously got associated with Croatian corpus with unification and later "by extension". It's questionnable what they would have told about it, but there's no way to ask them. Nevertheless, the article in its current state is fairly OK on the issue IMO. Duja 10:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK, unlike with Bošković, no actual claims of Serb ethnicity or ancestry are made about Gundulić. --Elephantus 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Except that there are eleven on this very talk page. Nikola 07:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

"100 most famous Serbs"?

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

A careful reader of the book will notice that the editorial board and the authors of the biographies did not always manage to avoid traps. For example, important figures who are not Serbs have been included in the book (Rudjer Boskovic and Ivan Dzivo Gundulic).
...
[after the discussion of the Bošković claim]...It is even less clear why Ivan Dzivo Gundulic has been included in the book. It is true that he was a poet with very deep feelings for the Slav and Yugoslav idea, but this is not enough to consider him a Serb.
...
Once we have allowed ourselves to be led by such reasons, there are no limits to the greedy appropriation of a cultural heritage which does not belong to the Serbs and Serbia, and never did. An ideological analogy with Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic's "liberating" strategy in Bosnia-Herzegovina comes to mind.

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

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

Mediation?

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

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

Merge

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

Serbian misappropriations

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

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

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

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

...and Croatian ones, if I may add

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Major rewritings

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

Political motives and some 19th century sources

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

Croatian?

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

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

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

Gundulic the Croat and an example of a brainwashed fellow

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

ROTFL... and the whole of Africa and especially Kongo was considered Serbian of black skin which was unequivocally presented in literary works and everyday life. All Europe is Serbia LOL What kind of drugs are you using? Zenanarh (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Medically prescribed but obviously yours aren't working to the same calming and rational cerebral effect. Your debilical blabber doesn't deminish the truth but it does (even further if that's humanly possible) YOUR PATHETIC MINDSET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.248.186 (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Death to the Croatian imperialist fascistoid catholic Ustaše mafia!! Defend the Serbian coastline!! Dubrovnik, Split, Zadar, Rijeka, Trst, Venecija, Ankona and Bari!! :P xD --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Srbija do Tokija!!! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The strategy of the Chetnik Cabal here in Wikipedia is the following: if any Serbo-Croatian-speaker intellectual or scientist from the Balkans is famous and well-regarded, he or she is certainly an ethnic Serb somehow; he or she is only regarded as a Croat or as a Bosniak if he or she can be negativelly related somehow to Ustasha or to Islamist ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.101.178 (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Mate, but it's just the way it is. ;-) --Darko Maksimović (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Дарко Максимовић (talk • contribs)

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

Matija Ban and Ivo Stojanovic on Ivan Gundulic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same edit warring.

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

Here is an excerpt from an argument above:

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

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

Nationality of Dubrovnik by Gundulic contemporary historian

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

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

Curiosities

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

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

It became part of Croatia since the first Croats settled there in the 6th and 7th century. Dubrovnik (and even great part of modern-day Montenegro) was part of Duchy of Croatia as well as Kingdom of Croatia. Today, Dubrovnik is part of modern Croatia, it was never part of Serbia at all. And remember, Dubrovnik is the city you bombed in 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldonium (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Serbian lies

So what if Serbs consider him to be a Serbian writer? This is supossed to be an encyclopedia not Serbian mythology novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.239.216 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ivan Gundulić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivan Gundulić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments

NPOV

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

Ahem... the vast majority of sources describe him as a Croatian author. Maybe we can go with "Serbo-Croatian author".. Still, that would open the "Dubrovnikans are Catholic Serbs" can of worms. I don't think a 1993(!) Serbian publication should be taken seriously at all. -- Director (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Croatian author according to linguistic criteria I presume. Croatian nation didn't exist then, and to my knowledge Gundulić never declared him self Croat, and neither did the majority the Old Dubrovnikan writers. There are 10x more attestations for them calling themselves and their language Slavic, Illyrian and similar ethnically neutral or regional terms. I would support using Serbo-Croatian as the term for the language of Gundulić's writings throughout the article, and adding the section explaining the position of modern Serbian and Croatian scholarship on the affiliation of his works. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
And round and round we go....we really didn't have enough of these "discussions" over the years so let's go there once again... Shokatz (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@You're right on all points as usual, Ivan, but you're forgetting that to draw conclusions from said points would be OR. For what I have seen, the idea that he is a "Serbian" author is easily fringe in English-language sources. Naturally its only his Catholicism that has caused him to be referred to as a "Croat", but uh, the sources are what they are. -- Director (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't discriminate sources by language. It doesn't matter how many English and/or Croatian language sources treat Gundulić as a Croatian writer. The position of SANU and Matica srpska is quite clear and consistent on this for the last 20 years and cannot be ignored. It's a POV just as valid as any other. It's not fringe because it's supported by a major and important institution, so it must be taken into consideration. NPOV treatment is by definition a kind of "original research" - if all of the sources on the topic are biased (which is usually the case when we're dealing with an obscure topic from the Balkans), then it's up to wiki editors to determine what constitutes neutral wording. 1911 Britannica treats Gundulić as Serbian which is indicative that at least during/up to the early 20th century in English-speaking world Gundulić was in fact treated as Serbian. Later came the Yugoslav and Serbo-Croatian era - and all of the exclusively-Croatian sources are 1990s+. Implying in the article that Gundulić is exclusively Croatian (by language and/or nationality), while ignoring the position of Serbian sources and pre-1990s English sources would to be seem a major POV violation. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd be fine with us noting the position of SANU, as long as we have a good source for it and don't disregard the fact that the vast majority of the sources do indeed refer to him as Croatian. Including encyclopedias. The lead has to be written in accordance with that; it will take a lot more than Serbian-nationalist ramblings alone for me to agree that we need to introduce any ambiguity with regard to "Croatian writer". I don't hold SANU nonsense in any higher regard than HAZU. -- Director (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this completely. I don't have anything against presenting this in a separate section of the article but in a proper context. And while HAZU (or YAZU as it was known) may be bad sometimes they cannot even be compared to some of the SANU publications which go so far by even proclaiming entire nations as: "Catholic Serbs", "Muslim Serbs", "Southern Serbs", etc. Shokatz (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

