Talk:Aleksa Šantić

message: Please, I've never heard in my life that Aleksa Santic was Bosnian Serb. He was from Herzegovina, therefore Herzegovina Serb.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokturno (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Aleksa Santic has no relevant connection to Bosnia, as he was from Herzegovina. He was ethnically a Serb, while his nationality was Austro-Hungarian and later Yugoslavian. Ethnicity and nationality are two different things. It should say 'nationality - A-H/YU' and 'ethnicity - Serb'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.174.74 (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity and Nationality 

message: The man was  a Serb  from Herzegovina . Get over it. 23 editor (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

message: Is the website really "official", seeing as he died almost a hundred years ago? And what makes  more official than ? A Google search for site:http://www.aleksasantic.com/ zvanični|zvanična|zvanično doesn't bring up any relevant results, i.e. the website doesn't even claim to be official. ~barakokula31 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official website? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aleksa Šantić. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006005247/http://lukapraha.cz/index_en.php?page=izdavastvo_en&id=455 to http://lukapraha.cz/index_en.php?page=izdavastvo_en&id=455
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current wording is the result of a consensus reached here, at Talk:Aleksa Šantić#"Bosnian Serb", and it conforms to the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. If this article should be an exception to that guideline, and if the previous consensus should be updated, please discuss that here. If there is an issue with the guideline itself, please address it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Edit-warring is unhelpful. Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion ended with statement (diff)  Not that I mind it, but are you sure that you are correct when proclaiming this as consensus for current wording Yugoslav poet?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Imo the use of "Yugoslav" is particularly preposterous since a country by the name of Yugoslavia did not exist during his lifetime. 23 editor (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" was just one of many names Yugoslavia had throughout its history; see that article, at least the lead paragraph. The adjective "Yugoslav" was clearly in use during the time the Yugoslav state was called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, examples being the Yugoslav krone, the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists, etc. The people of the SHS state were called Yugoslavs. Similarly, even though there is no country called America, there undoubtedly are Americans. Surtsicna (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  my question above was to you. You justified your addition of "Yugoslav poet" with . Are you sure there was such consensus taking in consideration above quoted conclusion of other editor in that discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that the discussion may have simply died down? It is possible, I suppose. I took the lack of opposition after a discussion as a tacit consent. And for what it's worth, it was not an addition but a restoration of the wording that had been in place since September. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not suggesting anything. When you used  to justify yoyr edits I thought that it was your unintentional mistake, because there is not such consensus there at all. Are you sure there is  to "Yugoslav poet" version taking in consideration that the other editor concluded  instead of supporting your "Yugoslav poet" version?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am sure, since it did not conclude with anything such as "I do not agree with describing Šantić as a Yugoslav poet". Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will you please be so kind to look again? After your comment in support of "Yugoslav" version (diff) the other party responded with  That looks like clear opposition to your "Yugoslav" version, don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yes, on a second thought, it does seem like I misunderstood the final outcome there. Anyway, what's your take on this situation? Is it okay to describe Šantić as a Yugoslav poet, bearing in mind that he did live in Yugoslavia as we define it? Surtsicna (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did not only misunderstood the "consensus". You also misunderstood WP:MOSBIO to impose your "Yugoslav poet" position. It clearly says: The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable... if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.... He certainly did not became notable in last 5 years of his life, so my position in this situation is that I am against your "Yugoslav poet" position. Having in mind that substantial part of his notability is drawn from his engagement in Serbian national movement, per WP:MOSBIO the first sentence can refer to him as Serb. I suggest you to revert your addition of Yugoslav poet until you reach consensus for it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Šantić did not become notable in the last 5 years of his life, but neither was he notable "mainly for past events". A much greater part of Šantić's notability derives from the pan-Slavism reflected in his poems, his use of the Bosnian sevdalinka, and his inspiration by his native Herzegovina and its Ottoman urban culture. That said, no, I don't think Šantić's ethnicity is more relevant to his notability than Obama's ethnicity is to his, Jennifer Lopez's to hers, or Albert Einstein's to his, so Šantić should not be an exception to MOS:BIO's "ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead" rule. Surtsicna (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Šantić is dead for almost a century and all events that meade him notable are past events. You edit warred to impose your "Yugoslav poet" position and got yourself blocked for it. Instead to respect wikipedia rules, the first edit after you block expired was to continue your pushing of the "Yugoslav poet" position (diff) based on false arguments ( and , (diff)). It is obvious that you (until now) failed to gain consensus for your "Yugoslav poet" position. Multiple editors directly rejected it, including the editor whose direct opposition you misinterpeted as support and consensus. That is why I suggested you to acknowledge the issue with your edits and revert yourself. Will you do it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not edit war to impose a new wording. I reverted attempts to change the wording that had been in place for months to something that was clearly against guidelines. I did not break any rule nor did I push anything by restoring the long-standing wording. Please take a look at WP:BRD. Anyway, do you feel that this article should be an exception to MOS:BIO? Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet the "Serb" was there for years and no, mentioning ethnicity is not "clearly" against guidelines. PonavljamSe (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning ethnicity is definitely not against guidelines. Šantić's ethnicity is explicitly stated in the article, as it should be. Surtsicna (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You very clearly did break WP:3RR, the page had an entire page history of reverts in one morning. Emk9 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

