Talk:Meša Selimović/Archives/2011/May

He was an Eskimo, goddamnit!!!11!

Biblbroks, my man, why are you reverting my version? It's as reliable, as current one. I find this posthumous changing of his own will quite dusgusting. It's better to remove all nationality data, than to keep it this way.

Screw it... now I feel bad for even going into this "nationality" thing.--178.223.65.164 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, 178.223.65.164, my man, shouldn't I have reverted your version? This qualifier "disgusting posthumous changing of his own will" could be applied to your contribution as well, couldn't it? Well, maybe you do have a point on emphasizing the needlessness of nationality data in this article, but I am not sure that you are presenting it in unobscured fashion. Please, don't feel bad - you are not alone. --Biblbroks (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, first, sorry for changing my name. I am curently downloading some (legal) stuff from rapidshare :) I hope you realised I just tried to make a point. I don't think nationality data is needless, when there is such data on vurtualy every bio-article on wikipedia, I am just sorry that I am participating in such... whats the word... (prizemnoj) discussion. People shouldn't concetrate so much on his nationality, but if that information is common in this kind of articles, it should be present, and correct. I don't plan to edit any articles. Just wanted to express my resentment. Sorry for my vandal ways :)--93.87.239.109 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Np for changing your name - at least on my behalf. I realized that it was tried, but I think making a point wasn't accomplished. If nationality data isn't needless, what do you suggest in this case - disputed? As for the "prizemno, prizemna, prizeman" discussion, it wasn't started by me but it was there, so I thought - what the heck, why not joining it - maybe I contribute in elevating it from its perceived "prizemno, prizemna, prizeman" level. No worries, resentment was duly noted and, I believe, dealt with. I am just still not sure what to do with it - there seems to be no proposal from you on how to solve this issue. And I think it's kind of expected you make one. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of starting this thing (or anything else). Hope that's clear. As for the editing part... what's the point if someone is going to revert it right away... I'll try to make some suggestions/remarks in the "other" talk-section. (BTW, if someone knows how's "prizeman" translated into english, please, write it, I'll buy you an icecream when we meet in Trieste)--Supercooleskimo (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict I know you weren't accusing me specifically, but you were still referring it as such while you somehow contributed to the "prizemnost". Now, I am not innocent either - I followed your steps (which also weren't the first steps), but at least now we have a discussion which might not be accused of "prizemnost", don't we? To answer your question: there isn't much point in editing under the circumstances you described, I admit. However, I believe that circumstances have changed now, and that the reasons for any revert of your contributions will be much more scrutinized in the future. What I am trying to express is: "I think that you don't need to start any new section prior to editing the page. Be bold, edit the article yourself, the process of improving it has already started." If you examine the diagram on the page linked, you might agree that the cycle is at its downmost position. (BTW, Triste as in Trieste?) Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) /edit conflict

(Yeah, Trieste. Typo.) I'm afraid I'm not such an optimist as you are, regarding edit wars. Sorry, but I think every discussion about somebodies nationality is "prizemna" by default, whether the person participating is a hillbilly or a cool guy. It's like a war - it includes murder whether you are atacking or defending. I'm relly busy right now, but I might find some info and write a decent "dry fact" referenced intro in the future. Altough, I think there are many users here who are more informed on Selimovic's work and could do that easily in a few minutes. And if they are more known here, it's less likely change will be reverted by someone with a tradition of such deeds.--Supercooleskimo (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think of myself as not having a tradition of deeds that you mention. But that't my thinking, I don't know others' thinking. You write above: "I think that ethnic and national names that people use today shouldn't be used when we speak about period which happened before the "complete" formation of that ethnic or national group (i.e. retroactively)" and afterwards "But, I think the presented principle should be used." I am not sure you presented the principle clear enough. Wouldn't it be more useful if you elaborated on that "western" concept of that term (citizenship) you mention in comparison and contrast to nationality as "nacionalnost" ("ethnicity") you also mention. Even better with some contribution in Nationality? Better more in Ethnicity - which is merely a redirect now. I am sincerely keen to read your further contributions. But if you are really that busy... then all the best to you outside Wikipedia, hope you come back soon. Now, I hope I don't sound much of a proselyte, while I am doing right that. :-) But not just that. --Biblbroks (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Biblbroks, I was not thinking about you when I mentioned that (the deeds thing; look at the edit history, it will become more clear)(seriously, man, I'm as tame as a pussycat. not hostile towards you). Regarding the "principle", I meant on that sentence (I think that ethnic and national names that people use today shouldn't be used when we speak about period which happened before the "complete" formation of that ethnic or national group (i.e. retroactively)) as a principle. And whether that condition is realised, I leave to others to decide. As for meaning of "nationality" and "ethnicity" I referred to previous discussion, which I can't find right now (alcohol), in which someone said that "nacionalnost" is more accurately translated as ethnicity, and not nationality. Frankly, I'm not sure what needs to be clarified? (Ako sam bio nejasan, mozes li da mi se obratis na stranici za razgovor, da se ne mucim sa prevodjenjem?). I don't think I understood that proselytism thing. Anyway, I have "Prosveta's" encyclopedia, and I'll try to find some Jovan Deretic's book I think I have (Jovan Deretic, literary historian, not mad historian), so I'll look at that and other sources that could be found on internets (not tabloids!), and then I'll try to make some edits in introduction... if somebody doesn't do it before me. I don't wan't to make any edits that could be disputed.--Supercooleskimo (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought you weren't thinking about me, but I was trying to make a point - here is inadvisable to think of others in terms of having some tradition. Inadvisable for your development as an editor i.e. contributor. Because it is on the other hand more advisable to assume good faith. I understand what you where referring to when you used the term principle, but exactly that sentence you cited is somewhat problematic - "complete" in "complete" formation of that ethnic of national group is under quotation marks. I mean think of Palestine, Kosovo or China, or any region/country/state on the List of states with limited recognition for that matter. I believe I have demonstrated what about the principle wasn't presented clear enough. One advice for you, if I may: try not announcing at Wikipedia anything what you plan to do, not even in the form you used - just do it. :-) I don't think you will be reverted, but if you are concerned about disputableness - well just do what you plan to do thoroughly. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please... why good faith should be asumed when somebody is pushing his agenda persistently for 2 years, in spite of provided references?