So I am not the only one who noticed this. I've seen him present this view several times. Apparently overwhelming number of Croatian and even neutral English-language (and other) sources seem to be discarded simply because the mentioned user sees them as "Croatian-centric POV" and then he cites Serbian propaganda machine that is SANU as a "source which cannot be ignored". Yet that same SANU published a memorandum and several propaganda publications over the past two-three decades which basically claims the Shtokavian dialect is exclusively "Serbian" and that any speaker or writer is thus also "Serbian". Never mind the fact that during the time of Gundulic Serbs used the so-called "Slavo-Serbian" language which had no connection at all with what was to become modern-Serbian standard or the Shtokavian dialect in general. That is ignored. Gundulic and all other writers from Dubrovnik wrote in that specific regional dialect, both that town and speakers of that dialect opted to be included in Croatia and Croatian nation, both are today part of modern-day Croatia and Croatian nation. To claim Gundulic is "Serbian" is either a paradox - since he cannot be just removed like that from the entire Dubrovnik literature or a wider literary circle that is Dalmatia (considered part of Croatian literature); or it is a offensive propaganda in disguise - since what it basically says citizens of Dubrovnik (and Dalmatia) are basically some sort of brainwashed Serbs who forgot they are Serbs. The entire premise of Gundulic as a "Serbian writer" lies thus in two major falsifications: 1. Shtokavian dialect is exclusively Serbian and 2. Gundulic wrote about some Serbian rulers and battles and thus "he must have been Serbian". Shokatz (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what else SANU published, or what their agenda is. National and ethnic affiliations don't really "exist" except as a part of culture, which is entirely imaginary and subject change and reinterpretation. If the highest official Serbian cultural institutions SANU and Matica srpska treat Gundulić as a Serbian writer, it's not in any way different from the highest Croatian cultural institution HAZU and Matica hrvatska treating Gundulić as a Croatian writer. You're Croatian so it's understandable that you have personal personal preference for Croatian institutions, and their particular interpretation of ancient history. But English Wikipedia is driven by NPOV principles which take precedence over either of these particular interpretations. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what are you talking about but we have a large and overwhelming majority of non-Croatian and non-Serbian third party (English or otherwise) sources treating him as a Croatian writer. So it's not really a conflict between HAZU and SANU as you are trying to present it here. It's basically a fringe theory based on a propaganda nationalist machine which not only claims Gundulic but entire nations and their history. WP:FRINGE is not WP:NPOV. Shokatz (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
SANU, Matica srpska and pre-1990s English sources are not "fringe". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually they are. We have overwhelming number of third party English and other language sources clearly identifying him as a "Croatian writer" as opposed to those two Serbian institution and Britannica 1911 edition which quoted those institutions directly while Croatia was still subordinated to Austria-Hungary. Fringe theories should be mentioned but should not be given undue weight. Shokatz (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Fringe theory means non-mainstream theory, pseudoscience that is nothing considered worthy of consideration by mainstream scholarship. This is hardly the case with the notion of Ivan Gundulić being a Serbian Writer. Britannica was the most eminent encyclopedia in the world at the time, and theories listed in it are anything but fringe. Position by SANU and Matica srpska are anything but fringe, if anything due to the visibility and high profile of those major institutions. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The claim about Gundulic as a "Serbian writer" is exactly that - a non-mainstream, pseudo-scientific nationalist quackery. Funny you should say Britannica "was" the most eminent encyclopedia, but it seems now it isn't anymore...why? Because it corrected itself and listed Gundulic properly as a Croatian writer? Or is there some other reason? SANU high profile? Yes, maybe in their nationalist ramblings perhaps...give me a break... Shokatz (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem with nationalists such as yourself is that they believe that their own particular interpretation of history is the "truth", and the rest is pseudoscience, nationalist quackery etc. But believe it or not many others think the same - of you. If you think that the position of SANU and Matica srpska is pseudoscience, you should try finding reliable sources that say so, because it would be very interesting addition to their respective articles. Which of course you can't. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
And there it is...in lack of arguments he adheres to ad hominem and blatantly labels me as a "nationalist, and in a most slanderous fashion I must add. I would suggest you calm down Amigo. This is pseudo-science because it has no basis in any serious scientific research and represents a huge minority view either discarded or ignored by all third party sources. I suggest you go around various different Wikipedia language versions, you will see that on all of them Gundulic is considered a Croatian writer as does the Britannica, Columbia, and numerous other sources, literary historians, encyclopedias, etc. Shokatz (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that these source that discard them are all Croatian, as are you. You keep insisting that only Croatian source are "true", while at the same time belittling anything coming from Serbian scholars. If that is no nationalism what is it? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
So to you these sources are Croatian? Gundulić, Ivan Ivan Gundulić | Croatian author YUL Slavic & East European Collection: Croatian Collection: Literature I was unaware Columbia University, Yale University and Encyclopedia Britannica are Croatian institutions.... Shokatz (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Other encyclopedias are not considered reliable sources, and if you look more closely you're notice that authors of those articles are Croatian. As for Britannica - for more than a century it listed Gundulić as a Serbian poet - this proves if anything that 1) such views are not fringe 2) that shift Serbian->Croatian is something relatively recent. Far from fringe, minority view and so on. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Who says other encyclopedia's are not reliable source? You? Also you just previously said that only Croatian sources discard and yet here you confirm the fact Britannica discarded that view. Hilarious... Shokatz (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
See WP:RS. Tertiary sources are not reliable. Especially sources written by ethnic Croatians on topics that deal with contentious issues that involve Croatiandom. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You are reading it wrong agian. WP:RS specifically refers to other Wikipedia articles as unreliable, the only thing it says about other encyclopedias is that they shouldn't be used in place for secondary sources in detailed discussion i.e. in elaboration of complex issues. More specifically it is stated on WP:TERTIARY: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Now unless I am mistaken Encyclopedia Britannica is definitely a reliable tertiary source. BTW "Croatiandom" is not a proper word in English language. ;) Shokatz (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Secondary sources alway take precedence over tertiary sources. Tertiary sources are unreliable (except for uncontroversial topics) and should always be replaced by secondary sources, and never for controversial issues, especially in place of compilations of scholarly opinions. It's more of a guidance, how the encyclopedic article article should look like.
I deliberately coined Croatiandom in lieu of Croatdom - this "ethnic" morpheme Croat bugs me (as opposed to non-ethnic Croatian). It's a superb coinage you must admit. English language lends itself nicely to inquisitive minds. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Not always, tertiary source (if reliable) are perfectly valid when provided for summary information as they are summaries themselves. All I saw on WP:RS and WP:TERTIARY is that Wikipedia articles itself are considered unreliable as sources. And I am so glad you think so highly of you. :) Shokatz (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No, they can be used as a model for a summary birds-eye treatment of the topic, but should not be used as sources themselves. For specific contentious issues such as the nationality or ethnicity of a person, their blanket statements are useless. Using 1911 Britannica as a reference that G is a Serbian author is just as useless as using 2014 B to claim that he is a Croatian author. [Such divergence of opinions only confirms that all of the theories on G's ethnicity are BS, but that's just my HO]. Such topics need to be covered in a more detailed manner using secondary sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
So you just basically stated tertiary sources should not be used as sources. Interesting interpretation. Stop making imaginary rules, neither WP:RS nor WP:TERTIARY say anything similar. The non-reliability part is exclusively referring to other Wikipedia articles. Shokatz (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No they shouldn't. I myself recently received a warning from an admin on my talkpage for using Croatian encyclopedia as a source. Tertiary sources are unreliable and should be avoided. That's what wiki guidelines say, but their conclusion somehow escapes you. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
But Croatia didn't exist as a country back then. Gundulić couldn't have been Croat or Croatian when neither existed, and couldn't have written in Croatian language when it didn't existed back then. And - to my knowledge - there are no records of him either claiming to be Croatian, or writing in a language called Croatian. Furthermore, his works are today treated as a part of Serbian literature, and according to some historians there is evidence that was in fact ethnic Serb - beside the abovementioned book that Direktor dismisses for unclear reasons - simple Google Books search yields even more evidence. So Ivan Gundulić should be treated the same way as Roger Joseph Boscovich - he was a writer from Dubrovnik etc. with a section similar to Competing claims for Bošković's nationality as the article on Boscovich has. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe he dissmissed that book because it is written by a Serbian author who makes a unverifiable and unsourced claim of the supposed Gundulic's (and Boskovic's) "Serbian origin"? Just a thought...
Also referring to the section at Boskovic article, you will notice that the it is highly dominated and supplanted with the references for the Croatian and Italian claims, but the the part about his "Serbian origin" is still to this day unsourced and will remain as such because it is completely nonsensical and baseless. Also saying Croatia didn't existed during Gundulic's life is fallacious and misleading, Croatia didn't exist as a sovereign nation, it was part of Habsburg Monarchy, fighting a long war with the Turks which reduced it to, as it is referred in Croatian history, "remains of the remains". Dubrovnik Republic itself was a Ottoman vassal. And your stance on the existence or non-existence of Croatian language is already known. Gundulic as part of Serbian literature is nothing but a ridiculous joke, not only his dialect was virtually unknown in what was to become Serbia nor did he write of subjects relevant or known to Serbian historiography. He belongs in the Dubrovnik and in a wider sense into a Dalmatian and Croatian literary circle. Shokatz (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
As opposed to Croatian authors who all without a shred of evidence ascribe ethnic and linguistic affiliation of Old Ragusan authors as "Croatian"? Just a thought..
I've cited Boscovich's ethnic Serbian origin claim per link above.
I'm aware of the Croatia-part-of-another-country-theory and the related (mostly imagined) historical narrative. But that in no way invalidates the claim that Croatian nation as such didn't exist. Ancient writers declared themselves and their language as Slavic, Dalmatian, Illyrian and similar regional terms. Every kid in primary school in Croatia knows that the period of buđenje nacionalne svijesti ("awakening of national consciousness") only started in late 19th century. (Bonus points for you if you answer: Why did all those Croats and Serbs needed to be "awakened" if they were Croatians and Serbians in the first place?).
Look, if you guys think of Matica srpska and SANU as a "joke" - that's your opinion. They are the highest cultural institutions in Serbia. We cannot give prominence only to Croatian sources, and everyone must be treated equally. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I have already addressed all these issues. First Boscovich claim is unverifiable and dubious, based on oral tradition and questionable "sources". The existence of the claim is not questioned at all, but on what it is based. Second, those writers you talk about often referred to those same qualifications of their language synonymous with Croatian...Dubrovnik writers included. Explain to me how can Gundulic be "Serbian" according to those people but say other Dubrovnik writers are not, or say writers like Kacic Miosic and Relkovic who also wrote in the same dialect? You cannot take one writer from a certain literary circle and claim he is part of some other imaginary literary tradition. And let me ask you a counter-question on the "awakening" issue, you claim there was no Croatian language before 19th century (or even going so far to claim that the literary contribution made on the very same area of modern-day Croatia has nothing to do with the term "Croatian")...what language did the Croats speak, or by your logic, the people who will "become" Croats?
I do think that "claims" made by those Serbian institutions are a joke as they have no basis in anything and are nothing but laughable propaganda. You obviously don't understand what is WP:FRINGE. Minority views should be presented in a proper manner and should not be given undue weight. Especially when they are of questionable verifiability. Shokatz (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It's very simple really - Gundulić is neither Serbian nor Croatian. He wrote in Shtokavian dialect which is spoken by four modern nations (Serbians, Croatians, Bosniaks and Montenegrins) so his simultaneously part of all of their "national" literatures. At that time Croatian national identity didn't exist as such, and was only developed a few centuries later. So everyone has a right to call Old Ragusan writers as theirs (as well as every other Shtokavian-writer).
Modern-day Croats speak several languages which are not mutually intelligible - various dialects of Shtokavian, Kajkavian and Chakavian dialect clusters (narječja). Modern standard Croatian is based on Neoštokavian Ijekavian subdialect, which is also used for modern standard Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin. That particular subdialect of Shtokavian dialect clusters is multiethnic in origin, even though Serbian and Croatian nationalist often emphasize some kind of exclusivity to their own ethnicity. But even cursory look to historical sources proves otherwise. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but that just isn't and cannot be true. Gundulic can be only part of two literary traditions: 1. Croatian literary tradition (as part of his own regional Dubrovnik literary circle) and 2. due to that as part of the wider "Serbo-Croatian" literature. He in no case can be considered as part of national Serbian, Montenegrin or Bosnian literature since he had absolutely nothing in common with those respective countries and their literary traditions. As for your "answer" ... Shtokavian dialect itself is divided into several sub-division, each specific for certain area of it's dialectal continuum. Now if you are going to preach me some unitary Shtokavian BS you will fall on "deaf ears"...even during the Yugoslavia there were two clear distinctive variant: western (Croatian) and eastern (Serbian). Shokatz (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Look, I doesn't matter what you personally think on which literary tradition Gundulić belongs to. All of your arguments are basically retroactive-geographic-historical - which is fine, but just as valid as Shtokavian-linguistic/ethnic argument by SANU, Matica srpska and Serbian scholars. Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires us to treat Ivan Gundulić in a neutral fashion, i.e. representing both of those POV as equally valid. Which means as either both Croatian and Serbian writer, or neither. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
And I already said that I don't care what you personally think about what my arguments "are". Serbian claim is an extremely minority view (read: unsupported in scientific circles), giving it undue weight and equalizing it with the dominant view would be considered fringe theory. It is dubious at best. Shokatz (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what fringe theory is. Opinoins of SANU and Matica srpska are by definition not fringe theories - they're high-visibility institutions, and their works reflect a consensual of opinions of many (hundreds) of scholars. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
They represent a minority view. I suggest you actually read up on WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. Shokatz (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Minority view according to whom? Do you have a reliable source that specifically says that? We have hundreds or books and papers published for centuries that treat Gundulić and other Ragusan writers as Serbian. From 19th century, early 20th century to today. It's anything but "fringe". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It is a minority view according to modern historiography and the overwhelming number of scholarly sources present. If that was the case as you say we wouldn't have the prime institutions, such as the ones I mentioned in the other reply, treating him as a Croatian writer, mentioning nothing about his supposed "Serbdom". Shokatz (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Shokatz, you and your minority views... :) You need to learn you can't just proclaim those things without explicit support. As I said, include the opinion of SANU, but don't change "Croatian writer" without much stronger support than Serbian "you're all Serbs!" wwartime propaganda... -- Director (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This guy is worse than you 10x. :) I agree with you nevertheless, I have no problems it being included in the article, it's something completely different to claim Gundulic is now all of a sudden "Serbian writer". Next they'll claim Marko Marulic...in fact I think I read such a claim some time ago... ;) Shokatz (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
If that is that case then I'm sure that you can find some sources for that statement, because it would be an interesting addition to this article as well as others. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I'll provide you with the sources just when you provide me the sources stating there is ambiguity by modern historiography on this issue. Shokatz (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The burden of evidence is up to you not me. Your argument is analogous when religious people say "Give me the evidence that god does not exist!". We have reliable sources from Serbian side, if you have evidence which discredit them give them - otherwise goodbye. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually the burden of proof is on you since it is you who challenges the long standing "status quo" version and is trying to introduce something new in the article. WP:BURDEN - read it. Shokatz (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the status quo? Where is it written and by whom? Sources please. No sources = no argument. WP:BURDEN doesn't matter - I always explain my position when I edit/remove controversial content. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Status quo is the state of the article before you removed content on dubious claims. It doesn't matter who wrote it and when, only thing that matters is when someone is introducing new content or advocating to do so (as you do) the burden of proof is on that person. This is also the second time you stated Wikipedia policies don't apply or don't matter to you. Also what you did here is considered WP:CANVASSING...not that the person in question can help you anyway since he is topic banned from all Balkan-related article User talk:Slovenski Volk. Obviously you have a desire to join him. ;) Shokatz (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
As I said - if I remove or rewrite disputed content I always give my reasons (the "proof") in summaries or talkpages. That they run contrary to your beliefs is not my problem. I didn't canvass that editor - I merely asked him for an advice on a completely unrelated issue, because I'm becoming annoyed at all of the time wasted discussing trivial issues with nationalists, and unschooling the government propaganda... Hxseek is one of the rare NPOV editors here. Surely you must sympathize with my noble efforts. It's like with those discussions you have with pro-Serbian editors - but with you on the other side of the argument! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I am still waiting for that "proof" on the ambiguity of Ivan Gundulic that you advocate here. This is not about "my beliefs", this is about you trying to impose WP:FRINGE. And whatever your intention was with "Hxseek" or "Slovenski Volk" (or whatever his account name is), what you did there is a blatant canvassing...especially indicated by the first sentence. All I have to say about that is: next time I see you do that, I will report you. I am not interested in what you consider "noble efforts" or anything regarding you or your opinions. Shokatz (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You are going to report me for what? You are a Croatian nationalist pushing Croatian POV from cherry-picked Croatian-only sources, and and I push for NPOV treatment. I'm still waiting for the sources that SANU and Matica srpska are fringe opinions. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This will be my 2nd and last warning to you. Continue with your blatant WP:PA and you will be reported. I will remind that this article falls well within the scope of WP:ARBMAC. Shokatz (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Where exactly do you see personal attacks? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk,You are calling people wo try to oppose to you nationalists.But what are you doing here on wikipedia?For you every Croat who thinks different than you is a Croatian fascist and nationalist.But what are you doing here?Just rewriting everything to "SerboCrotian".All you are saying for 24/7 is that Croatia didn't exist back than..Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz is listed as German mathematician but as far as i knoe Germany didn't exist in that period.Also in that time modern Germans didn't called themselves Germans back than.But he is German mathematician.So try to calm and try not to impose yout things in articles when alot of people oppose to you.You will do anything in your powere just to connect word "Serb" or "Serbian" with the word Croatian or Croat.Why don't you for example change Serbian articles where it is said "Serbian language" intto "SerboCroatian" i'm interested?Is it because you are "Croat"?(Maybe in your Id you are but i doubt you consider yoursef a Croat).I also don't think we should put everywhere that something is just Croatian,Serbian,Bosnian or so on but what you are doing is simply too much.For you Yale University and moder Britannica are not good sources but 1911 Britannica is.For you all Dubrovnik people are Serbians and to support that you are giving us the link of "A legal Geography of Yugoslavia's Disintegration" by author ANA TRBOVICH who is a Serbian writer working at Oxford?!?I think my dear friend that you are mentally ill and tottaly lost your mind.Scrosby85 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ivan is correct in his approach and correct in pointing out the Serbian position. He has not, however, in my view, shown there is any sort of serious debate as to the ethnicity of IG. Sources generally describe him as "Croatian", even if Serbian sources disagree. -- Director (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
First, stop calling me "mentally ill" and other personal attacks. I think of nationalism as a form of mental illness yet I restrain myself and don't call you and others loons.
Second, the only relevant question is: Is Gundulić together with other Old Ragusan writers classified as a part of Serbian literature or not. It is. There is no reason why he couldn't be classified as both Croatian and Serbian. These two don't mutually contradict each other. There are countless other biographies that a person classified as both Serbian X and Croatian X. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting position, considering your previous edits, I would point out one edit in particular found here, that was back in 2010. I found other activity of yours on this article and yet you found nothing contentious within the article, in fact you reinforced it until a few days ago...now all of a sudden you've got a revelation. Shokatz (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not edit or view articles in some specific order. When I see obvious POV-pushing I obviously try to correct. My motivations don't matter ultimately. What matters is NPOV which you ignore. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice catch Shokatz.So he reverted Serbian users who were writing that he was Serbian poet into Croatian poet.So back then he was Croatian nationalist i suppose(he is calling us like this because people oppose to him) cause he was reverting it to Croatian?Interesting to see that back then that was not Croatian POV Scrosby85 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Gundulić is claimed by both Serbian literature historians and Croatian literature historians. Why do you ignore Serbian side? They do not matter? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all i'm sorry that i said that you are mentally ill but i would say that to anyone else who would act in this histeric way like you do sometimes.Second,I think in this case they don't matter yes.Because there are numerous English sources who identify Gundulic as Croatian.There are less sources claiming he is Serbian apart from your 1911 Britannica.Main sources which describe him as Serbian are Serbian.Gundulic's works are taught on Croatian universities as part of Croatian literature, exams and so on.And in schools without any problems..Osman for example is not part of Serbian literature in schools.Gundulic is still on a 50 Croatian kunas currency.I saw you somewhere talking about president Vukosanovic from Matica srpska who said that Serbia can claim whole Dubrovnik because his writers wrote on Štokavian dialect?!?!So Croats can claim Serbian and Bosnian literature,Serbs Bosnian and Croatian and Bosnians Croatian and Serbian?Of course they all write and speak Štokavian so everyone can claim what they want. Scrosby85 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected

I've protected the article in its current version please discuss the issues involved in the talk page. If there is a consensus for a change please use the {{edit protected}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The version protected represents only Croatian POV. Edits by User:Shokatz should have been undone first. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Well that's entirely your fault for not edit-warring fast enough, isn't it? :)
I tend to agree with Ivan's version here... except that I would retain "Croatian author". I'm also always against listing "Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, etc. etc.". Would you consent to "Serbo-Croatian" as the language? Its got "Serbian" and "Croatian" in it! Yay.. -- Director (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I would tend to advocate removal of language from the infobox completely (something Scrosby85 suggested and did here) since it is completely superfluous and his opus is already discussed within the article itself. For the so-called nationality previously it stated Ragusan which does make sense since he was a citizen of Republic of Ragusa. This seems to have been changed in October 2011 and has been in the article since then. This is basically the only Ivan's change I actually support and I personally would remove both categories from the infobox. Shokatz (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
What edits of mine? You mean this? I have reverted you and several other users before a full blown-out edit war to a earlier version of the article, you know the same version you supported and reinforced here. Shokatz (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You also "inadvertently" removed the NPOV tag which I added, i.e. completely ignored my arguments and reverted to a version that was disputed. There was no edit war AFAICS - only coordinated attacks by nationalists who try to outnumber dissenters. You're a POV pusher that needs to be forbidden from editing this article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thankfully, you don't get to decide who gets to edit what pages. That comment was uncalled for. As for your POV pusher comments, it reminds me of the quote that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.--Jesuislafete (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't agree to removing the language entry from the infobox - because the man was a writer. "Serbo-Croatian" seems to me the best choice.
  • Ragusans are not a nationality. I think I have to insist on "Croatian writer/author" per the sources.