text: If we are going to be looking into the past here - the first version  of the article - it says "Serb". Three years later... it's "Serb" again  and again . Not to mention your lack of sources when it comes to being "Yugoslav". PonavljamSe (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is looking into the past? By the way, welcome (back?) to Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, with "had been in place since September". Your post above mine. PonavljamSe (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, since September. That indicates present. Not in September. That would indicate past. Your English is excellent, as is your knowledge of Wikipedia, so I am puzzled by your confusion. Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you want to indulge in sophistry let us cut this short - provide the sources for "Yugoslav" claim or leave "Serb" alone. PonavljamSe (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is one using the specific phrase "Yugoslav poet". This one describes him as "poet, publicist and writer of Serb nationality from Bosnia and Herzegovina" and as "Yugoslavia's greatest poet". Of course, we can find numerous publications describing Šantić as a Serb poet, a a Bosnian poet, a Bosnian Serb poet, even a Herzegovinian poet or a Serbian poet. Have you not noticed that one of the sources you cited describes him as a Bosniak? But since he lived in Yugoslavia (then called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), defining him as a Yugoslav poet seems perfectly reasonable. Please understand that nobody is disputing or diminishing Šantić's Serbness. The article states that he was a Serb. It is just not a standard English Wikipedia practice to define people by their ethnicity. For example, although Barrack Obama is an African American, we do not define him as an African American politician. Surtsicna (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