That's the reason why I put the quote marks. Those groups continue to change. But, they had to came into being at some point. Otherwise, the whole notion of different ethnic groups would be absurd, because all ethnic groups are of same origin. I don't understand why are you mentioning Palestine, Kosovo and China? Those are not ethnic or national groups. Comparing formation of states and ethnic groups isn't appropriate. Palestine as a region is known under that name for over 2 thousand years, nobody's denying that. State of Palestine is not officially recognised by some countries, but those countries aren't denying existence of that political entity (i.e. it is already formed). (Actually, it could be used to show my point: you can't say that Moses brought Jews to "State of Palestine" after teh Exodus.) Kosovo is a self-proclaimed state officially recognised by some countries. Nobody is speaking about independent state of Kosovo in the 1970's, although it's the same teritory, same people (minus ethnically cleansed non-albanians), with almost same ruling structures (plus international babysitters). (Funny, this could also be used as an example: today new nation/name "Kosovar" is being forced on some of its inhabitants who refuse it, but 90% of others accept it. Does it mean that will of the minority should be just ignored? If in the future 100% of inhabitants of Kosovo accept that, will it be acceptable to claim that all people that lived in Kosovo in 2001. (or before) were Kosovars?) China, a civilization named after eponymous state, but older than state itself (i.e. was already formed). (A person living in the State of Yan in 400.BC could not be called a Chinese, in modern sense of that term. In fact, the term "ancient Chinese" is used in such situations (to designate somebody who belonged to that civilisation, not his nationality/ethnicity.))--Supercooleskimo (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You tell me, If in the future 100% of inhabitants of Kosovo accept that, will it be acceptable to claim that all people that lived in Kosovo in 2001. (or before) were Kosovars? Let me illustrate my point with a question: at which point of time does a person's ethnicity/nationality data qualify to be included as Taiwanese instead of Chinese, if it does at all? For that matter, in the Bosniaks article it is stated: "In Yugoslavia, unlike the preceding Austro-Hungarian Empire, Bosniaks were not allowed^{[citation needed]} to declare themselves as Bosniaks. As a compromise, the Constitution of Yugoslavia was amended in 1968 to list Muslims by nationality recognizing a nation, but not the Bosniak name." So one can presume that the term Bosniak was known and used before Meša being born, and not just that, he certainly must have seriously thought about this controversial issue, when he stated what he stated about his "nacionalna pripadnost.", if he stated anything at all. Not that I don't agree with your thinking, I just thought I should highlight this issue not being quite simple. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe... I know this is wikipedia, but citing wikipedia... :D That "citation needed" tag is saying alot (altough, it should be inserted earlier in that sentence too). Many interesting things could be found if one is to follow that trace. I said earlier that I won't go down that road. So let's just end this chitchat :) It's slowly moving away from the topic of this article.

Selimovic has wrote something about his ancestors too, so anyone planning to edit this article should at least read that. Over & out--Supercooleskimo (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

When still chitchatting i'd like to as you why are you mentioning things, that could be found if one is to follow that trace, as interesting? As far as the going down or up some or any road is concerned ;-) Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)