-- Director (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to his "nationality" in the infobox. He was citizen of Republic of Ragusa/Dubrovnik and thus he had their citizenship. The lead would still say he is the Croatian author, per sources. Shokatz (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I understood you were referring to. "Ragusan" is not a "nationality".. nor am I entirely sure there was such a thing as "citizenship" in the modern sense in the Republic, at least not at that time (but be that as it may). Using the "meta-language" is I think a reasonable concession given teh whole Serbian business, and the fact that on Wiki its all the same thing anyway.. -- Director (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I was just making a point there, however I do tend to agree with you. As far as I am concerned there is no issue with the language but on how this author is treated in majority (mainly English and other) of sources. BTW a small note, there is a section on WP:NPOVN regarding this issue Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Shokatz (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
If there is no issue with the language then why did you delete Serbian language and category and only left Croatian language and category? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Stop picking fights.. if you do it what am I supposed to keep myself busy with? -- Director (talk)
In my only edit I have removed both and left "Serbo-Croatian" (see here), now if you refer to the last edit, I reverted both you and other editors who were about to start edit-warring with you. The page was reverted to the last version before you started this whole thing. Now stop being so tedious... Shokatz (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
That version has been up for years when the issue first came up. I am not against people editing but they need to bring sources to back up their claims. So far, I have seen none. --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we agreed on Ivan's version +Serbo-Croatian +Croatian writer/author? Can I request an unblock? -- Director (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure to what version are you referring to. His version was removal of "Croatian" from the opening lead, adding the category of "Serbian poets" and changing the name of language to "Serbo-Croatian". The only thing I can agree with is the language part. The question is, do you agree with his version? I don't see a credible source which would support the addition of adding him into Serbian poets when he had nothing with Serbia, not even being born on the territory of what is today Serbia. I also don't see any source considering him as such as opposed to Britannica, Columbia, Yale University, The European Library and so on and on. Even looking at some glancing searches on Google shows these results Ivan Gundulic "Croatian poet" -wikipedia ca. 5,210 results Ivan Gundulic "Serbian poet" -wikipedia ca. 145 results. BTW I am not an admin so you can request anything you want, it's not me who decides these things. ;) Shokatz (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
"+Croatian writer/author".. -- Director (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. Per overwhelming majority of sources. Shokatz (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Its not an issue of majority so much that I've not seen that a dispute even exists... -- Director (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before, I guess it's that time of year again: Gundulic was not born in Serbian territory, he did not write in the Serbian language or script, he does not come from a Serbian family/ancestry or Orthodox religion (sidenote: I know there are exceptions in every case, however this is not one of them.) I know that normally "Serbo-Croatian" is used so Wikipedia articles would not be bogged down with Bosnian,Croatian,Serbian,Montenegrin, but that is inappropriate in this context. On modern day pages it works but not on historical characters or works. He is not associated with Serbia or being Serbian anywhere else but on the Serbian Wikipedia page. Just because Croatian or Illyrian language as many then called it, was not yet standardized, does not mean that it didn't exist. --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian is used because, on Wikipedia - that's the language, whereas the others are variants. By rights it should be used all the time, but nobody wants to bother with every nationalist in the Balkans... If the Serbian academy considers him a part of Serbian literature, to me that's reason enough to put SC in there and solve these problems at least in part. There's not much difference, because - click on Serbian or Croatian, and you get "its Serbo-Croatian". -- Director (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
That is dangerous territory to go to "if the Serbian academy considers him a part of Serbian literature..." I would not trust anything the Serbian Academy says anymore than the Croatian Academy on something to do with Balkan nationality. If we take that as precedent, than the Serbian president calling Vukovar a Serbian city would be good enough for Wikipedia. More on the matter, I think everyone can agree by reading the original works that Gundulic's writing were the Croatian variant of "Serbo-Croatian", so what is wrong with declaring that? Serbo-Croatian is not a term used much anymore since the dissolution of Yugoslavia and given that Croatian and Serbian are recognized as individual languages . Honest question: do most people see Gundulic's writing as Serbo-Croatian only to placate the edit warring? Would you agree that Gundulic wrote in the Croatian variant? --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not a matter of trust but of collecting encyclopedically relevant facts. SANU and Matica srpska are sufficiently notable institutions whose publications reflect a consensual opinion of hundreds of scholars, and have merit by that fact alone.
If Serbian president calls Vukovar a Serbian city, and that mentioning sufficiently "stirs the pot" - e.g. is picked up by the media, commented by politicians blah blah, then it should be added, presumably as a controversy to the article [[Vukovar]].
Serbo-Croatian is a term used on English Wikipedia to reflect a linguistic reality that many speakers of Serbo-Croatian are unable to admit, mostly due to systematic brainwashing by government education. It's synonymous the the less "controversial" (I'm using quotation marks because Serbo-Croatian itself is not controversial for vast majority of English speakers) term BCS.
The language that Gundulić wrote in is Shtokavian dialect, with absolutely zero ethnically exclusively Croatian characteristics. There are many prominent Serbian writers from Dubrovnik, and Dubrovnik city and area is surrounded by non-Croatian residents, and their language is certainly not different from that of Gundulić. Ethnic definition of a language nowadays is largely a Balkans phenomena and is not shared by the rest of the world. It's the same language that has every right to be called either Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, or Serbo-Croatian for that matter.
International, English-speaking reader is not bothered by psychological issues which preclude grouping Gundulić together with Meša Selimović, Ivo Andrić or Miloš Crnjanski, and is keener to see articles represent factual reality rather than the reality filtered through an ethnic lens. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
But Serbo-Croatian is not a language used in any country today, it was standardized in the 19th century and according to it's own Wikipedia page. It does not matter if Shtokavian is not exclusively used by Croatians, you cannot use that as justification to deny the Croatian language it's status. When you say:
"Serbo-Croatian is a term used on English Wikipedia to reflect a linguistic reality that many speakers of Serbo-Croatian are unable to admit, mostly due to systematic brainwashing by government education". What proof do you have to support this statement? Can you direct me to a consensus reached on English Wikipedia that Serbo-Croatian must replace all forms of Croatian and Serbian? And provide a source for this "brainwashing? As for this: "Ethnic definition of a language nowadays is largely a Balkans phenomena and is not shared by the rest of the world" do you have a source for this as well? I did not know that Croatian and Serbian were once again being called one. And again, what sources do you have that Gundulic was a Serbo-Croatian writer versus Croatian? There have been numerous sources calling him a Croatian writer writing in an early form of the Croatian language. --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In order to get some consensus, is there a mass edit going around switching "Croatian" and "Serbian" to "Serbo-Croatian" on Wikipedia? Was there some great discussion and agreement to this anywhere? Has Croatian Wiki been consulted? --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Croatians reject the "Greater Serbian" agenda of the SANU and the "Greater Serbian ideologues" that are a part of it. As for the Serbian Academy being so reputable, it is nice to hear prominent members of such a noble organization saying this such as this: “Po mom dubokom uvjerenju, zajednički život Hrvata i Srba nije moguć. Ako ne možemo živjeti zajedno, onda je najbolje da izdvojimo dijelove Hrvatske u kojima je većinsko srpsko stanovništvo.” Certainly doesn't sound like someone who does not have nationalistic tendencies and Greater Serbian agenda behind him! --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