text: If we are going to debate about the sources, why not start with the ones you cited? The first of the sources you put in the article describes Šantić as a "Bosnian Serb" and gives his nationality as "Bosniak"! Also hardly published by a literature scholar.You have been directed to the article which explains that "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" was just one of the many names Yugoslavia had throughout its history. It has also been explained to you (along with examples and sources) that the adjective "Yugoslav" corresponded to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.Yes, unless it's in the lead sentence. If you have a problem with the Manual of Style, take it up there.African American is an ethnicity. Read the first sentence of that article. Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a number of valid sources on my side, all you have is your opinion that you keep repeating. I have nothing more to add to this discussion because it is fruitless and going in circles. Arguments are on my side and I will make changes in this article according to multiple sources that have been provided. PonavljamSe (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not my opinion but a Wiki guideline. If you think ethnicities should be mentioned in the lead sentence, please take that up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. I would appreciate if you did not violate the guideline until this is settled. Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Šantić's ethnicity should not be in the first sentence per MOS:ETHNICITY. It is stated explicitly in the second sentence (and implicitly in the first one as well) which is the most reasonable compromise, arrived to after a long discussion. If there is a need to revisit this issue, please do it here rather than engage in an edit war. Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your dicussion with one or two other editors came to no real conlusion. Quoting it as "rule" is completely silly and a logical mistake. It is just a way to quickly close the topic, which is not in the spirit of democracy. This one is rather far from a closed question. In fact, it is an issue. Šantić was a Yugoslav citizen for 6 years, while he spent for about 50 years of his life in other states. How is that relevant enough or important enough? Not to mention that you deleted some 7-8 English-language link describing him as a Bosnian Serb t (a shorter version of Bosnian Herzegovinian Serb, because there is no widely accepted construstion in English for Herzegovnian Serbs or simply a Serbian poet, which may also mean that he is a part of the Serbian literature - which he is. There are no links or sources for Yugoslav poet. I did ask you for sources via appropriate template, which you deleted with no explanation. This is opposed to Wiki rules, as you should know. Yet again, I have not seen your activity on Miroslav Krleza or Tin Ujevic or many other articles not related to ethnic Serbs, which gives me reason enough to doubt your good faith. Mm.srb (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What democracy? Wikipedia is not a democracy. I wish I got a penny every time Balkan people suspected me of being anti-Serb, anti-Croat, anti-Bosniak, or anti-Albanian. You can all doubt my good faith til kingdom come for all I care. Miroslav Volf defines Šantić as a Yugoslav poet here, but I am not insisting on that specific wording. MOS:ETHNICITY advises against defining people by their ethnicity; "Herzegovinian poet", "Bosnian-Herzegovinian poet", and "poet from Bosnia-Herzegovina" would all be fine. Ethnicity is implied by the Serbian Cyrillic version of his name in the first sentence and is made explicit in the very second sentence. Does this not please everyone and fit the Manual of Style? Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Santic's ethnicity "is relevant to the subject's notability" per MOS:Ethnicity, so it should be present in the lead sentence. Significant part of Santic's notability is derived from the fact that his activities and his poetry was aimed to support Serbian nationalism. That is what text of the article also says, based on reliable sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Significant enough to be in the lead paragraph, yes, but not defining. If articles about the first African American US president or Martin Luther King Jr. are not exceptions to MOS:ETHNICITY, I don't think this one qualifies to be either. A fifth or less of the songs assembled here are inspired by Serb nationalism. If the article or the sources say that a majority of Šantić's poems were aimed to support a national movement, then the recent expansion of the article focused unduly on one aspect of Šantić's career. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This exact attitude led me to (a bit harshly) call you a 16th century Jesuit. You are not a judge, jury and executioner, but you sure are acting in that way, of which you are most probably ignorant. I am well aware that Wiki is not a democracy but this does not mean that users can't discuss in the spirit of democracy and free speech. Nice "quote" by Volf, as I can see he is also described by his ethnicity, does that not bother you? So it's "Balkan people" VS you? My guess is that in this neat little scenario  you see yourself as an enlightenment figure opposed to some primitives? There is quite a solid number of people using Wikipedia for something called a special war and I am generally inclined to doubt good faith with edits such as this one, because in many other disputed cases it only proved that, in fact, there was no good faith to start with. I need not add that this agenda driven editing is disgusting to me. If you had looked at the issue from multiple perspectives, instead of removing my hard work and threatning with 3RR (which did not happen), you would understand that Yugoslav is also a hybrid ethnicity (and not just a question of someone's citizenship), with some tens of thousands people declaring themselves Yugoslavs till this day and age. If an average reader of Wikipeda from Serbia or ex Yugoslavia was to read that Šantić is a Yugoslav poet they would most probably roll their eyes out or be surprised. Once again, six years of citizenship does not form a Yugoslav or gives us reason enough for it to be in the lead paragraph. A big part of his work is inspired or directly comes from numerous Serbian traditions and myths; counting percentage of it only seems childish. My suggestion is to make a neutral intro line - was a poet from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mm.srb (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. Your suggestion is reasonable. I am still bothered by your lack of good faith, though after being accused of being a papist and a Serb nationalist by the same person, I cannot say such things surprise me. Anyway, try not to comment so much on other users. It's the tenant of WP:NPA. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Mm.srb sock account of topic banned Sadko ? Or is it blocked Zoupan's sock ? @Surtsicna please help me with this one if you know the situation. ౪ Santa ౪99° 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence 

message: The country where he was born, lived, worked, and died is Bosnia and Herzegovina (under Ottomans, Austria, Yugoslavia), and he was Bosnian Serb or Serb of Bosnia and Herzegovina - and no doubt he himself was extremely proud of that fact. Literally, Aleksa belongs to both Serbian and Bosnian literature, but most of all to Yugoslav literature. So, do not sanitize the article by sweeping under the carpet these fact by using euphemisms and regional name unless context allows or requires it for better understandings. 
But, maybe the most important thing is that, also mentioned by User:Surticna, consensus is reached earlier here > Talk:Aleksa_Šantić#"Bosnian_Serb". ౪ Santa ౪99° 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether you like it or not