HAZU has fair share of its controversies as well, as well as pretty much any of the world's national academy, but that doesn't mean it's position is not notable in other subjects. Your insistence on excluding the position of SANU/Matica srpska on Gundulić on the basis of their historical political affiliations seems rather unjustifiable. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If you think that the institutions dubious members do not warrant criticism on their objectivity, that is quite alarming. The fact that a prominent member says things like this: "In my opinion, Croats and Serbs living together is not possible. If we cannot live together, then it is best that we separate the parts of Croatia in which Serbs are a majority population" (translation of quote above.) Then the inclusion of such "facts" need to include the response from Croatia of the "Greater Serbian agenda" of SANU. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
There were discussions like this before. Needless to say, all were utterly pointless. The ethnicity of Nikola Tesla, Novak Djokovic, Ivo Andric and at least a dozen of other notable people from that part of Europe have been brought to question. There is just no evidence that Gundulic ever considered himself a Serb, Catholic Serb, or explicitly Croatian for that matter, nor did he write in what is now a linguistically codified Serbo-Croatian language with regional variants; the language that did not come to be for another couple of centuries after Gundulic's death. Just as Ivo Andric, Nikola Tesla and Novak Djokovic are now considered Yugoslavian, American and Serbian respectively, even if they indeed were/are all of mixed stock, should Gundulic remain a citizen of Republic of Ragusa who wrote and spoke in "Ragusan language" or Ragusan dialect which coincides with either, now extinct Dalmatian, Vulgar Latin and/or older variant of modern Croatian language; neither of which are even remotely mutually intelligible with what is now Serbo-Croatian. ProKro (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Protection

From September 21 onward, there has been a renewed edit war about the lead of this article. I have fully protected for one month and urge the editors to seek agreement here on the talk page. An WP:RFC is one way to easily find out which people are in support of particular wording. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

These pretty sourced and clarifying two sentences were deleted without reasonable explanation: Per Slobodan Drakulic, professor of sociology at Ryerson University, the modern Croatian nationalism has as his antecedent a pre-modern Croatian nationalism, which was a 16-17th cent. indigenous social phenomenon. One of its representatives was Gundulić. For more: Slobodan Drakulic (2008) Premodern Croatian Nationalism?, in "Nationalism and Ethnic Politics," 14:4, 523-548, DOI: 10.1080/13537110802473308. Of course, they may be shortened or changed but their full deletion is not acceptable. In this way, the Ethnicity section is unbalanced, and one of its two contradicting views, became much longer then the other. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest the lead of the Ethnicity section to be based on published after 1990 non-Yugoslav, non-Serbian and non-Croat reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) for weighting and article structure and to determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, we need to consult the following sources in order:
- Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
- Historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
- Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews
- Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography
- Signed articles in authoritative encyclopaedias that are aimed at a scholarly public. Jingiby (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This has already been done in the past and the conclusion is simple, he is considered Croatian writer. Shokatz (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Then, what is the problem to espouse such neutral views into the intro of the section, because NPOV and their significant weight? Jingiby (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
What exactly would you consider "NPOV" when all the sources refer to him as Croatian writer...yet the person who fails to appear in this talk page and is nothing but a known troll and POV-pusher forces this: " In Croatia, Gundulić is considered to be the most notable Croatian Baroqoe poet, while in Serbia he is seen as an integral part of Serbian literature." Let's be direct, he is considered to be a notable Croatian Baroque poet period and ONLY in Serbia he is considered an integral part of Serbian literature. And that is where the entire problem lies...the editor who pushes this crap is a Serbian nationalist edit-warrior and POV-pusher, a person who should be banned from Wikipedia in all honesty looking at how he regularly gets involved in edit wars on numerous articles. Shokatz (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That was not the conclusion, it is simply not true, just wishful thinking. I am rather busy with a bunch of real life work and have no time to explain to you that ice is cold or give long(er) answers to basic tantrums. In order to have a healthy discussion one needs to have an open mind and basic respect for other editors. You also need to know a lot about complex history of the region and identity of Ragusans, which is something unique in Slavic world. I can see that you lack knowledge on the subject. The last version had the info that he is considered the greatest Croatian Baroque writer in Croatia (the first part of the sentence). It was per NPOV and basic facts, with everyhing and everyone in mind. As a matter of fact there is a bunch of foreign sources which refer to him to be a Serb or of Serb origin. They can be found on this very TP. Other Ragusans are desribed the same way - Ragusan. It is rather simple: Gundulić was a Ragusan (inspired by Serb history), his ethnicity was not Croatian or Serbian. The closest thing to his ethnicity would be - Yugoslav. Krleža, for example, should be called a Yugoslav writer per MOS: Lead. Read it, again. No limitations can be set on sources (post 1990 and such ideas), that makes no sense and it is not a practice on most Wiki articles. I wrote about that particular source. It was ill placed and reads like it came out of nowhere (context). Plus, it is a citation overkill and essay-like. In conclusion, there is no problem, just a clear disregard of rules (NPOV, Lead) because of bad Balkan blood and the ways of understanding history with views and feelings from 2019 (or 90s). Sadko (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

From a prior discussion - The problem with nationalists such as yourself is that they believe that their own particular interpretation of history is the "truth", and the rest is pseudoscience, nationalist quackery etc. But believe it or not many others think the same - of you. If you think that the position of SANU and Matica srpska is pseudoscience, you should try finding reliable sources that say so, because it would be very interesting addition to their respective articles. Which of course you can't. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
So much gibberish and yet not substantial. Show me a foreign source which refers to his ethnicity as Serbian? In fact show me one source which does not refer to him as either Croatian and/or "Ragusian"? So let's see here...first your "argument" was that lead should not contain ethnicity, it was changed, then you claimed even that is against MOS:OPENPARABIO which is a totally fallacious statement, now you've showed your true colors and now you claim he is Serbian? And let's not forget how all of this started where you enforce the very same version until a certain anon appeared and changed the lead into "Serbian" then when it was reverted you claimed that was NPOV...that is such obvious sockpuppetry that it's hilarious. I've seen a lot of POV-pushers and you're certainly one of them. Now where are the sources for your claims, show me one credible English language source which refers to Gundulic as anything but Croatian. Lets see one proper argument from you...for once...
Sadko ,if so as you say , why don't you write that it is Vuk Karadzic is an Ottoman philologist and linguist ,but you write that he is a Serbian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.25.110 (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The position of SANU and Matica srpska is not pseudo-science. It is simply biased, non-neutral, non-objective, etc. The same is valid for the Croatian position. We need NPOV. Jingiby (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Ivan Gundulic is now a Serb? Ragusan I can understand, Croatian and Italian maybe, but where on earth do Serbs keep finding ways to insert themselves with people with no connection to Serbia? What is the connection? Any Serbian claims seem overblown by Serb editors, I would be interested in what non-Balkan contributors think of these Serbian claims (and even judge the Italian/Croatian ones.) --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Labelling fellow editors by their ethnic roots only shows poor manners. Furthermore, you have missed the whole point here. Both of you know very little about Ragusan history. You are reading into conspiracy theories of imaginary territorial claims here and failing to even try to come up with any sort of NPOV. Do read more. Books are hard, you could start with this interview - ДР МИЛОРАД ВУКАНОВИЋ: Нико нема право да својата Дубровник! Jingiby, that is a generalisation. Not very academic, my friend. If I was to use the same logic, all of your Bulgarian sources on a number of articles would be removed. Is that fine with you? On the other hand, one of the greatest modern experts on Ragusan literature is a Serbian academic dr Zlata Bojović. Sadko (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
As a rule, I don't use Bulgarian sources. Злата Бојовић is not recognized as an expert of that issue outside Serbia. 03:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
You admonish other editors to be kinder and not edit war, and you engage in the exact same activity at the same time. I'm looking at your edit history; it is concerning when your edits and talk history show you engaging in adding Greater Serbian propoganda, adding these sources to Serbianize pages that otherwise have nothing to do with Serbia. Observing that is not against any Wikipedia rules. It's the same with Croatian extremists who try to claim people like Tesla are Croat and not Serb. They are wrong and so are their sources.
"Both of you know very little about Ragusan history" You know nothing of what anyone else knows. Stick to facts and reputable sources please.
Again, I would like some neutral folks look into this and see if these Serbian claims are notable at all. --Jesuislafete (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sweet Mary and Joseph, this is not an invistigation unit here. It is about offensive POV pushing aiming to describe Gundulić as only and only Croatian in the lead, which is just wrong on so many levels (MOS: Lead is so simple). It is a good example how several editors would like to turn en.Wiki into that biased Holocaust denying thing which is called hr.wiki. Read abou it, you would be surprised... Furthermore, I am pretty sure that one of two editors here would not panic and get all hysterical if the same NPOV intro was made by a random editor from Australia. I am not doing the same. In fact, I am doing the very opposite. If I was, I would call Shokatz an idiot or something of the sort, which he did on several occasions.. I will disregard those daily politics conspiracy theory smears. The claim is as real as it gets and it is not based on nothing... It just happen that you do not know enough about it (guess why?) and you are now linking it to several events from recent past. I get that, but labeling other people is not okay. One could say that your removal of a sentence mentioning several neighbouring countries on ojkanje could mean something rather bad... FYI, Pavle Popović taugh Ragusan literature (or the most of it) as an integral part of Serbian literature back in the 1920s and 1930s. And that is just tip of the iceberg. Sadko (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Everyone should spend less time insulting people and more time using facts for issues. Most editors seemed to believe neither Croatian or Serbian (especially) should be a focal adjective for old medieval Ragusan. I don't doubt what you say about Serbian literature, every Serbo-Croatian speaking country in (both) Yugoslavia's focused on it, it was the same way in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But that is not what is the issue here; it is what ethnicity this person is. And Greater Serbian (and Greater Croatian) historians should never be cited. --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no middle ground here, the majority of reliable sources call him a Croatian poet, such as Britannica [1] or The Princeton Handbook of World Poetries.[2] A Google Book search of 'Ivan Gundulic "Croatian poet"' gives you 15 pages of results, while 'Ivan Gundulic "Serbian poet"' gives you two, most of which does not even apply to Gundulić directly. Yet the "Ethnicity" section in the article is now spammed with content from fringe Serbian web sites. Tzowu (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There is alwas a middle ground. Just because you dislike and do not understand other side's view does not mean that you have any right to diminish it. Search results are meaningless in this regard. I think that you base conslusions about other editor's work based on their roots and the fact that their edits are done by the book, that is - WP:LEAD & MOS:OPENPARABIO. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Then find reliable sources that contradict Britannica, The Princeton Handbook, and the dozens of results on Google Books for "Croatian poet" and variations of that wording, so we can have a middle ground. Until then, I see no issue here. Tzowu (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not that important that you see no issue (maybe it is because I see that you enjoy pushing POV on a number of articles and freely interpreting Wiki guidlines such as MOS: Lead). There is a constant problem about this and a number of other related articles for that matter (IP vandalisms and what not). That is called a dispute. And POV pushing is not doing any good. We had at least 20 sources calling Gundulić a Serban writer or of Serb origin (see TP history, be my guest). SANU is not fringe, no matter that regional medias enjoy playing the game in which they portrait the solid academic communitty of Serbia as some dark psycho plotters. That is irrelevant. The same Britannica (older editions) called Gundulic a Serbian author. Alleged ethnicity has nothing to do in the lead. Belonging to this or that literature should not be a apart of the intro sentence , which you simply don't get. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
And HAZU calls Nikola Tesla a Croatian scientist Glasnik HAZU br. 6, yet I don't see a reference to that on the Nikola Tesla article. The majority of sources refer to Ivan Gundulić as a Croatian poet (here's some more [3][4][5][6]). The sources you are refering to currently in the article are mostly blogs and interviews. I've also taken a look at the reference for the sentence that "Gundulić's ethnicity is part of the Serb-Croat distinctions in self-identification", and that is not what the cited source says (Zlatko Isaković: Identity and Security in Former Yugoslavia, p.59). In fact, the only place Isaković mentions Gundulić is in a passage about the development of Croatian literature. Tzowu (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
HAZU is not RS and calling Tesla a "Croatian scientists" just proves it. The same goes for Croatian encyclopedia and other nationalistic publications which promote Greater Croatia in one way or another. References provided are not blogs and forums and you will have to do much better in order to discredit them. It is a classical case of "I don't like it" and I have recently seen such a way of editing on another article. You are simply not getting it. It is not about "majority" (and what is majority, how many refs can you find?). The lead call him Croatian writer in another sentence but it does no such thing in the lead as the lead is not about that. I recently published 10 RS calling him Ragusan writer, which is just correct, becaue Croats were national minority (so to say) in the Republic of Ragusa. I have kindly told you before to read up on MOS: Lead. Instead you are pushing a POV lead on a number of articles, which will also be put down. This is not a plot. It is about rules and policy. If you don't like it, simply find another hobby. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 08:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
If nothing else, the poet is simply better defined as Ragusan than as Croatian or Serbian. Citing the example of Tesla and MOS:LEAD in the same comment, however, is a bit odd since the example contradicts the guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
If I remember well, article on Tesla was targeted by vandals and a lat of edit warring took place. This version was a solution (compromise) which came after a lot of debate. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, so HAZU and the Croatian encyclopedia are not reliable sources and "promote Greater Croatia", yet SANU is a reliable source and a "solid academic community". How did you came to that conclusion? And there was no "compromise" on the Tesla article, but a total rejection of the stance of some Croatian (and few other) users because of the "majority of sources" criteria. Yet by your logic, Tesla should be reffered to as "Austro-Hungarian and American scientist", or "Austrian and American", or a "scientist from the Austrian-Empire, later active in the United States". Also, I neither see "20" nor "10" sources from your side. Only those that are currently in the article from Serbian web sites, such as the vreme.com source (which is an interview), seebiz.eu source (also an interview), nspm.rs source (also an interview), ssr.org.rs (also an interview),... Tzowu (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The comment was not on the question if works published by SANU are RS (and most of them are). Stop spinning. Tesla is irrelevant and making any connection to modern-day Croatia in the lead of the article is/was irrelevant as well and that is the main reason why it was not included. And yes, there was a lot of debate over it, with users from a number of countries involved. You can nott see it now, look at the history of the page. In my mind, Tesla should be an American in the lead, yes. He can also be Serbian American because he gave a lot of powerful statements about his connection with his heritage and wrote and talked a lot about Serbdom. That is notable for the lead (when there are doubts). I shall you give one last chance to undo your Croatian in the lead (POV pushing) on this and other articles, because these attempts are not per MOS: Lead anda are simply futile. See: Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I did not find any neutral reliable source supporting the Serbian self-identity of this man. 16:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
That is not what the issue is here. The sam can be said for his Croatian self-identity. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no reason why Tesla's article shouldn't include Croatian sources which call him a Croatian scientist or claim that he is of Croat descent, if this one includes Serbian sources that claim Gundulić is a Serb. That just shows a double criteria for a similar matter, which is why I brought it in connection to this issue, as well as other articles about Croatian writers, poets, et. where you started mass removing the Croatian label. The reason you give for removing it is that it is an ethnicity (it's not) and that it is somehow against WP:MOS, which is also incorrect because then Dante Alighieri, among numerous other examples, would not be referred to as an Italian poet in the lead. Tzowu (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This whole discussion if futile. SANU and most of the Serbian academic circle is full of pseudohistorians such as Jovan I. Deretić. In any sense, Gundulić has no direct nor indirect connections to Serbs, he was born in modern-day Croatian city of Dubrovnik, which has no proof to ever be related to Serbs and Serbia until the Siege of Dubrovnik. From a linguistic perspective, he has no connections to Serbian language which began in 1818 with Srpski rječnik which plagiarized older Croatian dictionaries[7], uses incredible amount of loanwords and vulgarisms[8][9]. And now from neutral point of view, Tzwou made great job of finding reliable, independent sources ([3][4][5][6]) which outweigth sources claimng he is a Serbian writer, and I found some more ([10][11][12]), thus this discussion is over, at least until someone finds more reliable, independent sources stating he is a Serb.--Sheldonium (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Bunch of hateful, ignorant POV pushing gibberrish (while representing POV as a fact). See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia:Civility. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, every fact I stated has independent, reliable, non-biased sources, and it is up to you and your lack of facts to interpret the truth as hateful, ignorant, and gibberish. We have done the hard part finding sources, you are constantly victimizing yourself without a single valid argument. Nothing new can be said, thus discussion is over.--Sheldonium (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, again. Just try. If a source or two state "Croatian writer" that does not automatically mean that he should be called as such in the lead. TP is open for anyone to comment and give his view, which can be just seen from me answering to your particular comments. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The point of this discussion was to provide reliable, independent, non-biased sources that confirm your view. You provided none. Why does it say he is Croatian in lead? Because in all Wikipedia biography articles in lead is mentioned ethnicity and it clearly bothers you that he was a Croat. I suggest you that you first start to delete all mentions of ethnicities in leads in all biography articles, starting from Serbian biographies, and after you delete, for example, that Nikola Tesla was Serbian-American and that Gavrilo Princip was Bosnian Serb, then not mentioning Croatian ethnicity of Ivan Gundulić will be fair. --Sheldonium (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

At the very top of this TP, User:Ivan Štambuk, who probably chooses not to participate with this project anymore (and I can't blame him for that), said: Ivan Gundulić is listed inside 100 најзнаменитијих Срба, Београд, 1993. ("Hundred of the most prominent Serbs, Belgrade, 1993), and is also treated as a part of the Serbian literature, e.g. in the Deset vekova srpske književnosti series ("Ten centuries of Serbian literature", published by Matica srpska). Currently the article is written with Croatian-centric POV in mind and needs to be NPOV-ized. I've tagged with NPOV (template msg) for now. I don't know what happened with this in the meantime, but I agree for the most part - it is irrelevant which ethnicity we could or could not prescribe to Ivan Gundulić, what matters is that he was most prominent writer belonging to Croatian baroque, and that his work is also considered being part of Serbian literature. Insisting on his ethnicity, and insisting on inclusion of something that can only be described as perceived ethnicity, into article's "lede" is sheer nonsense and nationalistic POV pushing.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Santasa. I did my best to get to NPOV, but that is pretty hard when you have 5-6 editors (canvassing most likely) who are POV pushing, like it is a Holy war. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, what you did can hardly be labeled "neutral". You removed most important bits of information that belong in lede, so in reality, what you did is just an opposite from all these Croatian and POV pushers and their WP:NAT edits, only masked with false balancing. What you both don't understand, or maybe you understand but you are refusing it nevertheless, is that even if you could bring Gundulić back from the dead and ask him who the fuck he is in ethnic sense, and he respond: "I am the Serb, there are no more prouder Serb then me", he is still poet of Croatian Baroque! Which translates: being poet of Croatian Baroque doesn't makes one Croat! However, in nationalist eye, any mention of ethno-national label infer explicit tribal belonging.-- 13:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC) And yes, edit-war was maintained and prolonged via open and insolent canvasing in "Listing of defects at English wikipedia" # Ivan Gundulić at Croatian Wikipedia.--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear youngster, I can assure you that I understand and know a lot on the matter. If false balancing is calling the man Ragusan (which he was) and not Croatian/Serbiaan, than I do not know what is. He is a part of Ragusan literature and there was and there still is a debate about the nature of that literature, so to say. The merger of Ragusan literature to Croatian baroque is of a recent date. Please read more and assume less. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sadko: first drop that condescending tone! That's the first thing you can read if you open a link in the header of any Talk page, not to mention if you read guidelines on civility.
@Sheldonium:, would you be kind to point on particular statements in these sources provided by User:Tzowu, in which you both identified claims that can be used for validation of your perspective? And do you really believe that we need to label Gundulić in ethnic sense at all, or just inform readers of his affiliations to national literature anthologies (favorite subject in Balkans, whose existence was never questioned by those who established it among Balkan academia's)? @Jingiby:, @Jesuislafete: and @Surtsicna:, as I can see neither of you agreed with Sadko on what changes should be made in lede, but Sadko decided to change it anyway, without apparent consensus with half a dozen of editors, who were obviously expressing different opinion on what should be included (editors who participated in this discussion here in TP were not solicited through canvasing at Croatian Wikipedia, which did happened in article mainspace as per link in my above post). Although removal of perceived ethnic affiliation, which is nothing but just that - perceived, is absolutely correct edit, I am also against removal of essential information on his literary affiliation. The article, or any of its parts, quality shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of false neutrality and false balancing expressed by Sadko.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
No proper arguments given whatsoever, looks more like angry vendetta to me, seeing that other endevours failed, such as Turkish Croatia and whatever else. You know all about MOS: Lead and NPOV. Starting to follow these Wiki pillars would be most welcome. Consensus on disregarding the core rules and neutral approach is everything but relevant. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I did express support for the Ragusan label. Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Surtsicna:, that's not the point, or at least it's not entirely an issue - removal of ethnic labels from lede is desirable, especially if no evidence for such labeling exist, however, removal of his artistic affiliation is not, especially if we have more than fewer sources that can testify to it, while removal of that (referenced) info is justified with deliberate conflation of ethnic name and literary scope. So, the question is: do you agree that lede should be strapped of referenced information on his literary affiliation?--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about his ethnicity. "Croatian poet" or "Croatian Barouqe poet" is not an ethnic label. In my opinion, the whole ethnicity section (with many dubious sources) is unnecesary and a very short summary of it is enough for the Legacy section. As for him being viewed as part of Serbian literature by SANU, Matica srpska and others, I gave an example of Nikola Tesla who is similary viewed as a Croatian scientist (not an ethnic Croat scientist) by, for example, HAZU or the Croatian Encyclopedia [10], yet we don't have that information in his article, let alone in the lead. Tzowu (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
That is a logical mistake (or attempt at spin), the two cases can not be compared, it is a fool's game. Gundulić was seen as Serbian poet by number of 19th century and early 20th century sources. I think that we are going in circles here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Why are we even discussing with User:Sadko, just browsing his contribs in last few months it shows he's a denier of Holocaust in Serbia, Bosnian genocide denier and supporter of Serbian terrorism in Croatia. Some users on Wikipedia are just part of hybrid warfare. Reasoning is impossible, and compromise would be to give him right for claims with no grounds. We have respectable unbiased sources like Britannica, he has SANU, creators of project Greater Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.156.13 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Why was the source from Britannica removed? --Tuvixer (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't call a sentence referenced by Britannica as a vandalism. Mhare (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@93.141.156.13:Please stop edit warring and join this discussion, if you want to. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I will ask again, and it is strange that user Sadko is ignoring this question, why was a sentence referenced by Britannica removed? Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not ignored (and there are no plots here), I am working on several projects (on Wiki and in RL) and can't always follow on everything. It's pretty simple - we have a lot of references claiming the same in the pargraph on ethnicity; adding more would be a clear case of citation overkill, don't you agree? cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, if the problem is only "citation overkill", as you say, then it seems that you have removed, by mistake for sure, the part that was cited but does not need any citation, as you said. So I am going to restore that part of the lead, which you removed by mistake. No need to thank me. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This is by definition another disruptive edit. Your writing style suggests that you are aware of this, as well as your diff. That shows very little good faith and it's the sort of edits one would expect to see on shameful POV pushing hr.wikipedia. This issue has been discussed a number of times over the years (as well as many other Balkan articles) and calling him Ragusan in the lead was supported by a solid part of editors involved, and is after all per basic facts and Wiki policies (neutrality, no alleged ethnicity etc.). @EdJohnston: Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Im sorry Sadko but there is a substantial number of articles that you personally created that don't follow the guidlines you preach about here and oddly enough they are all about Serbs.You editing style seems rather selective. SerVasi (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sadko, I am sorry if you feel that way. As it seems to me and other users have pointed that out, your edits were not in good faith and I thought that it should be corrected/restored. It seems to me that you make a common mistake as some other users, if independent/third party (in this case non ex-Yugoslav) sources say that he was a "Croatian poet" than subjective opinions should not be included in the article or at least not be used as maine. The whole section about ethnicity is unnecessary, or can be shortened and moved to other parts of the article. Counting somebodies blood cells is never good. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
That is not how an online encyclopedia works. Bold edits like that one must have broader consensus. The fact that you were so quick to restore the version per your POV without discussing it on the TP, is just proving my previous point. "Other users" is pretty much one user who does not understand a lot about this project.[11] The fact that somebody is today considered (or partially considered) to be a part of some literature does not mean that we must have it word by word in the lead. We can find 1000 sources calling Cleopatra Egyptian, but she is not Egyptian ruler in article lead, nor is Stefan Dragutin Serbian king. Got it>? I quoted and explained why several times, it just happens that other editors are not willing to listen, which I can contribute to some sort of discrimination and hardheadedness + ignoris basic Wiki guidlines and other editors. Calling Gundulić Croatian is exactly counting blood cells, I find it strange that you are not realising this. I understand that a number of editors think that this is some "Greater Serbian plot" or whatever other nonsense from regional medias, which is laughable. Gundulić is and was Ragusan. I suggest that you revert yourself. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Sadko, I really thought that you were saying that the only problem is "citation overkill". That is why I restored, not my POV as you so mischievously put it but what an independent third party states. It seems that the discussion is not over, so in good faith I am going to revert myself, even though, as it seems by looking at article history, it should stay in the article, but I may be wrong so I will in good faith revert myself. This in no way implies or suggest that I agree with your views or opinion in this matter. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand, thank you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
You shouldn't revert yorself or ignore unbiased cited sources. Only one counting blood cells is User:Sadko. By browsing his other edits it's clear he is pushing Serbian chauvinism and ideology "Serbs all and everywhere". After Ivan Gundulic his current target is article about Roger Joseph Boscovich where in last edits he removed every mention of Croatia (language and location). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.173.108 (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

So much time has passed, I still see one person and one person alone pushing his POV on this page. No consensus whatsoever. And as for the edit war, this is completely on you EdJohnston. I warned you about this POV-pusher nationalist and you have let him run amok on this page. Shame on you, you're not fit to be an admin, you're a clown... Shokatz (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Shokatz, insulting Sadko and Admin EdJohnston is foolish and very much unproductive. Edit warring isn’t the proper way to edit or push a point across. EdJohnston is right to tell you to stop edit warring. And Sadko is right to revert you until consensus is reached. Attacking an admin is a laughable way to get your point across. OyMosby (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you retarded? Take a look at the article history...there was a consensus and a stable version before this idiot came along and started edit-warring with at least 5-6 different ppl in the last 6 months (I actually noticed this only a couple of months after he started all this) and on top of that - argues with another 5-6 ppl here on talk page, who all oppose him as can be seen in the "discussions" above. Where TF is the consensus for his changes?!? Deleting sources from Britannica, Yale, Columbia, whatever other sources which doesn't suit him....they are all NPOV according to him?!? Get a grip idiot...I am tired of you trolls running around Wikipedia messing it up for everyone else...no wonder ppl say Wikipedia isn't reliable when every moron can edit and push his BS and be supported by even more moronic admin who doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand what is going on. Shokatz (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Section Ethnicity

Lets make a consensus regarding all articles with Serbian and Croatian dispute:

1. All sources must be written in non-Serbo-Croatian language, preferrably English.

2. Authors of the sources must not be Serbs nor Croats, nor be Serbian or Croatian descendants (which can be seen from surname).

2. Sources should be reliable books, journals, and articles, and NOT tabloids (e.g. Slobodna Evropa, Express, Index.hr, Novosti, Novi list, Jutarnji list etc.)

Until all of there three rules are met, better not writing any claim, and it will immediately be deleted.--Vineword (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vineword: I apologise if your edits were in WP:good faith. I am not an expert in this subject area. It seems possible there may be some general Wikipedia guidelines, WP:Serbia, WP:Croatia or WP:sanctions that cover this regarding sources etc. Sources do need to be WP: Reliable sources. Otherwise, please always explain in an edit summary if you are deleting sections of text. It's quite common and is often just vandalism. Regards, 220 of Borg 15:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no consensus as your request makes 0 sense and it is not grounded in Wiki rules or guidelines. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
These requests are acutually based on Wikipedia rules as per WP:RELIABLE, WP:REPUTABLE, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV as they seek third-party, unbiased sources which cannot pursue nationalistic beliefs from any side.--Vineword (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vineword: This proposal is very naive. We need sources that are reliable. Reliability of a source does not depend on the ethnicity of first language of the person who wrote it. Judging a source by the ethnicity (or origin) of the author is a kind of discrimination that Wikipedia does not allow. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
You don't understand the point. Every side will pursue its own worldview and nationalistic beliefs. How could dispute about Nikola Tesla be solved if I give you hundred reliable Croatian sources (Hrvatska enciklopedija, Proleksis enciklopedija, Hrvatski biografski leksikon etc.) that say he is Croat, you could give me hundred Serbian that says he is a Serb. And who will control what means reliable? Administrators, you? who closed a discussion concluding Nikola Tesla being a Serb inspite of tens of reliable sources saying he was a Croat, but won't end this discussion inspite there are no reliable sources saying Gundulić was Serb, but we provided dozens saying he was Croat. Using tabloids as a source (3rd point) is even more stupid, I could easily give you sources that say there are 10 million Croats in Turkey, but I won't because I contacted a person who "made a research" and I know it is a hoax, on Serb side similar claims end up even in academic circles. Who controls Serbian (or Croatian) academicians and historians? They can say anything they want and put that in "scientific paper" that will then be reliable source. No way. We need third-party sources, not those that will satisfy your personal nationalistic beliefs. If you are unable to find those sources, better not claim anything." kind of discrimination that Wikipedia does not allow" What?! Discrimination against biased sources yes, definately. Nobody is discriminating anyone stop with that extreme leftard crap, we need truth no matter how much it hurts to oe side.--Vineword (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ivan Gundulić | Croatian author". Encyclopedia Britannica.
  2. ^ Greene, Roland; Cushman, Stephen (2016). The Princeton Handbook of World Poetries. Princeton University Press. p. 136. ISBN 9781400880638.
  3. ^ a b Çiçek, Kemal, Kuran, Ercüment (2000). The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation (4 ed.). University of Michigan.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b Halecki, Oscar (1991). Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe. Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America. p. 336. ISBN 0-88033-206-9.
  5. ^ a b Richard C. Frucht (2005). Eastern Europe: An Intruduction to the People, Lands, and Culture. ABC-CLIO. p. 464. ISBN 9781576078006.
  6. ^ a b Collier's Encyclopedia: With Bibliography and Index. Vol. 20. Collier. 1950. p. 440.
  7. ^ Mario Grčević, Jernej Kopitar kao strateg Karadžićeve književnojezične reforme // Filologija, br. 53. (2009.), str. 1.-53. Hrčak
  8. ^ Études balkaniques. Édition de lA̕cadémie bulgare des sciences. 2000. p. 28.
  9. ^ Derek Jones (2001). Censorship: A World Encyclopedia. Routledge. p. 1315. ISBN 1136798633.
  10. ^ Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature. Merriam-Webster. 1995. p. 501. ISBN 0877790426.
  11. ^ The Encyclopedia Americana. Vol. 13. Grolier. 2000. p. 615. ISBN 0717201333.
  12. ^ Cross currents: A Yearbook of Central European culture. Vol. 3. Dept. of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan. 1984. p. 163.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivan_Gundulić/Archive_1&oldid=1078397664"